THE VOTIVE

STATUES OF THE
ATHENIAN
ACROPOLIS

” aeemee

~ CAT H E R I N E M . K E E S L I N G
i ee: the period between Solon’s
reforms and the end of the Pelo-
ponnesian War, worshippers dedicated
hundreds of statues to Athena on the
Acropolis, Athens’ primary sanctuary.
Some of these statues were Archaic
marble korai, works of the greatest sig-
nificance for the study of Greek art; all
are documents of Athenian history. The
Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis
brings together all of the evidence for
statue dedications on the Acropolis in
the sixth and fifth centuries Bc, including
inscribed statues bases that preserve in-
formation about the dedicators and the
evidence for lost bronze sculptures. Plac-
ing the korai and other statues from the
Acropolis within the original votive
contexts, Catherine Keesling questions
the standard interpretation of the korat
as generic, anonymous votaries, while
shedding new light upon the origins and
significance of Greek portraiture. Her
study clarifies the role that monumental
votive dedications played in the social
and political life of Athens in the
Archaic and Classical periods,
oo
je
 Weir Sl er
ray ay eae

https://archive.org/details/votivestatuesofa0000kees
THE VOTIVE STATUES OF THE
ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS

During the period between Solon’s reforms and the end of the Peloponnesian
War, worshippers dedicated hundreds of statues to Athena on the Acropolis,
Athens’ primary sanctuary. Some of these statues were Archaic marble korai,
works of the greatest significance for the study of Greek art; all are documents of
Athenian history. The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis brings together all of
the evidence for statue dedications on the Acropolis in the sixth and fifth centuries
BC, including inscribed statues bases that preserve information about the dedicators
and the evidence for lost bronze sculptures. Placing the korai and other statues
from the Acropolis within the original votive contexts, Catherine Keesling ques-
tions the standard interpretation of the korai as generic, anonymous votaries,
while shedding new light upon the origins and significance of Greek portraiture.
Her study clarifies the role that monumental votive dedications played in the social
and political life of Athens in the Archaic and Classical periods.

Catherine Keesling is associate Professor of Classics at Georgetown University. A

recipient of a Fulbright grant, she has also received fellowships from the Mellon
Foundation, the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, and the Archaeo-
logical Institute of America.
THE VOTIVE STATUES
OF THE ATHENIAN
ACROPOLIS

CASP A S E RS TM NT E YM RS G S TES A N G
Georgetown University

a] CAMBR
sy I D GE
5) UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 1oo1-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcén 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa
http://www.cambridge.org

© Catherine M. Keesling 2003

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2003

Printed in the United States of America

Typefaces Adobe Garamond 11/14.5 pt. and Lithos Regular System BIEX2¢ [TB]

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Keesling, Catherine M. 1965-
The votive statues of the Athenian Acropolis / Catherine M. Keesling.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-521-81523-1 (hardback)
1. Athena (Greek deity)—Art. 2. Kore statues. 3. Votive offerings~Greece—Athens.
4. Inscriptions, Greek. 5. Acropolis (Athens, Greece) I. Title.

NBr163.M5 K44 2003

733 3—de21 2002073693

ISBN O 521 81523 1 hardback

b
 CONTENTS

List ofFigures and Tables

Preface
Acknowledgments

PART I: ANATHEMATA
I STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE Gops

2 Votive STATUE INSCRIPTIONS 22

3. Norurine To Do with Democracy? VoTIvE STATUES

AND ATHENIAN History

4 VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY 63

Parl ile DIVINE IDENTITIES

5 THe IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAl 97

6 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI 122

Pan.) Aho nUMAN TDEN TITIES

7 FrerH-CeNnTurRY PorTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS 165

CONGIEwS LOIN

APPENDIX 1: PAUSANIAS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS (1.22.4—1.28.3) 205

APPENDIX 2: SCULPTORS’ SIGNATURES ON THE

ACROPOLIS DEDICATIONS

APPENDIX 3: ACROPOLIS STATUES MATCHED WITH INSCRIBED BASES

Notes
Selected Bibliography
Journal Abbreviations
Index

VII
 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Euthydikos’ kore (Acr. no. 686).

Inscribed base (DAA no. 56) with lower legs of Euthydikos’ kore (Acr.
no. 686).
Inscribed base (DAA no. 292) for two korai dedicated by Lysias
and Euarchis.
“Red Shoes” kore (Acr. no. 683).
Plan of the Athenian Acropolis.
Bronze statue of Queen Napir-Asu; Louvre.
Statue of Chares from Didyma; British Museum.
Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion; reconstruction.
Geneleos group; plaster casts on base in situ.
Archaic seated Athena (Acr. no. 625).
Antenor’s kore (Acr. no. 681).
Inscribed base for Antenor’s kore (DAA no. 197, Acr. no. 681).
DAA no. 326 (drawing).
DAA no. 306 (drawing).
Inscription on herm of Hipparchos (drawing).
Altar of the younger Peisistratos from the Pythion (detail).
Original Boiotians and Chalcidians monument (DAA no. 168).
Kore from the east pediment of the Late Archaic temple of Apollo
at Delphi.
Acropolis Potter relief (Acr. no. 1332).
Illustrations of the Samian technique (drawings).
Berlin Foundry cup; exterior.
Bronze Athena Promachos statuette dedicated by Meleso (NM 6447).
Bronze smiting god statuette from Ugarit; Louvre.
Nikandre’s kore from Delos (NM 1).
25 Or ni th e fr om the Ge ne le os gr ou p in the Sa mi an Her aio n. 103
26 Ins cri bed bas e for the ded ica tio n of Na ul oc ho s (D AA no. 229 ). 110
27 Ins cri bed bas e for the ded ica tio n of Ky na rb os (D AA no. 79) .
28 Votive relief of Xenokrateia (NM 2356). 119
List OF FIGURES AND TABLES

29 Ac ro po li s Pi g Sac rif ice rel ief (Ac r. no. 581 ). I20

30 Archaic terra- co tt a fi gu ri ne s (Ac r. nos . 11 14 2 an d 10 69 5) .

31 Angelitos’ Athena (Acr. no. 140). 128

32 Fragmentary kore an d in sc ri be d ba se de di ca te d by Ep it el es (D AA
no. IO).
33 Fr ag me nt ar y kor e an d ins cri bed bas e ded ica ted by Epi tel es (D AA
no. 10); detail.
34 Hea d of a kor e/A the na hyb rid (Ac r. no. 661); front.
35 Hea d of a kor e/A the na hyb rid (Acr . no. 661); right side. —
36 Bronze statuette from the Acropolis (Athena?), (NM 6491); front.
37 Bro nze stat uett e fro m the Acro poli s (Athena?) (NM 6491); right side.
38 Euthydikos’ kore (Acr. no. 686); right side of the head.
oy) Peplos kore (Acr. no. 679).
40 Archaic bronze statuette of Artemis; Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
4I Naxian kore from the Acropolis (Acr. no. 619).
42 Propylaia kore (Acr. no. 688).
43 Marble Nike (Acr. no. 693).
44 Fragmentary right hand and lower arm of a kore statue (Acr. no. 3567).
45 Kore with pomegranate and wreath (Acr. no. 593).
46 Fragmentary right hand and lower arm of a kore statue (Acr. no. 4308).
47 La Dame d’Auxerre; Louvre.
48 Small kore with forearms inserted separately (Acr. no. 614).
49 Cybele and attendants from Bégazkéy.
50 Daedalic bronze statuette in “Hittite” pose; Walters Art
Museum, Baltimore.
5I Kore with left forearm outstretched (Acr. no. 615).
52 Fragmentary right hand and lower arm of a kore (Acr. no. 386).
53 Marble Athena; Helleni stic or Roman (Acr. no. 1336).
14 Bron ze hopl itod romo s statu ette; Tiibingen.
55 Bron ze discu ss throw er statu ette (NM 6615) .
Tyrannicides group; Roman marble copies.
Roman marble herm of Themistokles from Ostia.
Archaic marble scribe (Acr. no. 629).
Dedication of Alkimachos (DAA no. 6) and scribe Acr. no. 629.
Inscribed base for the dedication of Hegelochos (DAA no. 121, Acr.
no. 13206); drawing.
Inscribed base for the dedication of Hegelochos, with dowel holes.
Berlin Foundry cup warrior; detail.
Roman marble bust of Perikles; British Museum.
Bronze head of warrior from the Acropolis (NM 6446).
 List oF FIGURES AND TABLES

LABLES

— Epigraphical Fixed Points, ca. 528/7—480 B.c.

Aristocratic Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 600-400 B.C.
Banausic Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 600-400 B.C.
YW
RY Type s of Statu es Dedi cate d on the Athe nian Acrop olis, ca. 600-
400 B.C.
Handheld Attributes of the Acropolis Korai 145

XI
 PREFACE

The human body made Greek sculptors famous. The creation of naturalistic human
figures in marble and bronze during the Classical period of ca. 480-323 B.c. — the
“Greek Revolution” in Ernst Gombrich’s terms — has been seen as the Greeks’ defin-
ing contribution to the Western art tradition, yet the first large-scale human repre-
sentations in Greek sculpture date back to the Archaic period of ca. 600-480 B.c.
Archaic statues present a marked stylistic contrast to their Classical descendants.
The male kouros and female kore statue types in marble, stylistically analogous to
one another, seem irreconcilably alien to what follows them: both are stiff, rigid,
frontal, hieratic, and abstracted when compared with the products of the Classical
period. When it comes to sculptural style, the Persian Wars of 490 and 480-479 B.c.
take on the character of a fault line dividing products that seem to have little in
common beyond their attempt to represent the human figure.
By the end of the Classical period in the late fourth century, a second major
stylistic development in the history of human representation had also taken place:
the invention of physiognomic or “true” portraiture, involving the creation of
individual likenesses in freestanding sculpture. Though such portraits may only
have become popular in the fourth century , there are reasons to think that the first
physiognomic portraits in Greek sculptu re date to the fifth, and that at least some
of them were made in Athens. By the end of the fourth century , the functio ns of
portrait statues were various , as were the context s in which these portrai ts were dis-
played, and physiognomic portrai ts seem to have become the norm. From the point
ofview ofstyle, physiognomic portraits represe nt a step in a differe nt directi on from
both Archaic statue types and the idealis m otherwi se typical of the High Classic al
style in Greek sculpture.
What freestanding human figu re s ma de by Gr ee k sc ul pt or s in bo th th e Ar ch ai c
and th e Cl as si ca l pe ri od s ha ve in co mm on is th ei r pr ed om in an t fu nc ti on as vo -
tive offering s de di ca te d to th e go ds . Th e in ve nt io n of th e Cl as si ca l st yl e in Gr ee k
sc ul pt ur e to ok pl ac e wi th in th is pr ee xi st in g co nt ex t; ph ys io gn om ic po rt ra it st at ue s,
even if we ca nn ot be su re th ey we re fir st cr ea te d to se rv e as vo ti ve of fe ri ng s, we re
a common fo rm of mo nu me nt on th e At he ni an Ac ro po li s by th e mi dd le of th e
fourth century. Mo un ti ng a st at ue on a ba se in sc ri be d wi th its de di ca to r’ s na me
and displaying it in th e op en ai r of aGr ee k sa nc tu ar y tu rn ed it in to an an at he ma ,
a permanent and vi si bl e re mi nd er of th e de di ca to r. Vo ti ve st at ue de di ca ti on s we re

XIII
PREFACE

geographically universal, sp an ni ng th e en ti re Gr ae co -R om an wo rl d, an d ev en no n-
Greeks from the Pharaohs of Egypt to th e em pe ro rs of Ro me set up st at ue s in Gr ee k
sanctuaries. The practice of dedica ti ng sta tue s to th e go ds in thi s wa y be gi ns at
an ill-defined point early in the Ar ch ai c pe ri od ; wh at is ce rt ai n is th at it en du re d
as long as pagan religi on di d, al th ou gh th e sta tue as an an at he ma se em s to ha ve
enjoyed its greatest popu la ri ty in th e Ar ch ai c an d Cl as si ca l pe ri od s. In a la rg e civ ic
or Panhel le ni c sa nc tu ar y du ri ng th e six th an d fif th ce nt ur ie s, hu nd re ds of vo ti ve
statues stood within the temenos at any one time.
This contin uou s rel igi ous fun cti on lac ks a cle ar res ona nce in mu ch of the
scholarship on Greek sculpture. Consequently, this study of statues dedicated on
the Athenian Acropolis seeks to resituate Greek sculpture of the Archaic and Clas-
sical periods within the practice of votive religion. The study extends from the
beginnings of statue dedications on the Acropolis early in the sixth century through
the beginning of the fourth century, but in it I stress manifestations of continuity
in votive practice rather than changes in sculptural style. No one doubts that the
year 480 B.c. (or thereabouts) marks a dramatic stylistic shift in Greek sculpture, a
point after which (for whatever reason) there was no going back to the kouroi and
korai characteristic of the Archaic Greek sanctuaries. However, here I argue that the
milestones in the history of the Acropolis dedications are not the ones that students
of Greek sculpture have come to take for granted, and that in turn the ways in
which sculptures were used as votive offerings on the Acropolis should inform our
understanding of how and why Greek sculpture developed stylistically in the way
that it did.
The focus on the Acropolis does not imply that this civic sanctuary is more
important or worthy of study than the Panhellenic sanctuaries at Delphi, Olympia,
and Delos. It is not the cult of Athena on the Acropolis that justifies collecting and
interpreting the remains of votive statue dedications found in her sanctuary, but
more practical considerations. The Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 B.c. and the
major building operations that followed resulted in the preservation of hundreds
of marble statues cleared away and buried in pits, including the series of over 50
examples of the female kore type. Although at least one other Archaic sanctuary,
the Ptoén in Boiotia, has preserved a comparable number of votive statues, the
Acropolis alone provides the evidence that completes the picture, namely a series
of approximately 300 inscribed stone bases for votive statues. The combination
of thorough publications of this material, in particular A. E. Raubitschek’s 1949
catalog, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (which I refer to in this book as
DAA), and its accessibility in the museums ofAthens make it possible to rebuild on
paper what the Persian invaders destroyed.
The continuation of the Acropolis evidence from the Archaic period into the
Classical period is important for the purposes of this study, though the balance

XIV
 PREFACE

of the available evidence shifts from the archaeological for the sixth century to
the epigraphical and literary for the fifth. The fifth-century archaeological evidence
consists almost entirely of stone bases for lost, large-scale bronze statues, and for this
reason it has not been extensively compared with the preserved marble sculptures
of the Archaic period. The preservation of Athenian literary works and inscriptions
of other genres from the Classical period provides prosopographical data that make
possible the identification of some individuals who dedicated statues during the
fifth century. An additional source of evidence is the Periegesis of Pausanias, who
saw.and described several fifth-century votive statues on the Acropolis that have not
survived. Few of the extant sculptures found on the Acropolis can be matched with
extant inscribed bases, but another form of archaeological evidence makes it possible
to conduct this sculptural study even without benefit of statues. Plinth cavities and
foot cuttings on the tops of the inscribed bases provide evidence for the types of
sculptures dedicated during both the Archaic and Classical periods and can be used to
reconstruct the appearance and even the identities of lost statues. The extant marble
statues, large-scale bronzes, and small bronze statuettes from the Acropolis and other
sanctuaries help to set realistic parameters for such archaeological reconstructions.
Looking at statues as offerings dedicated to the gods produces immediate con-
sequences for our understanding of Archaic and Classical sculpture. Statue bases tell
us more about the contexts within which Greek sculpture was viewed than any other
source. Votive statues and the dedicatory inscriptions on their bases have to be “read”
together: statues displayed as votive offerings in sanctuaries were seldom meant to
be viewed without an accompanying epigraphical text that named the dedicator
and sometimes, though not always, expanded upon the circumstances surrounding
the gift. Students of Greek literature and epigraphy have recently begun to assess the
implications of such interactions between visual representations and texts for the
interpretation of th e tex ts. Th is st ud y mo ve s in th e in ve rs e di re ct io n, fr om te xt s to
statues, presenting in Pa rt I (C ha pt er s 1- 4) th e re su lt s of re ad in g de di ca to ry te xt s
before looking at th e st at ue s, pr ec is el y be ca us e st at ue ba se s an d th e te xt s in sc ri bed
upon th em ca ll in to qu es ti on so me pr ev ai li ng in te rp re ta ti on s of Gr ee k sc ul pt ur e.
Parts II an d III of th is bo ok are or ga ni ze d ar ou nd tw o id en ti ti es we kn ow
were represented by vo ti ve st at ue s, di vi ne an d hu ma n, ra th er th an by sc ul pt ur al
type. Within the votive context of a si ng le sa nc tu ar y, th e us e of st at ue ty pe s as an
organizing principle can be mi sl eading be ca us e it en co ur ag es us to be li ev e th at st at ue
types were synonymous wi th id en ti ti es . In Gr ee k sc ul pt ur e of th e Ar ch ai c pe ri od ,
the same statue types were used to present re di ff er en t id en ti ti es , an d th e id ea of
multivalence survived even in the Classical pe ri od . Th e st yl e an d ic on og ra ph y of
representations of th e sa me su bj ec t de di ca ted in th e sa me sa nc tu ar y ev ol ve d ov er
time, with the result that the ancient vi ew er wo ul d ha ve se en th e sa me id en ti ty
represented by different statue types.
PREFACE

Votive statues dedicated on the Acro po li s in th e si xt h an d fif th ce nt ur ie s rel ied

upon not only their ic on og ra ph y bu t als o th e ic on og ra ph y of co nt ex t to un lo ck
their mean in g. Co nt em po ra ry vis ito rs to th e sa nc tu ar y ha d a di st in ct ad va nt ag e
over us when it come s to un de rs ta nd in g co nt ex t. If we are to ad dr es s th e pr ac ti ce of
dedicating votive sta tue s in Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s, we ne ed to co ns id er th e ful l ra ng e of
evidence available fr om th e Ac ro po li s — no t on ly th e ex ta nt ma rb le sta tue s, bu t al so
th e in sc ri be d sta tue bas es. Th e ve ry co nt in ui ty of vo ti ve st at ue de di ca ti on s on th e
Athenian Acropolis and in other Greek sanctuaries ultimately calls into question
the importance of stylistic developments such as the creation of the Classical style
in Gr ee k sc ul pt ur e or th e in ve nt io n of ph ys io gn om ic po rt ra it ur e fo r un de rs ta nd in g
Greek sculpture.
This book intends to provide not a catalog of votive statues and statue bases
from the Athenian Acropolis, but rather a synthetic discussion of the evidence
for votive statue dedications there and the broader significance of this evidence.
Throughout the book, even in the sections dealing with inscriptions, I have made
special efforts to encourage readers who are interested in Greek sculpture but who
do not have any knowledge of ancient Greek. In defining the material discussed
herein, I have supplemented Raubitschek’s catalog of inscribed statue bases in DAA
with examples found since 1949 and included in /G > (Jnscriptiones Atticae Euclidis
Anno Anteriores), fasc. 1, edited by D. M. Lewis and L. H. Jeffery (Berlin/New York
1994). For the sake of coherence, I refer to inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis
by their DAA numbers rather than their /G P numbers, but | urge readers interested
in the texts of the inscriptions to refer to /G TP for important corrections, new read-
ings, and supplementary bibliography.
I refer to ancient authors and their works, as well as some standard epigraphical
and historical reference works, by using the abbreviations listed in the third edition
of The Oxford Classical Dictionary, eds. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth (Oxford
1996). The abbreviations for journal titles have been taken from American Journal
ofArchaeology 104 (2000): 3-24. The frequent book and chapter citations ofthe text
of Pausanias refer to the English translation by J. G. Frazer, Pausanias’ Description
of Greece (London 1898). All translations are my own unless otherwise noted.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I first became interested in votive statues as a student at Wellesley College, where

Miranda Marvin encouraged me to pursue my interest. The first part of this book
is based upon my University of Michigan dissertation. I thank, first and foremost,
John Pedley, my dissertation advisor, for his unwavering enthusiasm and encour-
agement. [he inspiration to expand this study to include a much more substantive
discussion of Archaic and Classical sculpture came to me in the Blegen Library
of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens; it will be clear to every-
one who knows the Blegen that I could never have written this book without it.
My warmest thanks go to the staffs of the Acropolis Museum (particularly Ismene
Trianti, Christina Vlassopoulou, and Konstantinos Kissas), the Epigraphical Mu-
seum (Chara Karapa-Molisani), the National Museum (Maria Salta), and the Agora
Excavations (Jan Jordan), who, over the years, have patiently allowed me to examine
hundreds of inscribed statue bases, marble statue fragments, and bronze statuettes.
For their indispensable help in processing or obtaining photographs and permis-
sions, I would like to single out Marie Mauzy of the American School of Classical
Studies, Hans Goette of the German Archaeological Institute in Athens, Suzanne
Modica of Art Resource, Amalia Kakissis of the British School in Athens, and Giorgia
Migatta of the German Archaeological Institute in Rome. The actual writing of this
book was made possible by generous research support from Georgetown University
(including summer grants, a junior faculty leave, and a grant-in-aid for the purchase
ph
of otographs) an d by the Arc hae olo gic al Ins tit ute of Am er ic a (AI A) in the fo rm
of the Olivia James Travelling Fellowship.
I have spo ken on asp ect s of this pro jec t at the Thi rte ent h Int ern ati ona l Bro nze
Congress, the annual meetings of the AIA, the George Washington University
Ancient Mediterranean Sem ina r, and the Was hin gto n Soc iet y of the AIA , and |
thank the audiences present on tho se occ asi ons for the ir com men ts. Stu den ts, fac-
ulty, and sta ff ass oci ate d wit h the Uni ver sit y of Mic hig an, the Ame ric an Sch ool ,
the Center for Hel len ic Stu die s, and Geo rge tow n Uni ver sit y who hav e hel ped
me to understand sculptural, epigra phi cal , his tor ica l, and phi lol ogi cal issu es mor e
clearly are so numerous that I can sin gle out onl y a few her e: Dav id Pot ter , Ari el
Loftus, Jeremy Taylor, Aileen Ajo oti an, Ron Str oud , Mar y Stu rge on, Joe Day ,
Ste phe n Lam ber t, Car ol Law ton , Eve lyn Har ris on, Joh n Trai ll, Bru nil de Rid gwa y,
Nanno Marinatos, Andrew Stewart, Mar jor ie Ven it, Pet er Sch ulz , Mic hae l

XVII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Djordjevich, Deborah Boedeker, Kurt Raaflaub, Andrew Oliver, and Diana

Buitron-Oliver.
I am very grateful to Beatrice Rehl of Cambridge University Press for taking
on this project, and to Alan Shapiro, Olga Palagia, and an anonymous reader for
their useful and timely comments on the completed manuscript. I would like to
remember H. Regina Ferguson for friendship and support over the years, for which
I am forever indebted. Finally, I thank Eran Lupu for his many contributions as
husband, scholar, friend, and beloved companion.

Catherine Keesling
Washington, D.C.
February 2002

XVIII
 ae,
7 here
a ar |
» ey hewth: 1ONue sere :
ee ; : ; .

Pa ~s

‘rs a

- »

€
E
...

3
- ow or _

a om of oe 2 “
fe Ee ee cH -
STATIUNES (AS QPS Four
Hebe GODS

n Greek religion, the term anathema verbally depicts the act of setting some-
thing up for the gods. Though it described the prototypical gift from human
worshippers to the gods, this term, and the related verb dévat{@nu1, directly
expressed the ideal of display. The inscription on the base for an Archaic mar-
ble kore statue (Figs. 1 and 2) from the Acropolis (Dedications from the Athenian
Acropolis no. 56) illustrates the use of this verb to mark gifts to the gods: Eu6USiKos 6
Oaric&pxou avébnxev (“Euthydikos the son of Thaliarchos dedicated”). Calling vo-
tive dedications anathemata emphasized the physical and conceptual elevation of
gifts for the gods above the normal spheres of human interaction and commerce.’
In this chapter, I use the term anathema to refer to a specific class of permanent,
sculptural dedications that evolved from predecessors dating back to the emergence
of the polis and its characteristic religious forms in the eighth century B.c.
Dedications of statues with inscribed bases as anathemata enter the scene fairly
late in the lives of Greek sanctua ries. The earliest forms of evidenc e for the creatio n
of sacred space after the Greek Dark Ages are deposit s of pottery , terra-c otta fig-
urines, and portabl e bronze figurin es in the form of both humans and animals . At
Olympia, deposits of such modest offerin gs (and, in the case of pottery , the residue
of human visitation on a large scale) go back as far as the tenth century B.c., but the
explosion in the dedication of small bronze offerin gs does not occur there and in
the other Panhellenic sanctuaries — Delphi, Delos, and Isthmia — until the second
half of the eighth century.” At most sanctua ry sites, the appear ance of perman ent
but portable votive offerings in the materia l record predate s the constru ction of ar-
chaeologically recognizable temple buildin gs.’ On the Atheni an Acropol is, bronze
tripods and bowls were among the earliest votives dedicat ed in the sanctua ry in the
Geometric period (the eighth and seventh centuri es), but the lack of inscrip tions
associated with these offerin gs leaves us with no particu lars about the individ uals (or
groups) who set them up.‘ The tripod series at Olympi a and the Atheni an Acropol is
predate an d cl ea rl y pr ef ig ur e st at ue an at he ma ta in th ei r mo nu me nt al sc al e an d hi gh
cost.°
ANATHEMATA

1. Euthydikos’ kore (Acr. no. 686); front. Alison Frantz Photographic Col-
lection, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg. AT 514.

DEDICATORY MECHANISMS

VOWS
Not all anathemata dedicated to the gods were inscribed, and not every inscrip-
tion on an anathema mentions a vow; nevertheless, it is possible that the majority
of anathemata (and maybe even all of them) result from the fulfillment of vows to
the gods, even if their inscriptions make no mention of such vows. The English
term “votive offering” derives from the Latin votwm, which in turn was equivalent
in meaning to the Greek evyr}.° An euche or euchole was a vow, a prayer, or a boast —
three items that were certainly not the same thing but that may all derive from
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE GoDs

2. Inscribed base (D AA no. 56) wit h low er leg s of Eut hyd iko s’ kor e (Ac r. no. 609 ).
Copyrigh t Deu tsc hes Arc hao log isc hes Ins tit ut- Ath en, neg . nr. Sch rad er 37.

an original term denoting a “solemn as se rt io n. ”” Th e eu ch e as a vo w se rv ed as th e

fundamental mechanism for dedica ti ng an an at he ma in a Gr ee k sa nc tu ar y. Th e
worshi pp er ty pi ca ll y pr om is ed be fo re ha nd to ma ke an of fe ri ng on th e co nd it io n
th at so me be ne fi t (c ha ri s) re qu es te d of th e go ds wa s re ce iv ed ; on ce th e te rm s ha d
be en set by th e wo rs hi pp er , th e vo w ha d to be fu lf il le d if th e go ds de li ve re d. ®
The de di ca to ry in sc ri pt io ns on a to ta l of 19 si xt h- an d fi ft h- ce nt ur y Ac ro po li s
statue de di ca ti on s ex pl ic it ly re fe r to th e fu lf il lm en t o f a vo w th ro ug h th e de di ca ti on .?
What is mo st st ri ki ng ab ou t th e Ac ro po li s de di ca ti on s th at ex pl ic it ly re fe r to a
vow is that so me fu lf il l vo ws ma de no t by th e de di ca to r, bu t ra th er by an ot he r
family member. A n ot he rw is e u n k n o w n in di vi du al n a m e d Ti ma rc ho s se t up D A A
ANATHEMATA

no. 236 to fulfill a vow made by his mo th er ; a Ly si bi os (D AA no. 24 8) ful fil led th e
vow of both parents or, more genera ll y, of his an ce st or s; an d th e de di ca to r of DA A
no. 283 named [DiJophanes or [P yt h] op ha ne s ful fil led th e vo w of his chi ld. Th e
implication behind the wo rd in g of th es e pa rt ic ul ar de di ca ti on s is th at th e rel ati ve
on whose behalf the vo w wa s ful fil led ha d di ed , an d co ns eq ue nt ly it be ca me th e
responsi bi li ty of th e de di ca to r to see th at th e de di ca ti on wa s ma de .
Whenever a vow was mad e to the god s, the res pon sib ili ty to fulf ill tha t vow
belonged pri mar ily to the ded ica tor , but upo n his or her dea th it pas sed to the nex t
generation. The Athenian obsession with the orderly transfer of property through
the male line carries over to unmet obligations, including vows of sacrifices and
anathemata. Because we never know from the Acropolis statue base inscriptions
how long the gap was between the vow and its fulfillment — keeping in mind that
the gap in some cases was as long as a generation — dedicators may have saved their
money for months, years, even most of a lifetime, to dedicate a single statue. If the
dedication of a bronze or marble statue on the Acropolis was too great a financial
burden for the dedicator to bear, by making a vow he or she could promise to make
the dedication to Athena at some time (specified or unspecified) in the future; if the
dedicator was never able to fulfill the vow, the burden passed to his or her nearest
relations.

APARCHE AND IDEKATE

Along with references to vow fulfillment, the inscriptions on the sixth- and
fifth-century Acropolis statue dedications frequently refer to two other mechanisms
governing votive dedications: aparche, or “first-fruits,” and dekate, or “tithe.” A total
of 34 votive statues from this period were called first-fruits dedications, compared
with 29 labeled as tithes."° Both terms directly link private votive dedications with
better understood communal rituals in Athenian religion, although the exact char-
acter of these connections merits further study. Both aparche and dekate dedications
could be explicitly labeled as fulfilling a vow.
The absolute numbers of dedications including one of these three dedicatory
formulas (vow, aparche, and dekate) may seem statistically small in comparison
with the total number of inscribed statue bases from the sixth and fifth centuries;
however, we must keep in mind that a large percentage of the dedicatory texts are
fragmentary, and that we have no way of knowing how many of the incomplete
texts originally included one of the formulas. A truer sense of how often explicit
references to a vow, aparche, or dekate occur is to compare the total number of
complete statue base inscriptions, 37, with the 20 complete statue base inscriptions
lacking any one of these three formulas." Most of the dedications without any such
formula consist of only the dedicator’s name and the verb ofdedication, avati@nut,
the simplest type of dedicatory inscription used on the Acropolis. As a preliminary
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE Gops

to discussing the meaning of aparche and dekate, it is also worth noting that neither
term is restricted to metrical dedicatory epigrams and that not all metrical epigrams
used them, although both could be easily adapted to the typical metrical schemes
used on the Acropolis.”
Perhaps the best known aparche offering in Athenian religion is the sixtieth of
the annual tribute offered by the member cities of the Delian League to Athena on
the Acropolis and recorded in the Athenian Tribute Lists. In contrast, the most
common use of the term dekate in Archaic and Classical Greece referred to the
tithe, or tenth part of the spoils won in battle, that was given to the gods.* The
dekate from war booty took the form of either the captured objects themselves,
or a more grandiose offering paid for by the sale of the booty: perhaps the most
famous example is the golden tripod supported by a giant bronze serpent column
at Delphi, dedicated by the Greek cities from the Persian spoils taken at Plataia in
479 B.C.»
It is apparent that a dekate is always conceived as a ten-percent share, whereas
the value of an aparche could be determined as a percentage divisible by six, but
as it was most commonly practiced in sacrificial and agricultural contexts, it re-
mained simply a small share allotted to the gods. In Greek literature, private votive
offerings of both statues and other objects are identified as dekatai and aparchai.
Herodotus (1.92.1-4) calls the series of offerings made by Croesus of Lydia at Delphi
and the Amphiareion at Oropos “the first-fruit of his own substance and of his
inheritance.”
Though the practice of offering an aparche to the gods, either as part of a state
festival or in private, was by no means limited to Athens, epigraphically attested
examples are scarce outside of the Athenian Acropolis and after the Archaic period."®
No literary source explains why Athenians used this ritual mechanism for making
votive offerin gs, or how they determ ined the share of their wealth or profits they
wished to dedicat e on the Acropol is as an aparche . Isaeus 5, an early fourth- century
forensic speech, alludes to statues dedicat ed on the Acropol is as the aparcha i of
the wealthy and aristocratic ancesto rs of the accused . In contras t, only one of the
dedicators (Hermolykos son of Dietrep hes, DAA no. 132) the
of 34 sixth- and fifth-
century Acropolis statue bases that include the word aparche in their inscrip tions
certainly belongs the Athenian moneye d aristoc racy; none identif y themsel ves as
non-Athenians, two are women, and one (Nearch os) seems to identif y himself as a
potter.” Nine of the aparche statues are joint dedicat ions made by more than one
individual, with or withou t a family relatio nship specifi ed.
The 29 private dekate dedications cl ea rl y re su lt fr om th e in di vi du al pr ac ti ce of
separati ng ou t te n pe rc en t of on e’ s we al th or pr of it s to pa y fo r a vo ti ve of fe ri ng , a
pr iv at e ri tu al im it at in g th e pr om in en t pu bl ic di vi si on of th e sp oi ls of wa r. '> Wh at
is perp le xi ng is th e fa ct th at bo th ap ar ch e an d de ka te st at ue s se em to be de di ca te d
ANATHEMATA

3. Inscribed base (DAA no. 292) for two korai dedicated by Lysias and Eurachis; the “Red Shoes”
kore (Act. no. 683) stood in the round plinth cutting on the viewer's right. Copyright Deutsches
Archaologisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr. 95/46.

from the same sorts of profits, making attempts to pin down distinctive meanings
for the two terms in the private sphere difficult. Nor do the individuals who gave
dekatai as opposed to aparchai or dedications of unspecified type seem to reflect a
link between the use of the two formulas and identifiable sociopolitical or gender
divisions in Athens. As we see in a subsequent chapter, the same types of statues
(e.g., the marble kore) could be given as an aparche, a dekate, or neither one, and
neither formula seems to have been restricted in its use to the period before the
Persian sack ofthe Acropolis in 480 B.c.
Two aparche statue dedications (DAA nos. 197 and 210) reflected income derived
from the dedicators’ “works” or “products,” and two others were called the first-
fruits of the dedicators’ possessions (DAA nos. 290 and 28). Similarly, one dekate
was made from “works” (DAA no. 234) and another from “produce and property”
(DAA no. 184). Three of the dekatai were made from “land” or from “money” (DAA
nos. 191, 246, and 283). The profits from a windfall profit such as a fish catch could
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE GoDs

apparently be dedicated either as an aparche or a dekate.'? Consequently, neither

formula should be exclusively connected with profits from farming, craftsmanship,
commerce, or fishing.
Nevertheless, one Archaic statue dedication on the Acropolis demonstrates that
aparche and dekate were recognized as mechanisms for making dedications different
enough from one another to be worth distinguishing.*° This is DAA no. 292, an
inscribed rectangular pillar dedicated jointly by Lysias and Euarchis (Fig. 3). The
inscription consists of two independent dedicatory texts written one after the other
by the same hand in three inscribed lines: “Lysias dedicated to Athena an aparche;
Euarchis dedicated a dekate to Athena.” The top of the base shows cuttings for two
separate marble statues: an extant under-life-size marble kore (Acr. no. 683; Fig. 4)
stood in the larger, round cutting on the right-hand side; the cutting on the left is
also round, and its diameter is just over half that of the cutting for kore Acr. no. 683.
If the cutting on the left held another marble kore much smaller than Acr. no. 683,

4. “Red Shoes” kore (Acr. no, 683). Alison

Frantz Photographic Collection, American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg.
AL ATK
ANATHEMATA

as I believe it did, then Lysi as an d Eu ar ch is of fe re d st at ue s of th e sa me ty pe bu t

of different sizes on the same inscribed sta tue bas e. Th e tw o of fe ri ng s mu st ha ve
been planned together and made at th e sa me ti me : th e ca pi ta l of th e pil lar ba se
was purposely made wide en ou gh to su pp or t th e tw o ko ra i st an di ng ne xt to ea ch
other.
Ifwe read both the inscripti ons an d the sta tue s fr om lef t to rig ht, Lys ias ded ica ted
the smalle r kor e as an apa rch e an d Eua rch is ded ica ted the lar ger one (Ac r. no. 683 )
as a dekate . By off eri ng sta tue s of the sa me scu lpt ura l typ e on th e sa me bas e, Lys ias
and Euarch is pre sen ted the ir sep ara te off eri ngs in a wa y tha t en co ur ag ed the vie wer
e
to compar the siz es of the sta tue s. I wo nd er wh et he r the fo rm at of thi s ded ica tio n
was intended to convey that Lysias and Euarchis paid for their offerings with money
derived from the same source, but in different amounts, with Lysias’ aparche consti-
tuting a smaller percentage than Euarchis’ tithe. In the case of Lysias and Euarchis,
two dedicators pooled their efforts to produce a more complex and physically im-
posing offering than either could have dedicated on his own. The same motivation
can be postulated for the eight other aparche statue dedications (consisting of either
a single statue or more than one statue on the same base) made jointly by more than
one individual.

AGALMA
Whereas aparche and dekate defined how worshippers placed their gifts within
the context of communal religious practices, the term aga/ma returns to the ques-
tion of why the gods were perceived to want statues and other offerings. An
agalma is an object endowed with the quality of being pleasing or capable of
eliciting pleasure; conceptually, all votive offerings were presented to the gods in
the hope that they would become agalmata. From the Homeric poems through
Euripides, agalma occupied distinct but related semantic zones in Greek: it could
designate any pleasing ornament, or a pleasing ornament dedicated to the gods. In
the fifth century, Herodotus used aga/ma to refer specifically to statues, the agalmata
par excellence displayed in the sanctuaries of his time.”' Statues functioned both as
agalmata and as kosmos, the ornaments decorating temple and temenos.””
The term agalma was inscribed on a wide variety of votive objects beginning in
the Archaic period, ranging in scale from small vases to expensive, large-scale bronze
statue groups.”? On the Acropolis, the use of the term aga/ma in votive inscriptions
was almost entirely confined to metrical texts written in hexameters or in elegiac
couplets; most of the examples are Archaic, but one dates to the Early Classical
period and two come from the fourth century.*4 In these votive inscriptions, agalma
continued to be used to convey the nature of the offering as a pleasing gift, even
after its primary meaning in Greek literature had become “statue.”

ite)
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE GOoDs

THE STATUE AS ANATHEMA

ORIGINS
Statues with inscribed bases fit only with difficulty into some modern scholarly
constructs of votive religion. The complexities that make them interesting to the
student of sculpture or of epigraphy also make them difficult to classify or to subject
to a quantitative statistical analysis. Robert Parker has called the Archaic statue bases
from the Acropolis “perhaps the most impressive monument in Greece to the ‘votive
religion’ of the wealthier classes.”” Ironically, the most physically imposing products
of Greek votive practice more often than not get left out of votive studies based
upon small finds, such as bronze and terra-cotta figurines, ceramic vessels, ivories,
and even “found objects” such as fossils.2° A worshipper’s choice to dedicate a
statue on a base rather than a smaller, more portable offering was not determined
entirely on the basis of economic resources. Anthony Snodgrass has documented
a clear and quantifiable transition in Greek sanctuaries from the predominance of
“raw” offerings or objects of everyday life (including dress pins and weapons) to
more expensive “converted” offerings, primarily statues, which were manufactured
specifically for dedication.*” After coexisting first with tripods and later with statue
dedications in the Greek sanctuaries of the Archaic period, raw offerings disappear
almost entirely from archaeological sites in the period after 480 B.c. Although the
shift from raw to converted offerings in the Classical period seems important for
understanding how Greek votive religion worked, Snodgrass is the first to admit that
such a shift is almost impossible to explain in any single, historically meaningful way.
It can be argued that the introduction of stone bases for Greek sculpture was a
direct result of the desire to display votive statues more effectively in the open air of
sanctuaries.”® Althou gh the first insc ribe d ana the mat a of any type app ear ed in Gre ek
sanctuaries onl y ca. 700 B.c. , in othe r word s, 100 year s or so afte r the first atte sted
use of the Gre ek alph abet , larg e-sc ale mar ble scul ptur es were insc ribe d as soon as
they began to be used as anat hema ta.” ” By the mid- sixt h cent ury, one maj or regi onal
difference between statue ana the mat a on the Acro poli s and thos e ofthe Cycl adic and
East Greek sanctuaries had eme rge d. On the Acro poli s, stat ue base s func tion ed as the
carriers of votive inscriptions. Els ewh ere — part icul arly in East Gre ek sanc tuar ies —
the practice of inscribing on the bod y of voti ve stat ues them selv es con tin ued to be
preferred or used in conjunction with stat ue base insc ript ions .” Desp ite the pres ence
of stat ues mad e by Cyc lad ic and East Gre ek scul ptor s on the Arch aic Acro poli s,
body inscription of both large-scale mar ble scul ptur es and smal l bron ze stat uett es
was avo ide d ther e.3' Thu s, alt hou gh the orig ins of insc ribe d stat ue ana the ma can be
traced to the Ioni an mili eu in the seve nth cent ury B.c., diff eren ces in how stat ue
anathemata we re tr ea te d on th e At he ni an Ac ro po li s fr om th ei r be gi nn in gs in th e

II
ANATHEMATA

sixth century could point to more significan t di ve rg en ce s be tw ee n Ea st Gr ee k an d

Athenian votive practices.

STATUES AND SACRED SPACE

Not one of the sixth- and fi ft h- ce nt ur y vo ti ve st at ue an at he ma ta th at co ns ti tu te
the subject of this study wa s fo un d in sit u on th e Ac ro po li s, an d fo r ob vi ou s re as on s:
the history of the Acropo li s’ oc cu pa ti on is lo ng an d co mp le x, in vo lv in g a ser ies
of destructions and reor ga ni za ti on s be gi nn in g wi th th e Pe rs ia n sa ck of 48 0 B.c .
Cuttings in th e Ac ro po li s be dr oc k in th e are a no rt h an d we st of th e Pa rt he no n
show wher e mo st of th e Ar ch ai c sta tue s pr ob ab ly st oo d (Fi g. 5). Af te r 48 0, st at ue s
were clus te re d ar ou nd Ph ei di as ’ co lo ss al br on ze At he na fa ci ng th e Pr op yl ai a, li ne d
up along the north flank of the Parthenon, and grouped between the entrance to
the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia and the Mnesiklean Propylaia.** With a few
notable exceptions, the extant monuments cannot be matched with any certainty
to particular settings. The sheer numbers of statue bases found on the Acropolis
and in other sanctuaries such as Delphi, Olympia, and the Samian Heraion indicate
that, already in the sixth century, aesthetic principles of presentation were forced to
give way to considerations of space and expediency.** Sacred laws of the Hellenistic
period from a variety of sanctuaries give the responsibility for finding a place for new
statue anathematato either a priest or an architect (architekton). Overcrowding seems
to have been a major problem; new dedications could not be allowed to prevent
visitors from walking through the sanctuary or to impede access to buildings.**
The Acropolis dedications of the sixth and fifth centuries provide some internal
clues as to how and where they were originally meant to be displayed. Column and
pillar bases varied in height, and it is easy to imagine dedicators vying to attract
attention to their own offerings by attaching them to taller and taller bases, or al-
ternatively choosing small bases that could be placed in front of earlier dedications
without completely blocking their view.*> Archaic column bases with Ionic capitals
stood with their statues facing the narrow end of the capital, and the long, rectangu-
lar bases for equestrian monuments (including four-horse chariots in bronze) were
usually inscribed on one of the narrow ends of the base: this indicates that these
monuments were intended for display in tightly packed rows where space was at a
premium, despite the fact that a view from the side would seem to be more aesthet-
ically satisfying.>° Only a very small number of statues and bases from the Acropolis
were left unworked or minimally worked at the back for placement up against the
wall of abuilding: these are DAA no. 184 (the base for a small bronze Athena stat-
uette), no. 294 (the base fora marble kore), korai Acr. nos. 593, 675, and 696, and the
torso of asmall marble rider found on the Acropolis North Slope.*” Vertical inscrip-
tions consisting ofmultiple lines on column and pillar bases read in both directions,
either from left to right (DAA nos. 9, 191, 233, and 257) or from right to left (DAA

12
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE Gops

1 Propylaia
2 Sanctuary of Athena Nike
3 Sanctuary of Artemis
Brauronia
4 Bronze Athena of Pheidias
5 Erechtheion
6 Altar of Athena
7 Parthenon

\ oe a 50
| TPAYAOI 1984 ~ a ——<—<——

5. Plan of the Athenian Acropolis by John Travlos. Reproduced fromJ.Travlos, Bildlexikon zur Topogra-
phie des antiken Attika (Tiibingen 1984), Figure 33. Copyright Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tiibingen/Berlin,
Germany.

nos. 229, 236, and 246), an d the cho ice of dir ect ion ma y hav e de pe nd ed up on the
whether the monument sto od on the lef t sid e or the rig ht sid e of apat hwa y.* * In one
case, the sa me tex t was ins cri bed up on mo re tha n one lat era l fac e of a sta tue bas e,
making it possible that the mo nu me nt was set up at an int ers ect ion wh er e it wo ul d
be viewed from more than one sid e by vis ito rs to the san ctu ary (D AA no. 193 ).
A handful of the inscribed st on e ba se s of th e six th an d fif th ce nt ur ie s are sm al l
enough to have been placed on shelve s in si de a te mp le (D AA nos . 30 8, 311 -31 5, an d
perhaps 79 and 81).3? Otherwise, it is safe to as su me tha t an ou td oo r rat her th an
in do or di sp la y of vo ti ve sta tue an at he ma ta wa s th e rul e on th e Ac ro po li s at thi s
time; th e co mp li ca te d bu il di ng hi st or y of th e mi d- si xt h th ro ug h lat e-f ift h ce nt ur ie s
certainl y mu st ha ve di sc ou ra ge d th e pl ac em en t of mo nu me nt s of an y siz e wi th in
temple bu il di ng s. Ev en Pa us an ia s (1 .2 4. 7) , in th e se co nd ce nt ur y a. c. , re co rd s on ly

13
ANATHEMATA

two statues he saw inside the Parthenon, a po rt ra it of th e em pe ro r Ha dr ia n an d

another of Iphikrates, a fourth-cen tu ry At he ni an ge ne ra l; in co nt ra st , he de sc ri be s
multiple statues inside the temples of Hera an d Ze us at Ol ym pi a (5 -1 7- 1- 4; 5. 10 .3 ;
and 5.12.45), some of wh ic h or ig in al ly st oo d ou ts id e. 4° Te mp le s on th e Ac ro po li s
served as loci for the open-air disp la y of vo ti ve st at ue s be gi nn in g wi th th e Ol d At he na
temple, which had cuttings for st at ue s on its st yl ob at e; af te r th e Pa rt he no n wa s bu il t,
statues and inscribed stelai were pl ac ed on th e ro ck -c ut st ep s be lo w th e te mp le 's we st
facade.* Evidence fr om ot he r sa nc tu ar ie s in di ca te s th at st at ue de di ca ti on s wo ul d
have been lined up al on g bo th si de s of th e ma in ro ut es th ro ug h th e te me no s: th is is
true of the Samian He ra io n in th e si xt h ce nt ur y an d De lp hi in th e fif th. Pa us an ia s
describes statues of Ze us at Ol ym pi a po si ti on ed to fa ce th e se tt in g su n (5 .2 4. 3) or
the rising sun (5.23.1). Statues representing sacrificial animals were placed around
altars or “walking” in the direction of altars.** Though usually taken as evidence for
cult statues, vase paintings showing statues of the gods standing near altars more
likely provide evidence for the display of votive statues in this location, particularly
because most of the statues represented on vases stand on column and pillar bases
like the real ones used on the Acropolis.¥
Even when Pausanias describes the location of votive statue anathemata on the
Acropolis, we cannot always be certain that he saw them in their original setting.
Surviving monuments could be moved and regrouped over the course ofa sanctu-
ary'’s history to complement new buildings and new configurations of the temenos.
At least one of the dedications Pausanias saw just outside the Propylaia of Mnesikles
predates the building and must have been moved there at some point after it was
finished in 433/2 B.c.: this is a mid-fifth-century dedication by the Athenian cav-
alry reused for a new statue group in the Roman period (DAA no. 135). Two other
votive statues displayed inside the Propylaia in Pausanias time might also pre-
date the building: the dedication by Kallias signed by the sculptor Kalamis (DAA
no. 136), and the statue dedicated by Hermolykos and signed by Kresilas of Kydonia
(DAA no. 132). The bronze four-horse chariot group dedicated by the Athenians to
commemorate their victory over the Boiotians and Chalcidians in 507/6 B.c. was
not only replaced after the Persian sack of 480 B.c., but also moved at least once:
Herodotus (5.77.4) saw it on his left as he was entering the gateway to the citadel,
but Pausanias (1.28.2) saw it next to the colossal bronze Athena by Pheidias. Other
statue dedications of the fifth century were reinscribed and turned into honorific
statues in the Roman period, at which time they might also have been relocated on
the Acropolis.
Keeping in mind the caveat that statues could be moved from their original
positions, Pausanias’ account of the votive monuments he saw on the Acropolis
hints that intentional thematic grouping may have been practiced as early as
the fifth century.** Pausanias (1.24.1—-4) saw a series of interlocking statue groups
od

14
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE GoDs

(symplegmata) representing mythological subjects lined up along the north side

of the Parthenon, following the route of the annual Panathenaic procession. This
group of anathemata includes the statues of Athena and the satyr Marsyas attributed
by Pliny (HIN 34.57) to the mid-fifth-century sculptor Myron; fragments of Late
Archaic and Early Classical marble symplegmata found on the Acropolis indicate
that this type of dedication goes back to the end of the sixth century, even if none
of the extant examples match the monuments Pausanias describes. Immediately
after entering the Propylaia, Pausanias (1.23.5) tells us that he intends to skip a series
of undistinguished human portrait statues (eikones) in order to enumerate statues
representing the gods. Soon after this statement, however, he does mention a series
of four statues representing the athletes Epicharinos and Hermolykos and the fifth-
century Athenians Oinobios and Phormion (1.23.11-12); the base of Epicharinos’
statue (DAA no. 120), signed by the fifth-century sculptors Kritios and Nesiotes,
has been found. From Pausanias’ description, it seems that all of these statues
representing men, both the ones he skips and the four he mentions, were located in
the area stretching from the Propylaia along the north side of the temenos of Artemis
Brauronia and ending at the northwest corner of the Parthenon.4’ However, we
must be careful not to read too much into what little evidence we have: Pausanias
(1.25.1) notes that the statues of Perikles and his father Xanthippos that he saw on the
Acropolis were not grouped together; Xanthippos’ portrait stood beside a probably
unrelated statue of the poet Anacreon of Teos.*° Perikles’ statue may at some point
in its history have been grouped together with Pheidias’ Athena Lemnia, dedicated
by the Athenian cleruchs sent to Lemnos at Perikles’ initiative (Paus. 1.28.2).47
In the Athenian agora, honorific portrait statues of the fourth century and later
were grouped thematically in relation to previous honorands and in combination
with statues representing the gods. One Athenian decree calls for a statue represent-
ing Spartokos, king of the Bosporos, to be set up beside statues of his ancestors in
the agora and another statue of him to be set up at an unspecified location on the
Acropolis.4* Konon the Athenian and Evagoras of Cyprus, as saviors of Greece, had
their statues set up near one representing Zeus Soter (“Savior”) in the sanctuary of
Zeus Eleutherios on the west side ofthe agora.4? When Konon’s son Timotheos was
honored with a statue in the agora, it was set up near his father’s.°° The Athenians fa-
mously refused to let anyone set up honorific portraits near the statues of Harmodios
and Aristogeiton in the agora unless the honorands could be considered equal in
worth to the Tyrannicides; this injunction was set aside only in the cases of Antigonos
I and his son Demetrios Poliorcetes and Brutus and Cassius, two pairs of latter-day
tyrant slayers.™ According to Pausanias (1.8.3), statues representing Demosthenes,
Lycurgus, and Kallias (proposer of the mid-fifth-cen tury peace treaty with Persia)
stood near Kephisodotos’ statue of Eirene (Peace) holding the infant Ploutos
(Wealth), a location that reveals a sophisti ca te d an d in te nt io na l th em at ic gr ou pi ng .
ANATHEMATA

Though the possibility has ofte n be en ov er lo ok ed , th e id en ti ty of th e de di ca to r

may also have played an important ro le in th e pl ac em en t of st at ue de di ca ti on s in
Greek sanctuaries such as th e Ac ro po li s. A st or y to ld by He ro do tu s (2 .1 10 ), th ou gh
it concerns an Egyptian sanc tu ar y, pr ob ab ly re fl ec ts Gr ee k at ti tu de s. Ac co rd in g to
Herodotus, the priest of “Hepha is to s” (P ta h) at Me mp hi s to ld hi m th at Da ri us of
Persia wanted to set up a statue re pr es en ti ng hi ms el f in fr on t of an ol de r gr ou p
representing the ph ar ao h Se so st ri s an d hi s fa mi ly ; hi s re qu es t wa s re fu se d by th e
priests because Dari us , wh os e co nq ue st s st op pe d sh or t of th e Sc yt hi an s, di d no t
equal the accomp li sh me nt s of Se so st ri s. A si mi la r et ho s of co mp et it io n be tw ee n
de di ca to rs de te rm in ed th e pl ac em en t of th e st at ue de di ca ti on s cr ow de d ju st in si de
the entrance to the temenos at Delphi. Here Sparta, Argos, Tegea, and Athens set up
expensive offerings paid for by spoils won from each other in close proximity to one
another; the sheer numbers of bronze statues involved (37 in the case of the Spartan
dedication from the spoils of the Athenians at Aegospotami in 405/4 B.c.) reflect
the dedicators’ desire to attract attention to the magnitude of their achievements
compared with those of rival cities.

WilOS Be S AT UE set ESS CeieD ye

ROEPP Reiss EN oA GN

What may be most surprising about the sixth- and fifth-century votive statues on
the Acropolis is the fact that their inscriptions do not tell us wham the statues
represented, but only who dedicated them, and in some cases also who made them.
Inscribed statue dedications refer to themselves as agalma, aparche, dekate, or as
the fulfillment of a vow, but only exceptionally does the dedicatory inscription
describe any aspect of the statue itself. Indeed, the Greeks’ own usage makes one
of this study's main tasks, identifying whom votive statues represented, appreciably
more difficult. The most common and universally used dedicatory formula, “X
dedicated,” does not imply in any way that the statue being dedicated represented
the dedicator X. This fundamental disjunction between statue base inscriptions,
which talk about the dedicator, and the statues they supported can be termed
“disjunctive representation.” The disjunction between inscription and statue is
most evident when a man dedicates a statue representing a woman, as in the case
of kore statues dedicated by men on the Archaic Acropolis. At the same time, it is a
mistake to assume that a match between the gender of the dedicator and that of the
statue implies that the statue was intended to represent its dedicator. The standard
X dedicated formula was meant to be read as something like an annotation to the
statue, a verbal “representation” of its dedicator, and never as a straightforward
label telling the viewer whom the statue was meant to represent.»

16
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE Gops

6. Bronze statue of the

Queen Napir-Asu with
Elamite inscription from
Susa; Louvre inv. Sb 2731.
Réunion des Musées
Nationaux/Art Resource,
NY.

Examples of the practice of disjunctive representation can be found in Near

Eastern cultures, where inscriptions proclaiming in the first person a king’s deeds
and titles might be inscribed upon a variety offreestanding and relief figures without
regard to what or whom they represented. Nevertheless, “conjunctive” as opposed
to disjunctive statue inscriptions were equally common. An important type ofstatue
found in both Egypt and the Near East is the “speaki ng statue,” which is a statue
representing a ruler or noble and inscrib ed with a text of the subject' s own utteran ces.
One example of aNear Eastern speaki ng statue is the life-siz e bronze image of the
fourteenth-century B.c. Elamite queen, Napir- Asu, which is now in the Louvre
(Fig. 6). Its inscription reads as follows:

I, Napir-Asu, wife of Un ta sh -N ap ir is ha . He wh o wo ul d sei ze my sta tue ,

who would smash it, who would de st ro y its in sc ri pt io n, wh o wo ul d era se my
name, may he be smitten by the cu rs e of Na pi ri sh a, of Ki ri ri sh a, an d of

17
ANATHEMATA

7. Statue of Chares from Didyma; British Museum iny. B 278. Copyright The
British Museum.

Inshushinak, that his name shall become extinct, that his offspring be
barren, that the forces of Beltiya, the great goddess, shall sweep down on
him. This is Napir-Asu’s offering.”

Though Napir-Asu’s statue was found divorced from its original context among the
Persian treasures at Susa, it is clear from the wording of the inscription that the
statue was originally votive in function; the queen was represented with her right
hand crossed over her left, a gesture common in depictions of high-status votaries
in Near Eastern sculpture of this period. Speaking statues such as that of Napir-Asu
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE Gops

Se cer a Eee ee—- eee

i
re as Se
naa
|
nS

8. Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion; reconstruction by H. Kienast. Reproduced by permission.

were a conjunctive rather than a disjunctive form of self-representation in cases such

as this, in which it would have been clear to viewers of the statue that the queen
herself was represented.*°
I know of only three Greek examples of speaking statues from the sixth or fifth
centuries: all three are Archaic in date and all three come from Ionian sanctuaries.
A seated marble statue from the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma now in the British
Museum (Fig. 7) bears the following inscription: “I am Chares, ruler of Teichioussa,
the agalma is of Apollo.”*” The inscription appears to tell the viewer that the statue
represents Chares, that it serves as a substitute for Chares that speaks in his own
voice, but at the same time it also marks the statue as the property of Apollo,
the recipient of Chares’ dedication. The other two examples are less similar to Near
Eastern speaking statue formulas. One is the Geneleos statue group from the Samian
Heraion: here a series of statues representing the dedicator, —arches, and his family
have each been inscribed with name labels, combined with a dedicatory inscription
that reads “—arches dedicated us to Hera; Geneleos made us” (Figs. 8 and 9).° A lost
seated statue from Didyma bore a similar inscription, indicating that it originally
belonged to a sculptural family group.”
An important distinction has to be made between true speaking statues and the
common Gre ek phe nom eno n of ogge tti parl anti , or “tal king obje cts. ”°° Firs t-pe rson
speech appears frequent ly in dedi cato ry insc ript ions fro m the Acro poli s, but it alwa ys
takes the for m of an utte ranc e spo ken by the voti ve mon ume nt itsel f rath er than
by the monument’ hum an dedi cato r. In all, this type of fir st- per son spee ch (als o
referred to as “Ich-Rede”) was used on rou ghl y 20 perc ent of the insc ribe d Arch aic
votive dedications of all types fo un d in all san ctu ari es; the fac t tha t the se tex ts app ear

19
ANATHEMATA

9. Geneleos group; plas ter cast s on base in situ in the Sam ian Her aio n. Cop yri ght Deu tsc hes
Archiologisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr. 87/597.

on vases and statues of animals as well as on statues representing gods and human
beings demonstrates that any anathema could be perceived by the Greeks as speaking
in the first person.” On the Acropolis statue bases, Ich-Rede always takes the form of
the accusative pronoun, ue, as in the following example (DAA no. 3): “Iphidike dedi-
cated me to Athena Protector of the city.” Grammatically the first-person pronoun
in these inscriptions can be used instead of a third-person demonstrative pronoun,
and on the Acropolis dedications the demonstrative pronoun was employed just
as often. Dedicatory inscriptions incorporating Ich-Rede gave the monument as a
whole a voice designed not to identify whom the statue represented, but instead to
prevent viewers from forgetting the name of the dedicator.
In the Archaic and Classical periods, inscribed name labels identifying votive
statues of gods and heroes continued to be resisted. In his Thirty-First Oration
(31.90—93), a speech delivered in the later-first or early-second century a.c., Dio
Chrysostom observed that votive statues representing gods, heroes, and hemitheoi
normally did not have the names of their subjects inscribed upon them. Only a
dozen unambiguous exceptions to this rule can be found from the sixth, fifth, and
fourth centuries apart from herms, which were normally referred to by name in their
dedicatory inscriptions.°* Romans such as Lucius Mummius who failed to recognize
the subjects of the votive statues displayed in Greek sanctuaries were taken to task
for their ignorance by Dio and other Greek observers.°? The implication is not only

20
 STATUES AS GIFTS FOR THE GoDs

that votive statues had fixed identities, but also that viewers were meant to be able
to identify votive statues representing gods and heroes even without name labels.
It seems reasonable to wonder why the Greeks avoided inscribing both name
labels and “speaking statue” formulas on votive statue anathemata; after all, such
inscriptions would have made the identities of votive statues clear to anyone able
to read them, even hundreds of years after their dedication in sanctuaries. The
avoidance of speaking statues is probably connected with the fact that it was un-
common for Greeks of the sixth and fifth centuries to dedicate freestanding statues
representing themselves in sanctuaries. In the Archaic period, the major exceptions
to this rule are family groups such as the Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion
and the seated statues (sometimes called the “Branchidai”) found at Didyma, which
also seem to have represented the families who dedicated them. Athletic victor ded-
ications, which seem to have begun at some point in the sixth century, constitute
another important exception: these are a form of conjunctive representation because
their dedicatory inscriptions always include the name of the athlete represented by
the statue, even if he himself was not the dedicator.
‘Traditional votive statues, with their characteristic disjunction between statue
and inscription, were never intended to be viewed outside the context of a sanctuary
or without their dedicatory inscriptions. The Athenians’ conception of their own
votive and funerary statues as components of an inscribed monument rather than
as autonomous entities stands in stark contrast to the way we as modern scholars
normally study Greek sculpture. The inscribed statue bases that dedicators of statue
anathemata on the Acropolis used to contextualize their votive gifts are often frag-
mentary, aesthetically unappealing objects that reveal little of their importance in
photographs. The unavoidable conclusion of this brief excursus on the language of
votive inscriptions on the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis is that these inscriptions
did not tell the reader whom the statue represented. However, this does not mean
that they were not important, or that visitors to the sanctuary did not read them.
As I argue in the following chapters, they provide the key to understandin g what
the Acropolis dedicators hoped to accomplish by dedicating statues.
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

n the Alexandria n poe t He ro da s’ Fo ur th Mi ni am bu s, two wo me n, Ky nn o an d

Phile, visit a sanctuary of Ask lep ios . The y car ry wit h the m a roo ste r to sac rif ice
as well as a plaque to lea ve beh ind as a vot ive off eri ng to Ask lep ios and his
companion Hygieia. Aft er pla cin g the pla que to the rig ht of Hyg iei a’s sta tue , Phi le
cat che s a gli mps e of sta tue s in the san ctu ary and rem ark s to her fri end (dL 4.2 0-2 2),
“But what beautiful aga/mata, dear Kynno; what craftsman worked this stone and
who is the one who set it up?” Kynno reads the answers from the inscription on
the base of the first statue they approach: “the sons of Praxiteles, and Euthies son of
Prexon” (/f 4.23—25).'
In their imaginary visit to a sanctuary, neither woman happens to remark upon
whom the statue dedicated by Euthies represented; perhaps this was clear to them
from looking at it. To find out who made it and who dedicated it, they had to
read the inscription on its base for themselves, and they expected that inscription to
answer two questions: Who dedicated it? and Who made it?* As evidence for ancient
literacy, and women's literacy in particular, Herodas’ Fourth Miniambus is anecdotal
and should not be taken too far. The scene might easily have played differently: the
two women might have asked a passerby or the priest himselfto read the inscription
for them had they not been able to read it for themselves. But the net result, and
its implications for how ancient viewers approached inscribed statue dedications,
remains the same. Pausanias, in the second century a.c., practiced exactly the same
reading pattern as Herodas’ fictional characters, suggesting that ancient viewers
expected the inscriptions on statue bases to provide information that they might
not be able to obtain from looking at the statue or from asking a priest.
The name of the dedicator (or dedicators) is the single element that practically
all dedicatory inscriptions include, even in instances when the verb of dedication
has been omitted. Inscribing statue anathemata offered distinct advantages from
the point of view both of the writers of votive inscriptions (the dedicators) and
of their readers (later visitors to the sanctuary). Votive gifts of any kind served as
memorials of the giver (#memata), just as funerary monuments (semata) functioned

22
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

as permanent visual reminders of the deceased they commemorated.} The Homeric

poems include several descriptions of semata for the dead without inscriptions,
and the implication that the names and deeds of the deceased should live on in
human memory even without the aid of inscriptions survives in later thinking about
monuments.* Nevertheless, just as the deceased whose name was not inscribed upon
his sema risked being forgotten, so the dedicator who did not inscribe his or her name
upon a votive offering endangered his or her association with the gift in the eyes
of future visitors to the sanctuary. Memory and writing worked together, as recent
work on literacy and its uses in the ancient world have stressed.° Knowledge of the
dedicator’s name added demonstrably to the perceived value of votive offerings in
the eyes of their viewers, as evidenced, for example, by Herodotus’ (1.50—51) interest
in the dedications made by Croesus in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi. To be
effective, dedicatory inscriptions had to answer the sorts of questions viewers asked,
while at the same time establishing the relationship the dedicator desired between
himself or herself and the recipient deity.
The very fact that inscriptions were added to votive statues in the sixth and
fifth centuries implies the recognition of some audience (present and future) for the
contents of the inscriptions.° When confronted with votive statues in museums,
modern viewers typically want to know whom these statues were intended to repre-
sent, one question that inscribed statue bases of the sixth and fifth centuries hardly
ever answer. [he absence of reference to the identity of the statue remained an essen-
tial characteristic of the genre of votive statue inscriptions even in later periods. The
question addressed by this chapter is why viewers read the inscriptions on the bases
for statues dedicated on the Acropolis in the sixth and fifth centuries, and what they
hoped to learn from reading them. Answering this question inevitably addresses the
question of what dedicators hoped to gain by having their votive statues inscribed
in the first place. The unequivocal answer provided both by literary evidence and
by the evidence of the inscriptions themselves is that viewers read the inscriptions
on the bases for votive statues to learn first the name of the dedicator and second
the name ofthe sculptor, just as Kynno and Phile did in Herodas’ Hellenistic mime.
Only the presence of an inscription including the dedicator’s name could ensure
the attribution ofa votive statue to the correct dedicator, though at the same time it
must be admitted that the association between dedicator and offering could survive
even in the absence of an inscription. Traditional votive statue dedications func-
tioned as mnemata of their dedicators, no matter whom they represented, as long
as their inscriptions preserved the dedicator’s name, or as long as some memory of
the dedicator’s name survived. The practice of inscribing the name of the dedicator
on statue bases has to be understood within the larger context of Athenian attitudes
toward name display.
ANATHEMATA

WHAT’S IN A NAME? PU B L I C N A M E D I S P L A Y
IN A R C H A I C A N D C L A S S I C A L A T H E N S

Votive dedications constitute the la rg es t si ng le ge nr e of do cu me nt s in sc ri be d on

stone surviving from sixth- an d fi ft h- ce nt ur y At he ns , ea si ly ou tn um be ri ng bo th
funerary inscriptions and At he ni an sta te de cr ee s. ? Co mp ar ed wi th bo th th e in-
scribed epitaphs and the decree s of th e At he ni an sta te, th e in sc ri be d de di ca ti on s
found on the Acropolis and else wh er e we re sh or t, mo re of te n th an no t co ns is ti ng of
only a single inscri be d lin e, an d fo rm ul ai c, gi vi ng a pr om in en t pl ac e to th e de di ca -
tor’s name and the ve rb of de di ca ti on . Th e di st in ct io n ma de by mo st ep ig ra ph ic al
corpora between pu bl ic in sc ri pt io ns (t ho se co mm is si on ed by th e At he ni an sta te
an d ot he r pu bl ic bo di es ) an d pr iv at e on es (t ho se co mm is si on ed by in di vi du al s)
obscures another distinction that could prove more important for understanding
contemporary Athenian perceptions of the role played by inscriptions on stone:
practically all, no matter who paid to set them up, were meant to be displayed in
public.
As a genre, the inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis seem to attest “an
obsessive interest in the recording of personal names” on the part of the Athenians;
indeed, the large number of dedicatory texts inscribed on stone compared with
texts of other genres suggested to Stoddart and Whitley that the original function
for writing in an Athenian milieu was “connected to the needs of individuals to
record their names publicly, and thereby to display their virtues and skills.” Other
important genres of stone inscriptions in Athens, especially after:the reforms of
Kleisthenes in 508/7 B.c., also involved the prominent, public listing of names to
the benefit (and occasionally the detriment) of the individuals whose names were
included.’ In most cases, names were displayed on their own, with no accompa-
nying sculptural representations. This is certainly true of what has become known
as the “Monument of the Persian War epigrams” (/nscriptiones Graecae P 503/4)
in the Athenian agora, which may mark the invention of the practice of inscribing
the names of all the deceased on war memorials. This monument, as it has been
reconstructed by A. P. Matthaiou, consisted of a long base inscribed with at least
eight different epigrams celebrating the Athenian contribution to the Persian Wars;
in turn, this base supported at least three stelai listing the names of the Athenian
dead."° The first epigram begins with the demonstrative pronoun TouTovus, “these
men,” a reference to the deceased “represented” on this monument not by relief
sculptures or freestanding statues, but only by their inscribed names: the names
were meant to speak for themselves and to preserve the memory of the dead.”
The flip side of the power of the inscribed name is the desire to remove names,
or to keep inappropriate names from being inscribed in the first place. In the
Hellenistic and Roman periods, the practice of damnatio memoriae involved taking
=.

24
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

down statues and other images representing deposed rulers and emperors; it could
also encompass erasing their inscribed names, thus effacing (symbolically, at least)
the memory of disgraced individuals.” Although the applicability of the concept
of damnatio memoriae to Archaic and Classical Greece has been overestimated, it is
clear that the Athenians and other Greeks reacted strongly against the inappropriate
public display of individuals’ names, affirming the reverence that name display as
a form of representation commanded." One form of inappropriate public name
display universally condemned by ancient authors was the inscription of one’s own
name on votive dedications made by someone else. Herodotus (1.51) tells us that in
his own time one of Croesus’ dedications at Delphi, a golden perirrhanterion, had
been inscribed with the name of the Lakedaimonians as dedicators by a Delphian
he himself scrupulously refuses to single out by name. Pausanias, the Spartan king
and commander of the Greek forces at the Battle of Plataia in 479, was accused of
inscribing a personal dedicatory epigram on the colossal bronze Serpent Column at
Delphi made out of the Persian booty from Plataia, which was promptly erased once
the Greeks discovered it.’* Although this story and another instance of dedication-
stealing by Pausanias may well be apocryphal — there is no physical evidence for his
inscription on the Serpent Column — both stories contribute to the Greek perception
of the Spartan Pausanias’ megalomania by depicting him as a usurper of other
peoples’ votive offerings. Examples from the Roman period both of the replacement
of original dedicators’ names with those of Romans and of the transportation of
statue dedications to different sanctuaries to be rededicated are attested — and duly
condemned by the sources that report them.”
The story of the Eion monument associated with the Athenian general
Kimon soon after 480 B.c. involves the issue of taking personal credit by inscribing
one’s name on a public monument, though in this case Kimon’s name was never
actually inscribed. The story as it appears in a fourth century speech by the orator
Aeschines (3.183—185, with minor discrepancies in Plutarch, Cimon 7) recounts that
when Kimon and other generals captured the Thracian town of Eion at the mouth
of the Strymon river, they asked the Athenian demos for honors in return for their
accomplishment. The demos granted them the privilege of setting up three stone
herms, but did not allow them to inscribe their own names upon any part of the
monument. Though the Eion herms have not survived, the literary tradition pre-
serves the three epigrams inscribed on them, which make general reference to the
Athenians’ leaders but leave out the names of Kimon and the other generals."®
The dynami cs of the int era cti on bet wee n Kim on and the Ath eni an pub lic in
this story are puzzling in som e res pec ts: did Kim on and his fel low gen era ls rea lly ask
for the right to set up a personal mne ma? If so, was the re any pre ced ent for suc h a
request? If Kimon’s victory had occ urr ed in the fou rth cen tur y rat her tha n the fift h,
the Athenian demos might on its ow n ini tia tiv e ha ve vo te d hi m th e pr iv il eg e of an
ANATHEMATA

honorific portrait in the agora or on th e Ac ro po li s. Pe rh ap s wh at is mo st dif fic ult to

come to grips with is the Athenian in si st en ce up on ta ki ng cr ed it on ly wh er e cr ed it
is due: it would have been entirely ap pr op ri at e fo r Ki mo n to in sc ri be hi s na me on
a dedication to Athena made fr om his pe rs on al sh ar e of th e bo ot y fr om th e ca pt ur e
of Eion, but displaying his name pu bl ic ly on a mn em a fo r all At he ni an s wh o to ok
part in the battle would have offe nd ed fi ft h- ce nt ur y At he ni an sen sib ili tie s.' 7 Th is is
what gives some forc e to Per ikl es’ (Pl ut. Per icl es 14 .1 -2 ) re po rt ed th re at to pa y fo r th e
Parthenon himsel anf d in sc ri be his ow n na me up on it. By th e fo ur th ce nt ur y, th e
bar was set higher , an d sc ul pt ur al re pr es en ta ti on s ac co mp an ie d th e pu bl ic di sp la y
of in di vi du al s’ na me s — bu t th e in di vi du al s so ho no re d co nt in ue d to be ch os en by
the Athenian demos and not the other way around.
In keeping with the custom of disjunctive representation as described at the end
of Chapter 1, inscribed votive statues functioned as mnemata of their dedicators even
when they represented gods, heroes, or people other than the dedicators themselves.
In this sense, the display of the dedicator’s inscribed name functioned independent of
the sculptural representation to which it was attached. The perceived bond between
dedicator and offering was so powerful that, even when votive statues did not
represent their dedicators, the fates of the offerings were thought to mirror those of
their dedicators. Two famous examples center around the Athenians’ preparations
for the disastrous Sicilian expedition of 415 B.c. Plutarch (/Vicias 13.3 and de Pythiae
oraculis 397F) reports that, soon before the expedition was due to begin, a victory
monument dedicated at Delphi by the Athenians was attacked and ripped to pieces
by crows; the monument consisted of abronze palm tree topped by a golden Athena,
and it commemorated the Athenian defeat of the Persians at the Eurymedon river
50 years earlier.'* On the eve of the expedition, herm statues throughout the city
were mutilated, an extremely inauspicious omen for the Athenian demos as a whole
(Thucydides 6.27—28)."° In both cases, statuary monuments representing the gods
also “represented” the Athenians and presaged their fate. More examples can be
cited in which ancient authors leave the identities of the statues themselves unclear
because the point is not whom votive statues represented, but who dedicated them.

RoR ALD DINCG oP ACIS

RAN Sahin
PAUSANTIAS 22 REE GESTS

Recent years have seen a renewal of interest in Pausanias and his reevaluation as a
historian, a pilgrim, a travel writer, a historian ofart, a collector of local traditions —
and as a reader of inscriptions.*® Pausanias’ ten-book Periegesis mentions hun-
dreds of votive statue dedications still standing in Greek sanctuaries in the second
century A.C., and, in doing so, presents the results of an inquiry based upon reading

26
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

inscriptions, talking to local sources, and viewing statues of different ages, styles,
types, and materials. Far from being a guidebook or an all-encompassing catalog
of what Pausanias saw, the Periegesis takes its shape under the influence of its au-
thor’s selective and culturally determined agenda. Principles of selectivity govern
which monuments Pausanias mentions: he famously omits most of the Parthenon's
architectural sculptures, but he does say something about the cult statue in almost
every temple he visits, no matter how small and seemingly insignificant. He pursues
themes he considers appropriate to particular sites in his accounts of the sites he
visits, for instance the theme of athletics at Olympia, and these themes help to
determine which statues he chooses to mention.” Factors that typically go into his
selection of monuments to mention include who dedicated them, who made them,
and whom they represented.
Pausanias’ account of the Athenian Acropolis (1.22.4-1.28.3) provides a test case
for evaluating his performance as a reader of the inscriptions on statue bases. Some
of the monuments Pausanias saw survive, allowing us to compare Pausanias’ read-
ing with the actual content of their inscriptions.”” To facilitate this discussion of
Pausanias reading patterns, Appendix 1 breaks down his account of the Athenian
Acropolis into a list of the approximately 58 statues and statue groups he mentions.
Though lacunae and garbled passages in the manuscripts of Pausanias’ book on
Athens and Attica create some uncertainties, I will try to choose examples for dis-
cussion unaffected by textual problems. Only twice on the Acropolis does Pausanias
explicitly refer to the inscription on a statue base as the source for his information.
At 1.26.5, he reports that the inscription on a seated agalma of Athena says that
Kallias dedicated it and Endoios made it. The statue Pausanias saw has been iden-
tified by some as the Archaic marble Athena Acr. no. 625 (Fig. 10), but no inscribed
base with the names of Kallias and Endoios on it survives.”? Later in his account
(1.27.4), he reads an inscription to discover the identity of a small honorific por-
trait statue representing Syeris, a handmaid (diakonos) of the priestess Lysimache.
Pausanias more often cites oral sources (named or anonymous), as in his description
of a bronze statue of a lioness inside the Propylaia, which “most of the Athenians”
thought represented Leaina, the mistress of the tyrant-slayer Aristogeiton,
and an Aphrodite, which “they say is the anathema of Kallias and the work of
Kalamis.” If the latter dedication had an inscription on its base (it has been sug-
gested tha t DA A no. 136 wit h an ins cri pti on na mi ng Kal lia s and Kal ami s is the
base for this los t sta tue ), one is lef t to wo nd er wh y Pau san ias did not rea d it for
himself.
How do we know, then, that Pausanias read dedicatory inscriptions as a matter
of course? Oral recitals of the cont ents of insc ript ions by loca l auth orit ies were , in the
Roman period at leas t, as muc h a part the
of expe rien ce of visi ting a Gre ek sanc tuar y
as they are for visitors to the Athe ni an Ac ro po li s to da y. ** By th e ti me Pa us an ia s

27
ANATHEMATA

to. Archaic seated Athena

with aegis and gorgoneion
(Act. no. 625). Copyright
Deutsches Archaologisches
Institut-Athen, neg. nr.
7212935.

visited the Athenian Acropolis, statues dedicated there in the fifth century B.c.
were already between 600 and 700 years old, making it unlikely that oral traditions
that accurately reported the content of inscriptions could have survived without
continuing reference to the inscriptions themselves as a source. In general terms,
Pausanias’ high rate of accuracy, which has asserted itself more strongly over the
past 50 years or so as archaeological discoveries Hesh out the topography of ancient
sites, argues in favor of reading. The trick is to discover what Pausanias could have
learned only from reading inscriptions for himself rather than listening to guides
and sanctuary personnel.
One thing that is clear is that Pausanias (or whoever else read inscriptions and
related their contents to him) employed different reading patterns for traditional
votive statues inscribed with the X dedicated formula, for athletic victor statues
and for portrait statues dating to the fourth century and later periods that were
inscribed with honorific formulas naming the subject they represented. As the list

28
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

in Appendix 1 indicates, Pausanias showed equal interest in recording the names of

the sculptors of each type of statue he mentions in his account of the Acropolis:
cult statues, votive statues representing gods and heroes, mythological statue groups,
athletic victor statues, and human portraits. Any Athenian could probably have told
Pausanias which statues were made by Pheidias (1.24.8 and 28.2) without having to
read inscribed signatures, but the same is probably not true of the works Pausanias
attributes to the more obscure sculptors Kleoitas (1.24.3) and Deinomenes (1.25.1).
Pausanias more often records the names of the dedicators of votive statues repre-
senting gods than he does for either mythological statue groups or human portrait
statues. He could well have learned the names of famous dedicators such as the
sons of Themistokles (1.26.4), and also mythical ones such as the Athenian king
Kekrops (1.26.6), from oral sources, but inscriptions are a more likely source for
other, more obscure dedicator names.
A good case in point is the athletic victor Epicharinos (1.23.9), who dedicated
a statue representing himself on the Acropolis. Pausanias reference to a statue
representing Epicharinos practicing the race in armor (the Aoplitodromos, an athletic
event in the major Panhellenic festivals) made by Kritios must correspond with the
inscribed base DAA no. 120, which reads “Epicharinos the son of Opholonides
dedicated. Kritios and Nesiotes made it.” Epicharinos was not a famous athlete,
so it stands to reason that Pausanias identified his victor statue by reading the
inscription on its base; apparently he did not read the entire inscription, which may
have been weathered and abraded even in his own day, because he left out the name
of Nesiotes, the sculptor Kritios’ collaborator. Because the inscription says nothing
about athletics, Pausanias must have recognized the statue as a victor’s dedication
from its pose showing Epicharinos in action. He then assumed that the name he
read on the base would be that of both the dedicator and the athlete represented.
At Olympia, the inscriptions on the bases of athletic victor statues tended to be
more detailed than they were on the Athenian Acropolis, and Pausanias read them
to learn not only the names of the victors, but also their patronymics, home cities,
and the events in which they competed.”°
Pausanias’ treatment of human portrait statues other than athletic victor dedi-
cations presents a pro ble m. We kno w that som e port rait s repr esen ting indi vidu als
were dedicate d in sanc tuar ies usin g the trad itio nal X dedi cate d form ula, whi ch
named the dedicato r but not the subj ect the stat ue repr esen ted. In the four th cen-
tury, dedications of portrait stat ues insc ribe d with hono rifi c form ulas bega n; unli ke
traditional votive offerings, the insc ript ions on hono rifi c stat ues nam ed the pers on
represented either in the accu sati ve (“X dedi cate d Y”) or thr oug h a nam e labe l in the
nominative. Consequently, anci ent read ers such as Paus ania s wou ld have been able
to learn the name of the person re pr es en te d fr om ho no ri fi c in sc ri pt io ns , bu t not

29
ANATHEMATA

from traditional votive inscriptions. On th e Ac ro po li s, Pa us an ia s me nt io ns al mo st

as many portrait statues as he does st at ue s re pr es en ti ng go ds an d he ro es , bu t it is
unclear from his treatment of most of them wh et he r th ey we re X de di ca te d de di ca -
tions or honorifics because Pausanias does no t tel l us ex pl ic it ly th at he le ar ne d th ei r
identities by reading their inscriptions.
Though it is possible tha t Pau san ias re co gn iz ed ma ny of the por tra its he saw
from their iconography alone, in so me cas es we hav e rea son to thi nk tha t he did
read their inscripti ons , lo ok in g for the na me of the per son rep res ent ed. Pau san ias ’
(1.28.1) puzzlement ove r wh y the re wo ul d be a sta tue rep res ent ing Ky lo n, the six th-
century Olympic vic tor wh o at te mp te d to be co me tyr ant of At he ns , on the Ac ro po li s
ind ica tes tha t he rec ogn ize d the sta tue on ly by rea din g a na me lab el ins cri bed on
its bas e. Als o unl ike ly to be re co gn iz ed wi th ou t its ins cri pti on was the sta tue of
Syeris, handmaid of Lysimache, the famous fifth-century priestess of Athena Polias.
Pausanias (1.27.4) explicitly states that he read the inscription on the statue's base.
A fragmentary inscribed base that most likely belongs to the statue Pausanias saw
(IG II* 3464) features a name label reading “Syeris [daughter of___], handmaid
of Lysimache.”*7
Even when Pausanias does not explicitly mention reading inscriptions, perhaps
the next best evidence that he did read them comes from cases in which he notes a
conflict between what the name labels inscribed upon honorific statues say and the
subjects he thinks the statues really represented. One cause for such conflicts was
the practice of reinscribing old honorific statues with the names of new honorands,
which became common in Roman Greece and which was condemned by the orator
Dio Chrysostom in his Thirty-First Oration. Pausanias mentions several examples
of this practice: in the Prytaneion in Athens (1.18.3), he saw statues of Miltiades and
Themistokles that had been reinscribed as portraits of a Roman and a Thracian
(whom he himself declines to name). In the Kerameikos, Pausanias (1.2.4) saw
statues inscribed with other names but that he thought should represent Poseidon
on horseback fighting the giant Polybotes. A series of bronze eikones (portraits) in the
agora of Sikyon (2.9.7) were called the daughters of Proitos by locals in Pausanias
time, but the inscriptions on their bases named other subjects.
In his account of the Athenian Acropolis, as well as in the rest of his ten-
book Periegesis, Pausanias shows an interest in learning the names ofthe dedicators,
sculptors, and subjects of statues. He adapted his reading patterns to fit the genres of
inscriptions he expected to find in his visits to Greek sanctuaries. Like the women
in Herodas’ Fourth Miniambus, he pulled proper names out of longer inscribed
texts. Pausanias’ Periegesis reaffirms that the purpose of all kinds of statue base
inscriptions, including traditional votive dedications, victor statues, and honorific
inscriptions, was to ensure name preservation and the continuing association of the
statues displayed in Greek sanctuaries with the correct individuals.

30
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

EGE NRE OR WVOTIV.EsINS CRIP TIONS

Despite their large numbers, votive inscriptions as a genre tend to be overlooked

by studies of the Athenian “epigraphical habit” in the sixth and fifth centuries B.c.
Compared with most fifth-century decrees, the inscriptions on statue bases are short
and easy to read, with large letters and formulaic texts. Modern readers of ancient
Greek, when looking at a votive inscription from the Acropolis such as the one on
the stone support for Euthydikos’ kore (Fig. 2), will probably be struck by how easy
it is to make out the text EU8U8iKos ho Oadidpxo dvéexev (“Euthydikos the son
of Thaliarchos dedicated”), despite features of the inscription that make it different
from the Greek of modern printed books. Euthydikos’ dedicatory inscription is
typical for the lack of spaces between its words and for its use of the Attic alphabet,
a local script that the Athenians officially replaced with the more lucid and familiar
Ionic Greek alphabet in 403 B.c.
The chief characteristics of the Attic alphabet are the absence of the letters eta
(rn) and omega (), the use of the letter eta (called heta when used for this purpose) as
an aspirate approximating the English letter “h,” and the spelling of the diphthongs
omicron—upsilon (ou) and epsilon—iota (€1) as o and €, respectively. Most of these
features can be seen in the Euthydikos inscription: his father’s name in the genitive
(patronymic) has been spelled QOadid&pyxo instead of Oadic&pyou; avéOnkev, the
standard aorist (past-tense) form of the verb meaning “dedicated,” becomes
&véGexev; and the article 6 before the patronymic gets spelled with a consonant as
heta—omicron (ho).?°
Beyond the spelling of the inscription’s text, our hypothetical modern reader
might also remark upon the high quality ofthe letter carving, the survival of red paint
highlighting the letters against their background, and the fact that the inscription
consists of only four words inscribed in two lines. This short inscription could
have been planned by the letterer by lightly scratching the letters on the surface or
by painting them as prelim inary steps to determ ine both the spacing betwee n the
individual letters and where the text should begin and end on the rounde d surface
of the column capital. The letters in the second line of the inscrip tion have been
purposely lined up vertically below the letters in the line above it, a method of
layout familiar to Greek epigraphists as the stoiche don style. One atypica l feature of
Euthydikos’ dedication is the fact that the inscrib ed text as we have it is complet e.
A very high percentage of the Acropolis dedicat ions of the sixth and fifth centuri es
are fragmentary — in fact only 37 of the 330 statue base inscrip tions studied here are
complete — but the formulaic nature of these texts allows us to make sense of them,
and it no doubt aided ancient readers as well.
Locating the dedicatory inscri pt io n on th e ba se pr ob ab ly ma de it ea si er to re ad
than it wo ul d ha ve be en if in sc ri be d di re ct ly up on th e st at ue 's bo dy . At th e sa me ti me ,
ANATHEMATA

the structure and the physical shape of the co lu mn ba se us ed to su pp or t Eu th yd ik os ’

marble kore dedication have not be en ig no re d in th e pl an ni ng of th e in sc ri pt io n,
but rather exploited to make the text both vi si bl e an d vi su al ly in te re st in g. In st ea d
of carving the inscription vertically down th e co lu mn th at or ig in al ly su pp or te d th e
extant column capital, a conventi on pr ac ti ce d on ma ny of th e Ac ro po li s de di ca -
d
tions, the letterer has inscribe th e te xt ho ri zo nt al ly on th e ro un de d su rf ac e of th e
capital. To read the entire inscri pt io n, th e re ad er mu st wa lk ar ou nd th e st at ue fr om
left to right, an effe ct di ff ic ul t to re pr od uc e in ph ot og ra ph s, mu ch le ss in a pr in te d
transcription of the inscribed text. .
Votive inscriptions from the Acropolis such as the one accompanying
Eut hyd iko s’ Arc hai c kor e ded ica tio n cro ss the bou nda rie s bet wee n the rea lms of
mea nin g (co nce rne d wit h dec iph eri ng the text ), aes the tic s, and con tex t. In thi s
study of the Acropolis dedications, my major concern is context, but meaning and
aesthetics cannot be ignored without the risk of misunderstanding the dedications.”
Both the content and layout of the inscriptions on the Acropolis dedications may
have helped readers to find the names of the dedicator and sculptor, the characteristic
reading pattern for traditional votive inscriptions suggested by literary sources.

THE PRIMACY OF PROPER NAMES

The content of the Acropolis statue base inscriptions focused relentlessly on the
identity of the dedicator and his or her relationship with the recipient deity. This
content might amount to as little as a single proper name combined with some
form of the verb dvatf8nu1, as in Euthydikos’ dedicatory inscription, Alternatively,
the dedication might constitute a metrical prayer composed of several verses, but
still including the dedicator’s name. In addition, a significant percentage of these
statue bases also bore a sculptor’s signature, which could be distinguished from the
dedication by its use of a different verb, Troigeo, with dual or plural forms signaling
collaboration by more than one sculptor.*°
Four main tendencies characterized the layout of the Acropolis votive inscrip-
tions, and each one contributes toward the pattern of reading the inscriptions to
find proper names. These are the following: making the first word of the inscription
the dedicator’s name; visual or spatial differentiation of the sculptor’s signature from
the dedicatory text; the use of added punctuation between words; and the avoidance
ofdividing words between inscribed lines.
First, here are some general characteristics of the layout of the inscribed text on
the Acropolis statue bases. As many as 100 out of about 330 of these inscriptions
were inscribed with a single line of text.** The normal practice in both the sixth
and fifth centuries was not to center the text on the field of the statue base, but
to begin it in the upper left corner and to begin each line in a multiple-line text
directly beneath the first line rather than indenting it; when texts were inscribed

32
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

vertically down the front of column and pillar bases, each line begins close to the
top. Vertical inscriptions on rectangular pillars were not much more likely to be
centered on the inscribed face than horizontal inscriptions were: about three times
as many of these vertical inscriptions are shifted to the viewer's right or left as are
centered.** What this means is that the letterers who designed the inscriptions did
not necessarily appeal to symmetry as their guiding principle, and the reasons why
the inscriptions were placed where they were may ultimately have been determined
by a desire to coordinate the reading of the inscribed text with the viewing of the
statue. The asymmetry of inscriptions on statue bases also extends to the length of
the inscribed lines. Inscribing lines of equal length was unusual; it was much more
common for multiple-line inscriptions to be laid out in such a way that the first line
was the longest, and the last line was the shortest.3
There is a very strong bias in the Acropolis dedications toward making the
dedicator’s name the first word of the inscription; the only factor working against
this trend is the use of meter in dedicatory inscriptions. Out of my working total
of 330 inscribed statue bases, I count 87 in which the dedicator’s name was the first
word of the inscription’s first line, compared with only 29 examples in which it
definitely was not: this is a ratio of approximately 3:1.54 The rest of the texts are
too fragmentary to be absolutely certain, and I have erred on the side of caution.
Twenty-three of the 29 inscriptions in which the dedicator’s name is not the first
word of the text are metrical, compared with 13 of the 86 in which the name comes
first. In the hexametric and elegiac meters used in the Acropolis votive inscriptions,
the placement of the dedicator’s name depended upon where the name could fit
in the metrical structure, and it is for this reason that most of the metrical texts
displace the name from the first position, embedding it more deeply within the
inscribed text.

SiG@Wiap TORS LGIN AURIS

The complete na me s of a tot al of 30 dif fer ent scu lpt ors (an d two fr ag me nt ar y
names) appear on the Acr opo lis sta tue bas es, an d sev era l of the se scu lpt ors sig ned
more than one base (see Appe nd ix 2). To ge th er the y sig ned 52 ded ica tio ns, but the re
are another 19 statue bases that preser ve the ver b tro iéc but not the scu lpt or’ s na me
or are for some other reason likely to hav e had a scu lpt or’ s sig nat ure .» On ly two
of the sixth- and fifth-centur y Acr opo lis scu lpt ors , En do io s and Phi ler gos , sig ned
funerary monuments found in Athens and Attica . It is als o str iki ng tha t of the
Acropolis sculptors only the names of Eu ph ro n of Par os and Pyt his hav e tur ned
up on dedica tio ns fo un d els ewh ere in At he ns an d Att ica , an d tha t bas es sig ned by
only 10 of the 30 hav e bee n fo un d in oth er cit ies an d in Pan hel len ic san ctu ari es. In
contrast, the sur viv al of the na me s of 19 out of 30 Acr opo lis scu lpt ors in Ro ma n
period literary wo rk s su gg es ts ju st h o w th or ou gh ly R o m a n au th or s an d th ei r Gr ee k

33
ANATHEMATA

predec es so rs co mb ed th e Ac ro po li s an d ot he r si te s, lo ok in g fo r th e na me s an d wo rk s
of th e sc ul pt or s of th e si xt h an d fi ft h ce nt ur ie s.
One of the most characterist ic fe at ur es of th e Ac ro po li s st at ue ba se in sc ri pt io ns
was the visual differentiation of th e de di ca ti on fr om th e sc ul pt or ’s si gn at ur e. Th e
most basic form of differ en ti at io n wa s si mp ly to be gi n a ne w lin e fo r th e si gn at ur e;
there is only one Acropo li s in sc ri pt io n in wh ic h th e sc ul pt or ’s si gn at ur e do es no t
begin a new line.3° In ma ny cas es, ad di ti on al de vi ce s be yo nd st ar ti ng a ne w lin e
were empl oy ed by th e let ter er to en su re th at th e re ad er wo ul d re co gn iz e th e sig -
nature an d di st in gu is h it fr om th e de di ca ti on . Th es e de vi ce s ca n be di vi de d in to
several ca te go ri es , an d so me of th e Ac ro po li s sta tue ba se s be lo ng to mo re th an on e
category.*”

V.OIELVIESINS GRIP TION SSAND LITERACY

The Acropolis dedications, as the largest genre of Athenian inscriptions on stone

until the end of the fifth century, do carry some important implications for lit-
eracy in the Archaic and Classical periods. Both the formulaic character of these
dedications, and the tendency of the names of the dedicator and the sculptor to
figure prominently within the inscribed text, would have enabled even poor read-
ers to master their essential content. Partial reading aimed at pulling the names of
the dedicator and the sculptor out of longer inscribed texts may even have been
anticipated and encouraged by the typical word order and layout of dedications.
The Acropolis dedications do not present the same obstacles to their consultation
as records as did other genres of inscribed texts, such as temple inventories.** In
general, votive inscriptions minimized the impact of the practice of running words
together as an obstacle to easy reading through devices such as the differentiation
of the sculptor’s signature from the dedication and added punctuation.*? In terms
of inherent legibility, not all inscriptions on stone were created equal, and ancient
readers’ expectations must have been conditioned by the genres of texts they actually
encountered in their daily lives.4°
Only the presence of an inscription including the dedicator’s name could ensure
that a votive statue would be attributed to the correct dedicator. In practice, writing
was not a transparent form of communication in ancient Athens; however, no form
of communication ever has been transparent. In the final analysis, some points about
the inscriptions on the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis dedications deserve special
emphasis. Votive inscriptions, like the votive statues that are the subject of this study,
require a contextual approach. The numbers of votive inscriptions preserved from
the Athenian Acropolis in the sixth and fifth centuries make such an approach
uniquely possible. The readers of votive statue inscriptions on the Acropolis in the

34
 VOTIVE STATUE INSCRIPTIONS

sixth and fifth centuries did not read them to learn what subjects these statues
represented; in the absence of any inscribed text providing this information, the
answer must have been derived from the context of the sanctuary. One reading
pattern I have identified in this chapter, namely the pattern of reading dedicatory
inscriptions to learn the name of the dedicator, was specific to this genre and
culturally determined. Its recognition need not be constrained by the terms of
modern debates about ancient literacy.

35
 NOTHING TO DO WITH
DEMOCRACY? VOTIVE STATUES
AND ATHENIAN HISTORY

he desire to cor rel ate arc hae olo gic al fin ds wit h Gr ee k his tor y goe s ba ck
to the very origins of Classical Archaeology as a scholarly discipline." Much
of the interpretive value of the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis dedications
deri ves fro m the pres erva tion of a seri es of arch aeol ogic al arte fact s, or rath er the
coincidence of two different series: the extant marble sculptures, chiefly the Archaic
korai, and the inscribed statue bases. These two series span the period in Athenian
history marked by the tyranny of Peisistratos and his sons from ca. 561 to 510 B.C.
and the reforms of Kleisthenes in 508/7. As the chief civic sanctuary of Athens,
the Acropolis seems an ideal place to explore the effects of these historical events
upon the practice of dedicating votive statues over the course of the sixth and fifth
centuries. What is more, the lack of contemporary historical narratives for Athenian
history before the mid-fifth century makes the Acropolis dedications one of the few
primary sources we have for the major events such as the Peisistratid tyranny and
Kleisthenes’ reforms.
But for what exactly are the dedications a source? What effect (if any) did
the sociopolitical forces at work in Athens over the course of the sixth and fifth
centuries have upon the form, frequency, and chronological distribution of votive
statue dedications on the Acropolis? In recent scholarship on Athenian art, there has
been a great deal of interest in measuring the effects of both tyranny and democracy
upon the archaeological record. An important milestone in the “archaeology of
tyranny” has been the series of studies by John Boardman arguing for a connection
between the popularity of Herakles in Athenian black figure vase painting and
the tyranny of Peisistratos: according to Boardman, the Herakles vase scenes in
some way reflect Peisistratos’ attempts to associate himself with this particular hero,
Other, more wide-reaching studies of the effects ofthe tyranny of Peisistratos and his
sons upon the iconographic repertoire of Athenian art, in particular vase painting
and architectural sculpture, have followed, though the extent of the impact of
contemporary Athenian politics upon the arts remains open to debate.* In turn,
the 2,5ooth anniversary of the democratic reforms of Kleisthenes in 1992-1993 has

36
 NotHInG To Do with Democracy? VorTIvE STATUES AND ATHENIAN HIsToRY

given rise to the “archaeology of democracy,” based upon the analogous premise
that democracy exerted some influence over the arts in Athens.}
From the very beginning, a desire to see the effects of both tyranny and demo-
cracy upon the practice of dedicating votive statues on the Acropolis runs through
practically all studies of the statues — in particular the marble korai, the most
common statue type attested on the Acropolis in the Archaic period — and the
inscribed statue bases. Ultimately, chronology is the tool that makes all correlations
between events in Athenian history and archaeological artefacts possible; it serves
as the foundation for all claims of a cause-and-effect relationship between these
events and statue dedications on the Acropolis. For this reason, we need to consider
carefully where the chronologies we use to date both statues and statue bases come
from, and how they work.
Correlating archaeological series such as the kore statues and the inscribed
statue bases from the Acropolis with Athenian history risks committing what
Anthony Snodgrass has termed “the positivist fallacy,” which “holds that archaeo-
logical prominence and historical prominence are much the same thing; that the
observable phenomena are by definition the significant phenomena.” The crux of
the problem is the assumption “that archaeology and history are operating in essen-
tially the same order of historical reality; that archaeological observations are made,
so to speak, in the same language as historical statements. In fact the overlap between
the two is small and occurs, in the main, only in those cases where the activities of
a significant part of the community are directly influenced by contemporar y his-
torical events.”* The chronology and shape of the Acropolis series ultimately may
not “mean” anything in sociopolitical terms, even though the two Acropolis series
(marble sculptures and inscribed statue bases) are more comprehensiv e than those
published from other sanctuaries and belong to Athens, the Greek polis we under-
stand best. Neither the archaeology of tyranny nor the archaeology of democracy
adequately explains the statue de di ca ti on s on th e At he ni an Ac ro po li s.

PH BeLOR O P O R I S * S T A T U E S E R I E S : ?
VHEMPEISIS PRAT I D = " G A P * * A N DU TH E
PbS F H M C B U L G E *

Relative stylis ti c ch ro no lo gi es ha ve pr ov ed fu nd am en ta l to th e st ud y of Gr ee k an d
Roman art and archaeol og y — an d a le ga cy of th e “G re at Tr ad it io n” cr it ic iz ed by
proponents ofdifferen t me th od ol og ie s. ’ T h e ba se un it of an y re la ti ve ch ro no lo gi ca l
sequence is a set of fixe d po in ts , na me ly bu il di ng s, st at ue s, va se s, or in sc ri pt io ns
datable by their relationshi p to hi st or ic al ev en ts t h e m s e l v e s d a t e d w i t h ce rt ai nt y. T h e

37
ANATHEMATA

process of formulating a relati ve c h r o n o l o g i c a l s e q u e n c e b a s e d u p o n fi xe d p o i n t s

involves taking other m o n u m e n t s o f th e s a m e or di ff er en t g e n r e s a n d s t r i n g i n g t h e m
between fixed points to m a k e a c o n t i n u u m s t r e t c h i n g f r o m a d e f i n e d b e g i n n i n g p o i n t
to an end poi n t . ® T h e ba si c c h a l l e n g e th e fi xe d p o i n t s t h e m s e l v e s p r e s e n t is th at
they should be b e y o n d c o n t r a d i c t i o n a n d i m m u n e to al te rn at iv e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . I n
practice, t h o u g h , th es e c o n d i t i o n s ar e a l m o s t ne ve r me t: th e in te re st s o f t h e a n c i e n t
a u t h o r s w h o c o n n e c t m o n u m e n t s ex pl ic it ly w i t h ev en ts , fo r th e A r c h a i c p e r i o d a n d
the fifth century principally Herodotus and T h u c y d i d e s , s e l d o m c o i n c i d e w i t h t h o s e
of modern scholars looking for absolute fi , xe d da te s. S o m e m o n u m e n t s c o n s i d e r e d
by earlier scholars to be reliable fixed poi n t s h a v e si nc e fa ll en b y th e w a y s i d e ; ot he rs
rejected out o f h a n d ea rl y on m a y b e d u e fo r re ha bi li ta ti on .’
On the Acropolis in the six th and fift h cen tur ies , we are in fac t dea lin g wit h
two separate relative chr ono log ies , one for mar ble scu lpt ure and one for ins cri bed
sta tue bas es, for mul ate d and emp loy ed ind epe nde ntl y des pit e the fac t tha t the se
two series of artefacts orginally combined to form statue dedications. The reason
why is that the actual overlap between the two series remains minimal: only four
of the well-preserved marble statues found on the Acropolis can be matched with
extant inscribed statue bases. The separate relative chronologies for sculpture and
inscriptions formulated by Classical archaeologists and epigraphers over the course
of the past 100 years or so constitute the foundation for all correlations between these
artefacts and important events in Athenian history. In the period with which this
book is concerned, the sixth and fifth centuries, monuments dated with absolute
certainty are rare. Historical correlations are based upon links made by modern
scholars between absolutely dated historical events and relatively dated artefacts.
The Archaic statues from the Athenian Acropolis have been interpreted in two
different ways corresponding to two different versions of the relative chronology
for Archaic sculpture. The original theory correlates a perceived gap in the series
of statue dedications with the tyrant Peisistratos’ rule of Athens; the second and
more recent theory stresses that a bulge seems to occur in Acropolis dedications
after the removal of the tyrants and Kleisthenes’ institution of a new, more broad-
based political system. This shift in chronology and interpretation over the course
of twentieth-century scholarship aligns with changes in the modern perception of
Late Archaic Athens: the archaeology of democracy has asserted itself in English-
and German-language scholarship as a counterpoint to the archaeology of tyranny,
and both have been invoked as explanatory mechanisms for changes apparent in
the archaeological record. These mechanisms rely upon relative chronologies to
establish associations between either the Peisistratid tyranny or the post-Kleisthenic
democracy and the abundant but confusing sequence of buildings, sculptures, vase
paintings, and other artefacts produced by Athens in the century before the P
ersian
sack of the Acropolis in 480 B.c.

38
 Noruine To Do with Democracy? Votive STATUES AND ATHENIAN HISTORY

Ernst Langlotz, the Classical archaeologist largely responsible for linking the
relative chronologies of Archaic sculpture and vase painting to one another, con-
tributed a study of the korai and other female figures in marble (seated statues and
Nikai) to Hans Schrader’s comprehensive 1939 publication of the Archaic marble
sculptures found on the Acropolis.* Langlotz’ catalog includes 54 well-preserved
examples of the kore type; the overall total of female statues and fragments comes to
297 items, including several heads and drapery fragments that could belong either
to korai or to the other female types. In his introduction, Langlotz noted that,
according to his own stylistic ordering of the korai, only three dated to the first
third of the sixth century and only four or so to the period of ca. 560-527 B.c., the
period corresponding with the tyranny of Peisistratos in Athens. He described the
third quarter of the sixth century (ca. 550-525) as a gap in the kore sequence and
suggested a historical explanation: the restriction of access to the Acropolis, the site
of the tyrant family’s residence.?
As Raubitschek rightly pointed out, Langlotz’ comments on the chronology of
the korai conflict with the numbers given by his own chronological chart, where
6 kore statues and 1 female head date ca. 560 or before, 9 korai date between ca. 550
and ca. 530, 19 korai and 6 heads date between ca. 520 and ca. 500, and only 6 korai
and 1 head date between ca. 500 and ca. 480."° Instead of a gap, Langlotz’ kore chart
seems to describe an upward curve increasing steadily before a sharper increase in
the last quarter of the sixth century, and then falling off again in the first quarter of
the fifth. Despite the discrepancy between Langlotz’ kore chronology and his own
interpretation ofit, the Peisistratid gap in the Acropolis dedications continues to be
cited by ancient historians."

Ry ReAINeT SeAINDDatseeANL WES

When one app roa che s his tor ica l cor rel ati ons suc h as the one mad e by Lan glo tz,
it is all too easy to forget that the abs olu te dat es of Pei sis tra tos ’ tyr ann y itse lf are
not certain. The problem ste ms fro m the inc omp ati bil ity of Her odo tus ’ tes tim ony
with the account of the Ari sto tel ian Ath ena ion Poli teia , whi ch in tur n con tra dic ts
itself. The Ath. Pol. (14-15 and 17.1) dat es the beg inn ing of Pei sis tra tos ’ firs t tyr ann y
to the archonship of Komeas, now tho ugh t to be the yea r 561 /o. "* Acc ord ing to
Herodotus (5.65.3), Peisistratos and his son s rul ed Ath ens for a tota l of 36 year s.
This total has to be'reconciled with the beg inn ing dat e for the tyr ann y, the dea th
of Peisistratos in 528/7, the exile of Hip pia s in 511 /10 , and the fact tha t Pei sis tra tos
himself rul ed Ath ens as tyr ant for thr ee sep ara te per iod s div ide d by two per iod s of
exile. Her oto dus ’ nar rat ive imp lie s tha t the firs t two tyr ann ies wer e muc h sho rte r
than the thi rd, the per iod dur ing whi ch the tyr ann y “to ok roo t”; but the Ath . Pol s
figures for the dur ati on of the exil es mak e the thi rd per iod “im pla usi bly sho rt. ”
P. J. Rhodes’ solu ti on in vo lv es sh or te ni ng th e fi rs t an d se co nd ty ra nn ie s to on e

39
ANATHEMATA

year each in order to re co nc il e Ar is to tl e a n d H e r o d o t u s . ” * W h a t th is m e a n s fo r ou r

purposes is that the o n l y pa rt of th e si xt h ce nt ur y it is sa fe to ca ll “P ei si st ra ti d” is th e
third quarter of the ce nt ur y a n d th e pe ri od b e t w e e n Pe is is tr at os de at h a n d H i p p i a s
expulsion, or ca. 550—5IO B.C.
Langlotz’ Pe is is tr at id ga p fo st er s th e la rg er id ea th at th e Gr ee k ty ra nt s of th e
Archaic pe ri od re st ri ct ed st at ue de di ca ti on s in th e sa nc tu ar ie s un de r th ei r co nt ro l.
Th e im pa ct of Pe is is tr at os an d hi s so ns up on th e At he ni an Ac ro po li s is pa rt ic ul ar ly
di ff ic ul t to as se ss be ca us e of th e mo de rn co nf us io n su rr ou nd in g th e bu il di ng hi s-
tory of the Archaic Acropolis. The theory th at Pe is is tr at os ’ fa mi ly bu il t a re si de nc e
on the Acropolis gains support from the ex am pl e of ot he r si xt h- ce nt ur y ty ra nt s,
but unfortunately not from any id en ti fi ab le bu il di ng re ma in s. ” O n e (a dm it te dl y
obliqu e) ob je ct io n to a Pe is is tr at id re si de nc e on th e Ac ro po li s is He ro do tu s’ (1 .5 9)
conten ti on th at , as ty ra nt , Pe is is tr at os di d no th in g to di st ur b th e of fi ce s an d la ws
of Athens. A comp et in g hy po th es is wo ul d pu t th e Pe is is tr at id s in Bu il di ng F in th e
At he ni an ag or a, co nv en ie nt ly re mo vi ng th e ne ce ss it y to fi nd a pl ac e fo r th em on an
already crowded Acropolis.’
Even if the Peisistratids lived on the Acropolis, it does not automatically follow
that they interfered with the practice of dedicating statues in the sanctuary of Athena
or with any other cult ritual.’” Langlotz gap in the Acropolis statue dedications fore-
shadows more recent claims that Greek tyrants other than Peisistratos discouraged
or impeded local aristocracies from dedicating statues in civic sanctuaries. Aristotle's
comment, in Oeconomica 2.1.1346b7—13, on Lygdamis of Naxos describes his treat-
ment of votive statues and the aristocrats who commissioned them:

Having exiled his opponents, he found that no one would give him a fair
price for their property, so he sold it back to the exiles. And their anathemata,
which were lying around the workshops half-finished, he also sold back to
the exiles and to anyone else who would buy them, allowing each purchaser
to have his name inscribed on the offering.”

Though the reference to anathemata in this passage could conceivably refer to vo-
tive offerings other than statues, statues are the most likely kind of anathemata
one would find lying half-finished in workshops. This particular passage has been
taken to imply that Lygdamis’ tyranny hindered the Naxian aristocracy from com-
missioning and dedicating statues, and consequently hastened the demise of the
Naxian school of marble sculpture.'? From there, the next step is to see the typical
marble statue dedications of the Archaic period, in particular the kouroi and korai,
as blatantly aristocratic in ethos, and for that reason discouraged by tyrants in their
drive to outmaneuver their aristocratic compatriots.”° Yet as Aristotle tells the story,
Lygdamis’ ostensible aim was to make money by selling the personal property of

40
 NotTHING To Do witH DEMOocRACY? VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN History

aristocratic families he had exiled from Naxos, and that property included statue
dedications that had been commissioned but not yet dedicated in sanctuaries.” In
the end, Lygdamis succeeded in selling the unfinished statues along with the other
property, even though some had to be sold back to the exiles themselves.
As an isolated anecdote, Aristotle's account of Lygdamis’ tyranny does not
attest Opposition to votive statues as such, but only to the local aristocrats that
Lygdamis sent into exile. The anathemata in this story presumably went on to be
dedicated in sanctuaries by their purchasers, just as they would have been by the
exiles who commissioned them in the first place. The marble statue series from
Naxos and the Samian Heraion have also’ been cited as evidence that Lygdamis
and his Samian counterpart Polykrates put a stop to statue dedications: the great
majority of the extant marble statues from these sites have been dated stylisti-
cally before the beginning of Lygdamis’ and Polykrates’ tyrannies.** Yet, without
a sizable published series of statue bases from either Naxos or Samos, it is im-
possible to tell to what extent bronze statue dedications had replaced marble ones
before the end of the Archaic period; the marble statues alone may not tell the
full story, and the perception they create that freestanding sculpture stopped being
dedicated may be misleading. Samos in particular had an illustrious ancient repu-
tation as a center for large-scale bronze sculpture, of which very few remnants have
survived.”
It remains to be demonstrated that an y Ar ch ai c Gr ee k ty ra nt co ns id er ed st at ue
dedica ti on s as da ng er ou s as ot he r fo rm s of pu bl ic di sp la y by ar is to cr at s, su ch as
victorie s in th e Pa nh el le ni c fe st iv al s. ** Th e co nn ec ti on be tw ee n ty ra nt s an d st at ue
dedications ha s to be re co ns id er ed in de pe nd en t of La ng lo tz ’ re la ti ve ch ro no lo gy an d
comparisons wi th Na xo s an d Sa mo s. Th e te mp le -b ui ld in g pr og ra m of Po ly kr at es ,
the sixth-century tyrant of Sa mo s, in th e Sa mi an He ra io n ma y ha ve cr ea te d pr ac ti ca l
obstacles for individuals wh o wi sh ed to de di ca te st at ue s in th e sa nc tu ar y wh il e
construction was in pr og re ss , bu t th is is no t th e sa me or de r of bu si ne ss as pr oh ib it in g
statue dedications in th e sa nc tu ar y. Si nc e La ng lo tz pu bl is he d hi s sc ul pt ur al ca ta lo g,
the notion of widespread ar is to cr at ic ex il e un de r th e At he ni an ty ra nt s ha s lo st gr ou nd
in th e fa ce of ev id en ce th at Kl ei st he ne s hi ms el f, an Al km eo ni d, se rv ed as ar ch on
in 52 5/ 4 wh en Hi pp ia s wa s ty ra nt .” In an y ca se , th e At he ni an ty ra nn y ma y no t be
wholly analogous to th e co nt em po ra ry on es on Na xo s an d Sa mo s.
Sumptuary laws of the Ar c h a i c a n d Cl as si ca l p e r i o d s re st ri ct in g th e si ze , co st ,
f u n e r a r y m o n u m e n t s ar e we ll at te st ed in th e G r e e k w o r l d . In A t h e n s ,
and format of
the end of th e A r c h a i c se ri es o f f u n e r a r y m o n u m e n t s in ca . 4 8 0 is us ua ll y at tr ib ut ed
y l a w m e n t i o n e d b y C i c e r o ( D e L e g i b u s 2 . 2 6 . 6 4 — 6 6 ) , th e so -c al le d
to a sumptuar
l a w . In co nt ra st , th er e is s i m p l y no e p i g r a p h i c a l or li te ra ry e v i d e n c e
post aliquanto
d e d i c a t i o n s in G r e e k sa nc tu ar ie s w e r e su bj ec t to le ga l re st ri ct io ns
that votive statue
e s u m p t u a r y l a w s i n v o k e d a g a i n s t f u n e r a r y m o n u m e n t s a n d
comparable with th

4I
ANATHEMATA

rituals. Both sacred law a n d c u s t o m re st ri ct ed ac ce ss to G r e e k sa nc tu ar ie s a n d te m-

ples, but regulati on s g o v e r n i n g th e p l a c e m e n t o f a n a t h e m a t a c o n c e r n e d pr ac ti ca l
issues of ac ce ss , o v e r c r o w d i n g , a n d ca re ta ki ng ra th er th an th e ri gh t to de di ca te in
the first pl ac e. ?7 In f o u r t h - c e n t u r y At he ns , ci vi c of fi ci al s we re n o r m a l l y p r o h i b i t e d
from m a k i n g de di ca ti on s wh il e in of fi ce , bu t he re th e d a n g e r o f e m b e z z l e m e n t f r o m
the tr ea su ry b y an nu al of fi ce ho ld er s wa s a le gi ti ma te co nc er n. ”® In s o m e ca se s, oa th
breakers were required by Greek states to de di ca te st at ue s in sa nc tu ar ie s: th e Z a n e s
at Olympia are the best-known exa m p l e , bu t a c c o r d i n g to Pl at o ( P h a e d r u s 2 3 5 D )
and Plutarch (Solon 25.2), A t h e n i a n ar ch on s w h o vi ol at ed th ei r oa th of of fi ce we re
n
required to dedicate a golde po rt ra it st at ue at De lp hi . T h e u t o p i a n ci ty de sc ri be d
in Plato’s Laws (955e- 95 6b ) w o u l d re st ri ct th e si ze , ty pe , a n d ma te ri al of vo ti ve of -
s,
fering bu t th is fe at ur e ha s to be v i e w e d in li gh t of th e L a w s bl an ke t di sa pp ro va l of
private, indivi du al re li gi ou s ac ti vi ty , in cl ud in g th e sa cr if ic es c o m m o n l y p e r f o r m e d
by families in real Greek poleis.”
In the absence of literary and epigraphical evidence for regulations restricting
their size, form, and cost, we may prefer to think of votive statue dedications as
being governed by custom rather than sacred law. Sanctuary tradition validated and
respected certain occasions for dedicating statues, such as agonistic victory, and the
ritual mechanisms of first-fruits, tithe, and vow fulfillment. In the politics of piety,
votive display was both a self-imposed and a self-regulated obligation; on exceptional
occasions, the bounds of propriety were policed by the community. Interestingly,
fifth-century controversies about votive offerings centered upon dedicators who
inscribed their own names on collective offerings; in the case of the Eion herms
discussed in Chapter 2, Kimon did not exercise the privilege of inscribing his own
name on a victory monument for a battle the Athenian demos had won collectively.
In these cases, inappropriate name display was subject to criticism, but the necessity
to give the gods their due through dedications could scarcely be challenged.

RLEISTHENES*AND THE“YCROPOLIS
The Acropolis statue bases, because they supported both marble and bronze
sculptures, should serve as a check upon historical correlations (such as that by
Langlotz) that take into account only surviving marble statues dedicated on the
Acropolis. As it happens, Raubitschek’s chronology for the Acropolis statue bases
produces a significantly different chronological distribution from Langlotz’ gap:
a major bulge in statue dedications between ca. 510 and ca. 480 B.C. following a
lesser increase in the last quarter of the sixth century. The post-5ro bulge effect is
equally pronounced in the revised relative chronology for the Acropolis statue bases
produced by the editors of JG I: here 210 as opposed to 208 statue dedications have
been dated between ca. sto and ca. 480 out of a total of 330 for the sixth and fifth
centuries.

42
 Nortuinc To Do with Democracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN HISTORY

The discrepancy between Langlotz’ original chronology for the Acropolis ko-
rai and Raubitschek’s bulge chronology for the statue bases was one factor that
led E. B. Harrison to revise the entire relative chronology for Archaic Athenian
sculpture downward, redating the majority of the korai to the Late Archaic period,
between ca. 500 and ca. 480 B.c.*° Harrison’s influential discussion of chronology
in turn marked the beginning of a trend over the past 30 years to lower the dates
of Athenian sculpture, pottery, and architecture falling within the chronological
limits of ca. 570 and ca. 470 B.c. As a consequence, the bulge chronologies for
both the Acropolis korai and the statue bases have been accepted and, like Langlotz’
Peisistratid gap, used to support a correlation between statue dedications on the
Acropolis and Athenian history. In this reading of the Acropolis series, the sharp
increase in dedications has been interpreted as a result of Kleisthenes’ reforms of
508/7 B.c.: the democratic bulge has supplanted the tyrannical gap, and even been
combined with it.
In Raubitschek’s original formulation of the bulge chronology, the bulge in
Acropolis dedications includes a sizeable group of offerings made by nonaristocrats.
Included under this rubric are dedicators who included their occupation (e.g.,
fuller, tanner, washerwoman) in the inscriptions on their offerings, as well as other
dedicators identified as vase painters or potters by name matches with the craftsmen’s
signatures on Athenian black and red figure pottery. In his relative chronology, every
one of these dedications dates after ca. 525, and most of them date after ca. 510 B.C.
The earliest of the group is the so-called Antenor’s kore and its base (Figs. 11 and 12),
identified as a dedication of the Athenian black figure potter Nearchos and dated
by Raubitschek to ca. 525-510 B.c. Taking the dates assigned to these nonaristo-
cratic dedications by his relative chronology as a given, Raubitschek proceeded to
interpret their appearance on the Acropolis in light of Athenian social and political
conditions:

The many dedications erected by ar ti sa ns in di ca te th e gr ea t im po rt an ce of

industry, and especially pottery, at At he ns . It is no te wo rt hy th at all th es e
dedications are later than 525 B.c., an d mo st of th em ca n be da te d af te r
s10 B.C. It is, therefore, safe to assume th at th e At he ni an B& va uc ol , wh o
became wealthy in the course ofth e se co nd h a of
l fth e si xt h ce nt ur y, ga in ed
social standing as well whe n th e d e m o c r a c y wa s es ta bl is he d. **

This sc en ar io ac co mo da te s se em in gl y co nt ra di ct or y in di ca ti on s, su ch as th e
dating of one part ic ul ar de di ca ti on (t he Ne ar ch os /A nt en or ko re ) be fo re th e en d of
the Peisistratid ty ra nn y, by pl ac in g th e gr ow th in pr os pe ri ty of At he ni an ba na us oi
(manual laborers) under th e ty ra nn y wh il e th e de di ca ti on s se en as th e re su lt of

that prosperity mani fe st th em se lv es pr im ar il y af te r Kl ei st he ne s’ po li ti ca l re fo rm s.

43
ANATHEMATA

i. An te no r’ s ko re (A cr . no . 68 1) . Co py ri gh t
Deutsc he s Ar ch ao lo gi sc he s In st it ut -A th en ,
neg. nr. Akr. 1674.

Lambert Schneider and Christoph Hocker, in their popular account of the

Acropolis, take essentially the same tack: the Peisistratid tyranny created an Athenian
commercial class, but Kleisthenes’ reforms were needed to open up characteristically
aristocratic forms of “Selbstdarstellung” (self-representation) such as votive statue
dedications to this wider social group.®
Renate Télle-Kastenbein, in a recent article on the Acropolis kore series, uses
a later dating for the Nearchos/Antenor kore (moved down from Raubitschek’s
ca. 525-510 to ca. 510) to correlate the entire phenomenon of nonaristocratic or
“banausic” dedications with Kleisthenes’ democratic reforms. Her reading of the
kore series also revives Langlotz’ tyrannical gap, but puts it later: in her ordering of
the extant statues, the earliest Acropolis korai with Ionian stylistic traits date to the
tyranny of Peisistratos, followed by a gap in votive statue dedications of all types

44
 NoTHING To Do witu DEeMocracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN HIsTORY

12. Inscribed base (DAA no. 197 ) for An te no r’ s ko re (Ac r. no. 681 ). Co py ri gh t
Deutsches Arch ao lo gi sc he s In st it ut -A th en , neg . nr. Sc hr ad er 41.

(not only korai) between the death of Pe is is tr at os in 52 8/ 7 an d Hi pp ia s’ ex pu l-

sion from Athens in 510. The subsequent bu lg e in th e ko ra i (t he “H au pt gr up pe ,”
sculptur es of lo we r ar ti st ic qu al it y pr od uc ed by At he ni an cr af ts me n ra th er th an
Ionian immi gr an ts ) th en co rr el at es wi th Kl ei st he ne s’ re fo rm s an d in cl ud es no t on ly
banausic or craftsmen’s dedication s bu t al so de di ca ti on s by wo me n. **
In cont ra st to th es e th eo ri es , I wo ul d ar gu e th at , as an ex pl an at or y me ch an is m
for statue dedi ca ti on s on th e Ac ro po li s, Kl ei st he ne s’ re fo rm s ar e no le ss pr ob le ma ti c
than a Peisistratid pr oh ib it io n. An y co nn ec ti on be tw ee n vo ti ve st at ue de di ca ti on s
and the Athenian de mo cr ac y ri sk s be co mi ng a “p os t ho c, er go pr op te r ho c” ar -
gument: statues and base s da te d af te r th e de mo cr at ic re fo rm s by th ei r re sp ec ti ve
relative chronologies are he ld to ha ve be en de di ca te d as a re su lt of th e de mo cr ac y.
Su ch an ar gu me nt as si gn s th e st at us of fa ct to a ch ro no lo gi ca l sy st em th at is it se lf a
theoretical, interpretive to ol . T h e d e m o c r a t i c co rr el at io ns th at h a v e b e e n p r o p o s e d
ANATHEMATA

use a small componen t of th e b u l g e in th e Ac ro po li s st at ue de di ca ti on s, n a m e l y th os e

attributed to po tt er s a n d ot he r ba na us oi , to ch ar ac te ri ze th e et ho s b e h i n d th e b u l g e
as a democ r a t i c on e. H o w e v e r , if o n l y a sm al l n u m b e r o f th e po st -s 10 de di ca to rs
can be iden ti fi ed as no na ri st oc ra ts , we re th e re st o f th e de di ca to rs w h o m a k e u p th e
bu lg e ar is to cr at s? If so , w h y di d t h e y to o de di ca te st at ue s in gr ea te r n u m b e r s af te r
Kleisthenes’ reforms than before them?
Two underlying assumptions br ou gh t to li gh t by th e de mo cr at ic bu lg e th eo ri es
have to be challenged. The first is th at Kl ei st he ne s’ re fo rm s we re de mo cr at ic in
the radical, later-fifth-century sens e of th e te rm , or in he re nt ly an ti ar is to cr at ic in
ethos. The precise nature of Kl ei st he ne s’ ac ti on s is su rp ri si ng ly po or ly at te st ed
by the ancient sources availabl e, an d hi s un de rl yi ng mo ti va ti on s li e ev en fa rt he r
beyond modern hi st or ia ns ’ co mp as s. ?° Th e id ea th at so ci al an d po li ti ca l te ns io ns
n
betwee ar is to cr at s an d At he ni an s of lo we r st at us we re ex pr es se d th ro ug h vo ti ve
statue dedi ca ti on s on th e Ac ro po li s is a mo de rn co ns tr uc t. Pe rh ap s ou r se co nd
mistake has been reading the use of occupational designations in votive inscriptions
as polemical assertions of nonaristocratic identity. What individuals such as Smikros
the tanner (DAA no. 58) may be signaling by inscribing their occupations is the
source of the funds used to make the offering: in short, banausic self-empowerment
may not have been the intent behind the banausic dedications on the Acropolis.

SCULPT URA DEEDS PG BNE

To understand the dangers inherent in correlating archaeological monuments (stat-

ues and statue bases) with historical events, we need to deconstruct the process used
to construct relative chronologies using fixed points. Perfect examples of the prob-
lems inherent in identifying and making use of sculptural fixed points are the two
fixed points with the greatest bearing upon the chronology of Archaic statues ded-
icated on the Acropolis: the Siphnian Treasury and the late-sixth-century Apollo
temple, both at Delphi. Two ancient sources, Herodotus (3.57.58) and Pausanias
(10.11.2), mention a treasury building dedicated by the Siphnians at Delphi, which
is almost certainly to be identified with a Siphnian marble treasury unearthed by
the French excavators of the site in the late nineteenth century. For Herodotus,
the Siphnians’ gift to Apollo serves as an exemplum of the great prosperity that
tragically came to an end when exiled enemies of the tyrant Polykrates of Samos
invaded Siphnos, an event dated in 525 or 524 B.c., the fifth year of the Persian
king Cambyses’ rule. Apollo himself, through the Pythia, had foretold the invasion
in an oracle misunderstood by the Siphnians, who built their Treasury out of a
dekate (tithe) given to Delphi every year from the produce of the Siphnian gold and
 NotTuHinc To Do with Democracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN HIsToRY

silver mines. Pausanias too involves the construction of the Siphnian Treasury in
a nexus of charis gone wrong, but without the Samian connection so important
for dating the building: instead, he claims that the Siphnians failed to keep up
their contributions to Delphi, resulting in the flooding of the mines and the end of
Siphnian prosperity.
If we accept Herodotus version of the story and the absolute date for the Samian
raid on Siphnos, then the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi and its abundant architectural
sculptures should date before 525/4 B.c. Pausanias’ account, though it omits the his-
torical event crucial for dating the Treasury, does not outright contradict a terminus
ante quem of 525/4. But how long before this date was the Treasury finished? A recent
architectural study shows that the building could have been completed in four years
or so, and most scholars prefer to place its construction between ca. 530 and ca. 525/4,
sticking as close as possible to the absolute date derived from Herodotus.*” Asa fixed
point, the Siphnian Treasury has proved extremely useful, mainly because its relief
frieze, its pedimental sculptures, and its one preserved caryatid can be compared
stylistically with both sculpture and vase painting. Langlotz used the resemblance
between the frieze and the work of the first Athenian vase painter to use the red
figure technique, the Andokides Painter, to date the invention of Attic red figure
ca. 530 B.c.3* The appearance of female figures in both the frieze and the East pedi-
ment that resemble kore statues in the round has contributed to the dating of the
great majority of the Acropolis korai after ca. 525, first in Langlotz’ own chronolog-
ical sequence and later in the revised sequence of Harrison. At the same time, the
use of the Siphnian Treasury to date sculpture and vases produced in Athens points
up a weakness inherent in the chronological process: at least some of the Treasury
sculptures were produced by an East Gre ek scul ptor or scul ptor s in the emp loy of
the Siphnians, and scul ptur es pro duc ed at the same time by scul ptor s trai ned in
regional trad itio ns coul d have diff ered cons ider ably in styl e.”
Unlike the Siphni an Tre asu ry, the lat e-s ixt h-c ent ury Ap ol lo te mp le at De lp hi
has been connected directly wit h At he ns by anc ien t sou rce s. Pau san ias (10 .5. 5) tel ls
us that Apollo's first stone te mp le bu rn ed to the gr ou nd in 548 B.c . Ac co rd in g to
Herodotus (5.62—65), in order to rep lac e it, the De lp hi an s ini tia ted a fun d-r ais ing
campaign completed only through the par tic ipa tio n of th e Al km eo ni d fam ily , exi led
from Athens after their defeat by the Peisistra tid s at Lei psy dri on in 514 /3. He ro do tu s
spe cif ies tha t the Al km eo ni ds pai d to co mp le te the tem ple 's eas t fac ade , wh ic h had
already been begun in local limestone, in Par ian mar ble . Th e ma rb le eas t co lo nn ad e,
architrave, an d pe di me nt al scu lpt ure s exc ava ted at De lp hi app ear to co nf ir m the

substance of He ro do tu s’ acc oun t. If we tak e He ro do tu s’ ver sio n at fac e val ue, the n
the preserved scu lpt ure s fr om the eas t pe di me nt of th e De lp hi te mp le sho uld hav e
been be gu n in or so on af te r 51 4/ 3; be ca us e He ro do tu s co nn ec ts th e Al km eo ni d

47
ANATHEMATA

benefaction wi th th ei r pl an to br ib e th e Py th ia to en li st Sp ar ta n he lp to ou st th e
tyrant Hipp ia s an d hi s fa mi ly , th e su cc es sf ul co mp le ti on of th e pl an th ro ug h th e
invasion of th e Sp ar ta n ki ng K l e o m e n e s in 51 0 sh ou ld al so m a r k th e c o m p l e t i o n of
the temple’s east facade.*°
The place assigned to monument s al on g th e ch ro no lo gi ca l co nt in uu m be tw ee n
fixed points such as these depends largely up on sc ho la rs ’ as se ss me nt of ho w th ey
relate to the style of the fixed poin ts . Fo rm ul at in g su ch a st yl is ti c se qu en ce of
buildings, sculptures, vases, and in sc ri pt io ns ta ke s mo re th an .a go od ey e. Co ns ta nt
reevaluation is called fo r, an d vi gi la nc e ag ai ns t th e as su mp ti on th at ar te fa ct s of
different genres mainta in ed a co ns ta nt an d me as ur ab le ra te of st yl is ti c de ve lo pm en t
throughout Greek hi st or y. No t on ly ca n th e ra te of de ve lo pm en t va ry , bu t al so th e
number of monume nt s be in g pr od uc ed at di ff er en t pe ri od s. Fo r ou r pu rp os es , th is
means that a bulg ine st at ue de di ca ti on s on th e Ac ro po li s is no t in he re nt ly un li ke ly ,
even if we fail to explain why it occurs in historical terms; the only workable relative
chronologies for the marble statues and the inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis
may in the end incorporate an uneven distribution of the extant examples.
One alternative to relative chronologies based upon fixed points is to begin with
a thesis or model of historical development and to superimpose it upon the extant
monuments without relying upon individual fixed points as guides. In essence, this
is the method employed by Michael Vickers and E. D. Francis in a series of books
and articles criticizing the dates commonly assigned to Archaic Greek art. Vickers
and Francis have argued that the explosion in building, sculpting, and potting that
we see across the Greek world in the second halfof the sixth century and the first two
decades of the fifth should correlate with the influx of wealth generated by the Persian
Wars of 480-479 B.c. The result is a compression of monuments normally dated
over these nine decades or so into the period between ca. 480 and ca. 460.*" These
monuments would include the Acropolis kore series and, presumably, the entire
bulge in Acropolis dedications that other scholars date just before the Persian sack of
the Acropolis in 480. Vickers and Francis thus exploit the methodological loophole
created by the potential of a relative chronology to be uneven in shape. Still, as
R. M. Cook has pointed out, the overall shape of the current relative chronology
for the Archaic period can easily be defended by looking to fixed points Vickers and
Francis have overlooked; in a similar vein, John Boardman has shown that the well-
attested phenomenon of Archaic Athenian father and son potters who signed their
work makes it implausible to compress the black and red figure vases of the second
half of the sixth century into a 20-year period.*? Other, more realistic, solutions
to problems that have crept up in the traditional relative chronology for Archaic
sculpture and vase painting call for redistributing both individual monuments and
periodic bulges in production along the continuum linking the fixed points.*

48
 Nortuinc To Do with Democracy? VorTive STATUES AND ATHENIAN HISTORY

THE-ACROPOLIS PERSERSCHUTT
The Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 B.c. is the most important chronological
fixed point in the history of Greek sculpture: it traditionally defines the dividing line
between Archaic sculpture, represented by the marble kore series, and Early Classical
sculpture. The nineteenth-century excavations on the Acropolis uncovered massive
pits of fill including not only marble kore statues, but also black and red figure pottery
and remains of pre-Persian buildings; the idea that these deposits, known collectively
as the “Perserschutt,” included only material destroyed in the Persian sack (and
therefore predating 480) continues to appeal because it offers a rare opportunity to
match an archaeological find context with a datable historical event of paramount
importance. Yet, in recent years, an analysis of individual Acropolis deposits has
challenged the use of 480 as a terminus ante quem for all of the material found in
them, and with it the concept of a total destruction of the votive monuments on the
Acropolis by the Persians followed by an immediate burial of the damaged statues
and statue bases.
In strictly archaeological terms, the chronological analysis of the Acropolis de-
posits has been hampered by the haphazard recording methods of the nineteenth-
century excavations. One area of the Acropolis in particular, the region southeast
of the Parthenon under the current Acropolis Museum, produced a mix of Archaic
and Classical marble sculptures, among them the statue known as the Kritios Boy:
although some of the material in the deposit surely does date before 480 and owes
its presence there to the Persian sack, the presence of later material makes it im-
possible to use 480 as a terminus ante quem for the Kritios Boy, a work situated
stylistically on the borderline between the Archaic and Early Classical styles.*4 In a
careful reevaluation of the excavation records for every Perserschutt deposit on the
Acropolis, Astrid Lindenlauf has concluded that only a single deposit includes only
pre-480 material. This is the find that made the Acropolis korai famous: a group of
14 marble statues (among them at least 8 korai) and 4 inscribed statue bases (DAA
nos. 6, 14, 197, and 217) found buried between the Erectheion and the north wall of
the Acropolis in February of1886.4* This, then, is the only true Perserschutt deposit,
and the only one for which the Persian sack of 480 serves as a reliable chronological
terminus ante quem.
Though Herodotus’ (8.5155) vivid ac co un t of th e Pe rs ia n ki ng Xe rx es ’ sa ck of
the Acropolis in 480 leaves no doubt about its de va st at in g eff ect s, ne it he r He ro do tu s
no r an y ot he r an ci en t so ur ce ex pl ic it ly al lu de s to th e Per sia ns’ tr ea tm en t of th e vo ti ve
statues on th e Ac ro po li s. 4° De sp it e th e fac t tha t th ey di d not use sc ul pt ur al im ag es
of the gods or se nd vo ti ve sta tue s to Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s, th e Pe rs ia ns co nt in ue d
to part ic ip at e in a lo ng Ne ar Ea st er n tr ad it io n of st ea li ng sa cr ed im ag es to we ak en
their enemie s. 47 In 48 0, Xe rx es us ed a si mi la r ta ct ic ag ai ns t th e At he ni an s by st ea li ng

49
ANATHEMATA

Antenor’s Tyra nn ic id es gr ou p fr om th e ag or a an d ca rr yi ng it of f to Su sa , wh er e it
stayed until th e ti me of Al ex an de r th e Gr ea t or on e of hi s Se le uc id su cc es so rs .* *
Though the so ur ce s n a m e no Ac ro po li s st at ue s tr ea te d in th e sa me wa y, th e ra ri ty
of larg e sc al e, ho ll ow ca st br on ze s in th e Ac ro po li s de po si ts su gg es ts th at br on ze
statue s we re tr ea te d di ff er en tl y fr om ma rb le on es b y th e Pe rs ia n in va de rs : th ey we re
either carried off intact like the Tyrann ic id es or tr ea te d as sc ra p me ta l, pe rh ap s
after being decapitated. Yet a large percen ta ge of th e ko ra i an d th e ot he r ma rb le
statues found on the Acropolis also lost th ei r he ad s be fo re be in g b u r i e d . D i d th es e
statues simply break when they to pp le d ov er ? Sh ou ld we as su me th at th ey we re
intentionally beheaded by the Pe rs ia ns ? T h e At he ni an s m i g h t we ll ha ve fi ni sh ed th e
job the Persians began by behe ad in g d a m a g e d vo ti ve st at ue s th em se lv es : pa ra ll el s
from other Greek sanctu ar ie s su gg es t th at th is tr ea tm en t wa s a fo rm of “q ua si -
ritual kill in g” de si gn ed to di ss oc ia te vo ti ve st at ue s fr om th ei r or ig in al co nt ex ts an d
identities.*°
Though some statues clearly show the effects of the 480 sack, such as signs of
hacking or burning, others that should date well after 480 were beheaded and buried,
apparently by the Athenians themselves, either during the course of the Periklean
building program or soon before it." These indications of a relatively short life
span for votive statues on the fifth-century Acropolis prove difficult to explain,
especially in light of extensive evidence for repairs to damaged Archaic statues.»
Conversely, the survival of some Archaic marble statues creates the possibility that the
destruction of 480 was selective, and perhaps supervised by the Peisistratid exiles who
accompanied Xerxes and knew Athena’s sanctuary well enough to inflict selective
but painful damage.® In the end, reexamination ofthe Perserschutt evidence shows
the Persian sack of 480 to be less useful as a chronological fixed point than Classical
archaeologists would like. Only a small number of marble statues and inscribed
statue bases can be dated by their presence in the Perserschutt deposits, even if we
continue to believe that the great majority of the korai were dedicated before 480.

EG
RAs Gly BCE PO LINES

The epigraphical fixed points used to date the Acropolis statue bases are not well
known to nonepigraphists, and for that reason they have sometimes been accepted
uncritically in studies of Greek sculpture. The process of assigning relative dates to
inscribed statue bases is essentially the same as the one used to date sculpture, but
in the case of inscriptions, stylistic analysis centers upon letter forms. Thus it can be
misleading to say that an inscription has been “dated by its letter forms”: letter forms
in themselves supply nothing but a basis for comparison with the letter forms of
other inscriptions used as fixed points in a relative chronological sequence.>+ With

50
 NorHineG To Do witu Democracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN HIstTory

133. DAA no. 326; dedication of hieropoioi responsible for the Panathenaic festival, ca. 566 B.C. Drawing
of the inscription reproduced from DAA p. 352. Permission granted by the family of A. E. Raubitschek.

any luck, other data can be factored into the chronological equation, among them
the style of sculpture associated with an inscribed base, the identity of the dedicator,
the name of the sculptor, dialectical features of the inscribed text, or the attribution
of other inscriptions to the same hand. In the vast majority of cases, though, letter
forms are the only criterion that can be used to date the inscribed statue bases from
the Acropolis.
The difference in style between “early” and “late” letter forms in inscriptions
from Athens is easier to illustrate than it is to describe in words. Two inscribed
dedications from the Acropolis, DAA nos. 326 and 306, will serve to show the
differences between an inscription of the mid-sixth century and one from the late
fifth. DAA no. 326 (Fig. 13) is probably not the earliest Acropolis dedication, and it
is not a statue base but rather an inscribed limestone pillar. It is the first of agroup of
three fragmentary, nearly identical dedications set up by a board of sacred officials
(Aieropoiot) who “made the dromos” and “established the agon” for Athena. What
makes DAA no. 326 the first in the series is its assertion that the officials listed by
name were the first (11p@To1) to make these arrangements; as such, the dedication
appears to comme morat e the first greater Panath enaic festival celebra ted in 566 B.c.,
according to a late chrono graphi c source; this seems to be the only explana tion that
accounts for the content ofthe inscrib ed text. As a fixed point, DAA no. 326 shows
several diagnostic feature s that can be compar ed with other Acropol is inscrip tions:
among them are the use of poros limesto ne instead of marble; the boustr ophedo n
layout, in which alterna te lines read from left to right and from right to left; the tall,
narrow letters and uneven letter heights ; and the use ofthe letter koppa (®) instead of
kappa.*° Letter forms include the epsilon with slantin g crossba rs of unequa l length
and a vertical stroke ending in a “tail”; the alpha with a slantin g crossba r; the crossed
theta; and the mu and nu with strokes of uneven length and slantin g at differe nt
angles.»”
Like DAA no. 326, DAA no. 30 6 (F ig . 14 ) mi gh t no t to be th e ba se fo r a fr ee st an d-
ing stat ue ; it pr ob ab ly su pp or te d ei th er a ma rb le vo ti ve re li or
ef a he rm . Th e un us ua l
de di ca to ry fo rm ul a sh ow s th at DA A no . 30 6 wa s de di ca te d by At he ni an co lo ni st s
(21roiko 1) he ad ed fo r Po te id ai a, an d Th uc yd id es (2 .7 0. 4) pl ac es th ei r de pa rt ur e

SI
ANATHEMATA

14. DAA no. 30 6; de di ca ti on of th e At he ni an co lo ni st s se nt to Po te id ai a in 42 9/ 8 B.c . Dr aw in g of th e

inscription reproduced from DAA p. 329. Permission gr an te d by th e fa mi ly of A. E. Ra ub it sc he k.

in 429 B.c. Letter forms evident in thi s in sc ri pt io n are th e ep si lo n wi th st ra ig ht

horizontal bars, alpha wi th ho ri zo nt al cr os sb ar , nu wi th st ro ke s of eq ua l or ne ar -
equal length, and four-bar instead of three-bar sigma.

SNEN UST YEE? AN De OLD STYLE INSCRIPTIONS

Between DAA nos. 326 in the mid-sixth century and 306 in 429 B.c. come four
fixe d poin ts of tre men dou s hist oric al inte rest in them selv es, each of whi ch cons titu tes
a rare primary historical source for the period of the Peisistratid tyranny and the early
years of the Kleisthenic democracy. These inscriptions and their dates are listed in
Table 1. The first two are tyrannical dedications, and the second two democratic ones.
None is without interpretive difficulties. A pseudo-Platonic dialogue, Hipparchus
228b—229b, mentions a series of inscribed herms set up alongside roads in the Attic
countryside by Peisistratos’ son Hipparchos. A poorly preserved but still recognizable
Hipparchan herm was found in the 1930s (Fig. 15).°° Hipparchos’ assassination in
514 supplies the herm with an airtight terminus ante quem; although the Platonic
dialogue does not say so explicity, most historians assume that Hipparchos’ herms
date after Peisistratos death in 528/7.
Thucydides (6.54.6) reports that the tyrant Hippias’ son Peisistratos dedicated
both an Altar of the Twelve Gods in the Athenian agora and an altar in the sanc-
tuary of Apollo Pythios (Fig. 16) to commemorate his archonship. Both altars have
been found, but only the smaller Pythion altar preserves the younger Peisistratos

Table 1. Epigraphical Fixed Points, ca. 528/7—480 B.c.

DAA/IG B No. Historical Date

IGP 1023 (Herm of Hipparchos) 528/7—514

IG B 948 (Pythion altar of younger Peisistratos) soon after 522/1
168 (Boiotians and Chalcidians monument) soon after 506
13 (Kallimachos dedication) 490-480

52
 Noruine To Do witH Democracy? VoTIvE STATUES AND ATHENIAN HISTORY

» URSRO
ECAI
LEK
CTRE AIA STROSAN LAG HE PM Ks

15. Inscription on the herm of Hipparchos found near Koropi, Attica, ca. 527-514 B.c. Drawing after
J. Kirchner, /magines Inscriptionum Atticarum, 2nd ed. (Berlin 1948), pl. 5.11.

dedicatory inscription, which Thucydides had transcribed correctly.°? Forty years

or so after the fragmentary remains of the Pythion altar were uncovered, a fragment
of the Athenian archon list came to light naming the archon for the year 522/r as
[...5...]Jotpat[os].°° In light of Thucydides’ testimony, the obvious (though not
universally accepted) restoration is [Peisi]strat[os], and the Pythion altar commem-
orating Peisistratos’ archonship should date soon after 522/1 B.c.
After the removal of Hippias in 510 and the Kleisthenic reforms of 508/7, the
Athenian demos became a dedicator in its own right. The demos’ first collective
votive offering we know of was the bronze four-horse chariot group on the Acropolis
commemorating the Athenian victory in 507/6 over the armies of the Boiotians
and Chalcidians, described by Herodotus (5.77). The small fragment DAA no. 168
(Fig. 17) belongs to the original version of this dedication: it was most likely destroyed
in the Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 and replaced at some point after 480 with
a new statue group on a new base. The equally small fragment DAA no. 173 must
belong to the replacement group because it preserves the version of the dedicatory
epigram read and transcribed by Herodotus in the second half of the fifth century.”
The Kallimachos dedication, DAA no. 13, appears to name Kallimachos of
Aphidna as both the dedicator and as polemarch, the office he held in 490 when
he was killed in the battle of Marathon. Paradoxically, the dedication consists of a
marble Nik e sta tue co mm em or at in g (or so one fra gme nt of the ins cri pti on see ms
to say) the Athenian vic tor y at Mar ath on. Kal lim ach os’ off eri ng see ms bot h to def y

ae > ae ce a

16. Altar dedicate d to Ap ol lo Py th io s by th e yo un ge r Pe is is tr at os , ca. 52 2/ 1 B.c . (E M 67 87 ); de ta il .

Alison Frantz Phot og ra ph ic Co ll ec ti on , Am er ic an Sc ho ol of Cl as si ca l St ud ie s at At he ns , ne g. AT 27 2b .
ANATHEMATA

17. Surviving fragment ofthe original Boi oti ans and Cha lci dia ns mon ume nt, ca. 507 /6 B.c. (D AA no.
168). Photograph reproduced fro m DA A p. 192. Per mis sio n gra nte d by the fam ily of A. E. Rau bit sch ek.

the normal rules gov ern ing the mec han ism s for mak ing vot ive ded ica tio ns and to
fall somewhere betwee n the cat ego rie s of pri vat e and stat e ded ica tio ns; alt hou gh
the preserved part of the inscription does not mention a vow, one wonders whether
the Athenian demos decided to fulfill a vow made by Kallimachos at Marathon.**
Accepting the Marathon connection for DAA no. 13, as I believe we should, places
the monument and its inscription between 490 and 480, when it was almost certainly
destroyed in the Persian sack of the Acropolis.®
According to the evolutionary principles that drive the process of formulating a
relative chronology, we would expect the two dedications that date to the tyranny to
look alike; furthermore, we would expect their letter forms to look less stylistically ad-
vanced than those ofthe two dedications dating to the period of democracy. And yet,
as Raubitschek and others have recognized, neither supposition is correct: of the four
inscriptions, the herm of Hipparchos (ca. 528/7—514) looks most like Kallimachos’
dedication (ca. 490-480), and
the Pythion altar dedicated by the younger
Peisistratos (soon after 522/1) features letter forms that look more stylistically ad-
vanced than those ofthe other three. Raubitschek attempted to explain this situation
by making a distinction between the “old style” lettering ofthe Hipparchan herm and
Kallimachos’ dedication and the “new style” seen on the Pythion altar of 522/1 and
(more or less) on the Boiotians and Chalcidians monument of507/6.°+ He hypothe-
sized that the entire period between ca. 530 and ca. 480 was one ofstylistic transition,
in which some Athenian letterers continued to work in an old Archaic style whereas

54
 NoTHING To Do witH Democracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN History

others introducted a new, forward-looking style of lettering.® If we accept the four

inscriptions discussed here as chronological fixed points, then the period between
the death of Peisistratos in 527 and the Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 marks
a transition period in which both old and new styles were in use at the same time.
Although he recognized and described the problem of old and new styles,
Raubitschek was understandably reluctant within the context of establishing his
relative chronology for the Acropolis dedications to pursue the full implications of
his observations. He inclined instead toward the solution proposed earlier by B. D.
Meritt: lowering the date of the younger Peisistratos’ Pythion altar to the 490s, where
its fifth-century letter forms and equal letter spacing would seem less incongruous.
Meritt himself suggested that Hipparchos son of Charmos, a Peisistratid relation os-
tracized in 488/7, had served as archon himself early in the 490s and arranged to rein-
scribe the younger Peisistratos’ dedication.” An alternative, and even more radical,
theory would have the younger Peisistratos himself return to Athens after Hippias’
expulsion in sro and dedicate the altar commemorating his archonship at that time.
There are major historical obstacles both to redating the Pythion altar as a whole
and to interpreting its inscription as a later renewal or rededication. Thucydides
links the Pythion altar with the Altar of the Twelve Gods in the agora, and passages
in Herodotus (6.108.4) and Thucydides (3.68.5) presuppose the existence of the
Altar of the Twelve Gods in 519 B.c.°? Thucydides himself accepted the age and
authenticity of the Pythion altar, supported by the fact that in his time the inscription
had faded; the structure and moldings of the altar agree with a date close to 522/1
in the relative chronology for Archaic Greek architecture.”° Finally, and perhaps
most seriously, simply changing the date of the Pythion altar’s “embarassingly late
lettering” does not in itself make the problem of the old and new styles go away.”
The lettering on Kallimachos’ dedication of ca. 490—480 is in the old style, whereas
the earlier Boiotians and Chalcidians dedication of 507/6 is inscribed in the new
style. Furthermore, the inscribed base for a dedication made by Hipparchos at the
Ptoén in Boiotia shows lettering similar to the Pythion altar, so much so that it may
have been inscribed by the same hand; this dedication certainly predates Hipparchos’
murder in 514, although we have no way of telling by how much.”
The explanation behind the contemporary use of two noticeably different sets
of letter forms and approaches to lettering might lie in the individual preferences of
lett erer s.”3 The over lap in lett erin g styl es falls with in the exac t peri od (ca. 525— 480)
crucial to theo ries corr elat ing the stat ue dedi cati ons on the Acro poli s with eith er
the Peisistratid tyranny or the Klei sthe nic dem ocr acy . It foll ows that rela tive date s
assigned to indi vidu al insc ribe d dedi cati ons with in this peri od base d upo n the styl e
of letter forms are the /eas t reli able date s in the Acro poli s seri es, and yet at the same
time historical correlations rel y lar gel y up on the dat es of ind ivi dua l ded ica tio ns for
support.’*
ANATHEMATA

RELAT I V E C H R O N O L O G I E S I N A C T I O N : T H E
NEARCHOS BASE AND A N T E N O R ’ S K O R E

As we have se en , th e da te of on e pa rt ic ul ar st at ue de di ca ti on , th e Ne ar ch os ba se
( D A A no . 19 7) ma tc he d wi th An te no r’ s ko re (A cr . no . 68 1) , ha s be en us ed to ar gu e
for a correlation between the series of Acropo li s de di ca ti on s ma de by no na ri st oc ra ti c
banausoi and either the tyranny of Pe is is tr at os ’ so n Hi pp ia s (R au bi ts ch ek ) or th e
democratic reforms of Kleisthe ne s (T él le -K as te nb ei n) . Th e Ne ar ch os de di ca ti on
thus provides a perfect test for ho w th e re la ti ve ch ro no lo gi es fo r bo th sc ul pt ur e
and inscriptions work — and how th ey do no t. It is wo rt h qu es ti on in g wh et he r th e
statue and the inscribed base re al ly be lo ng to ge th er , an d in Ap pe nd ix 3, I of fe r th e
reasons why I beli ev e th ey do . T h o u g h th e in sc ri pt io n on th e ba se of D A A no .
197 is in co mp le te (F ig . 12 ), th e st oi ch ed on le tt er or de r fa ci li ta te s it s re st or at io n; th e
resulting text (reproduced here in the original Attic alphabet) reads as follows:

Néapxos a&véexe[v ho kepaue]

Us pyov atrapxev Ta8[evataa].
’Avtévop ett[ofecev h]
o Eupdpos t[d &yoAua.

(“Nearchos the potter dedicated first—fruits of his works to Athena. Antenor

the son of Eumares made the agalma’).

Raubitschek dated Nearchos’ dedication to ca. 525-510 based upon a combina-

tion of criteria including the letter forms ofthe inscription and the style of the kore
statue Acr. no. 681 but not limited to them; in this particular case, identifications
of both the sculptor and the dedicator take on a major significance:

The restoration of the first line appears to be certain, and also the iden-
tification of the dedicator with the potter Nearchos. Since Nearchos and
his two sons Tleson and Ergoteles must have had a flourishing business in
the second half
of the sixth century, one should not hesitate to assume that
Nearchos could well afford such an imposing dedication; most of the other
dedications of potters were ofsimilar size. The only argument against the
identification of the dedicator Nearchos with the potter is the chronology.
Nearchos’ son Tleson appears to have worked in the last quarter ofthe sixth
century. ... It is quite conceivable that the potters made their dedications
after retiring from business, so that any date ca. 525-510 B.C. would be
possible for a dedication by the potter Nearchos. The letter forms of the
inscription (compare nos. 51, 108, and 244), the profile of the moulding,

56
 Noruine To Do with Democracy? Votive STATUES AND ATHENIAN History

18. Kore from the east pediment of the Late

Archaic temple of Apollo at Delphi. Alison
Frantz Photographic Collection, American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg.
ST 68.

and the style of the marble statue seem to be in keeping with this date. It
has been suggested that the artist Antenor made the models for the statues
of Har mod ios and Aris toge iton shor tly afte r the batt le at Mar ath on, whe n
the last mem ber s of the tyra nt’s fami ly were ban ned and thei r prop erty
confiscated. ... This date is well in kee pin g with our date for Near chos ’
dedication and with the theo ry that Ant eno r wor ked on the tem ple in
Delphi shortly before 510 B.c.””

Raubitschek elsewhere compared th e le tt er fo rm s on th e Ne ar ch os /A nt en or

base with the Boiotians and Chalcidians de di ca ti on of50 7/ 6 (D AA no . 16 8; Fi g. 17 ),
a new st yl e fi xe d po in t. ’° Th e st ro ng st yl is ti c re se mb la nc e be tw ee n An te no r' s ko re
(Fig. 11 ) an d th e pe di me nt al sc ul pt ur es of th e ea st pe di me nt of th e Te mp le of Ap ol lo
at De lp hi (F ig . 18 ), pa id fo r by th e Al km eo ni ds , ha s le d mo st sc ho la rs to at tr ib ut e
the pedime nt to An te no r, th e sc ul pt or wh o si gn ed Ne ar ch os ’ de di ca ti on . Be ca us e

yy
ANATHEMATA

the Delphi pe di me nt is a sc ul pt ur al fi xe d po in t, ac ce pt in g th is li nk (a s I wo ul d) da te s
the Ac ro po li s st at ue wi th in th e li fe ti me of a sc ul pt or wh o wo rk ed at De lp hi be tw ee n
514/3 an d 51 0 B. c. , wh et he r we ch oo se to pl ac e th e ko re Ac r. no . 68 1 be fo re or af te r th e
Delphi pe di me nt .’ Al th ou gh no an ci en t te st im on iu m li nk s th e sc ul pt or An te no r
to the temple at Delphi, Pausanias (1.8.5) an d Pl in y ( H N 34 .7 0) bo th at tr ib ut e to
him the statues of the Tyrannicides Harmod io s an d Ar is to ge it on ca rr ie d of f by th e
Persians in 480, a sculptural group that mu st da te be tw ee n Hi pp ia s’ ex pu ls io n in 51 0
and the sack of Athens in 480. 7* Ot he r co ns id er at io ns , in cl ud in g st at ue ba se ty pe
and findspot, also date the Near ch os /A nt en or de di ca ti on on th e Ac ro po li s wi th in
the 50-year range of ca. 530 and 480 B.c.”
As Raubitsch ek rem ark ed in the pas sag e quo ted earl ier, it is onl y the att rac tiv e
identification of Nearchos with the Athenian black figure potter/painter of the same
name that creates a seemingly unresolvable chronological problem. The restoration
of ho kerameus (“the potter”) after the dedicator Nearchos’ name fits the space
available on the stone and gains support from the fact that there was a sixth-century
Athenian potter named Nearchos; the problem is that Nearchos signed vases dated
to the second quarter of the sixth century, between 20 and 50 years earlier than
the earliest stylistic date considered for the letter forms of the inscription and the
style of the statue.8° Nearchos’ sons Tleson and Ergoteles, who frequently included
their patronymic in their signatures, signed black figure cups dated ca. 540-530
B.c., still earlier than the date we would otherwise assign to the Nearchos/Antenor
dedication.™!
A variety of solutions have been proposed, each possible but none in itself
compelling. The Nearchos who dedicated a statue on the Acropolis may be some
other Nearchos completely unrelated to the Nearchos of Attic black figure. In
addition to meaning “potter,” kerameus can be construed equally well as the demotic
for the Attic deme Kerameis; and, despite the limitations imposed by the stoichedon
letter order of this inscription, at least three other demotics would fit the space
available.** Yet the name Nearchos was uncommon in Athens, and the reference
to the dedication as the first-fruits of the dedicator’s labor or produce certainly
makes sense within the context of a craftsman’s votive offering.®’ Another solution
would make this Nearchos an homonymous grandson of the potter we know and
a potter himself, but such an individual remains entirely hypothetical: he owes his
very existence to modern scholars’ need to reconcile conflicting testimony.*# In the
end, it is tempting to argue that the Nearchos who dedicated Antenor’s kore really
is the black figure potter Nearchos as Raubitschek did, and to explain away the
discrepancy in dates by hypothesizing that he lived long and offered his statue late
in life despite his use of a dedicatory formula that implies that he was still engaged
in gaining profits from his work.

58
 NorTuHine To Do witH Democracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN History

A date of ca. 525-510 for the Nearchos/Antenor dedication represents a com-

promise, or at the very least a continuing process of negotiation between disparate
chronological indications derived from letter forms, sculpture, and prosopography.*
The desire to identify Nearchos as a known potter exerts pressure to keep the date
high and makes this monument the first of the Acropolis series dedicated by crafts-
men and other banausoi. At the same time, a stylistic comparison between the kore
Acr. no. 681 and the sculpture from the east pediment of the Temple of Apollo
at Delphi argues for a low date, as does the desire to correlate Acropolis dedica-
tions by éanausoi with Kleisthenes’ reforms of 508/7. The new style letter forms of
the inscription do not in themselves tip the balance in either direction. Nearchos’
dedication alone cannot bear the weight of determining when banausoi began to
dedicate statues on the Acropolis, how many of them did so, and why.°°

WPA DOES AMS ERLE SuMibANe?

Relative chronologies, both for Greek sculpture and for inscriptions, are flawed.
Dates for individual monuments produced by the process of relative chronology are
better understood as guesses contingent upon the structure of the chronology as a
whole than as facts with independent value. The system only works if we know the
absolute dates of the historical events associated with the monuments used as fixed
points — a dicey proposition for Athens in the Archaic period, but the only method
we have. One solution to the chronological conundrum is to avoid assigning dates
at all, or to assign no date more specific than a 30-, 40-, or even 50-year range to
anything but a monument considered for very good historical reasons to be a fixed
point.*7
Without examining the date of each individual Acropolis statue and statue base
here, it is still possible to defend the overall shape of the big picture created by the
relative chronologies we use, including a bulge in the number of statue dedications
(both marble and bronze) on the Acropolis in the Late Archaic period, between
ca. 510 and the Persian sack of the Acropol is in 480. But if, as I have argued, this
bulge in dedicat ions was not caused by Kleisth enes’ democr atic reforms , then why
did it occur? What does the Late Archaic bulge in the series of marble statues and
inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis mean?
Identifiable bulges in statue dedications in fact occur in every Archaic Greek
sanctuary that has produc ed a sig nif ica nt amo unt of fre est and ing mar ble scu lpt ure
through excavation: not onl y on the Ath eni an Acr opo lis , but als o in the Sam ian
Heraion, the san ctu ary of Apo llo at Did yma , and the Boi oti an Pto on, like Did yma
a sanctuary of Apollo.** Wh at mak es the Acr opo lis uni que is tha t it is the onl y
ANATHEMATA

sanctuary with en ou gh pu bl is he d st at ue ba se s to fa ct or br on ze sc ul pt ur e in to th e
bulge equation. Th es e bu lg es se em to be gi n an d en d at di ff er en t ti me s; th e re l-
ative chronology fo r sc ul pt ur e cu rr en tl y in us e pl ac es th e Ac ro po li s bu lg e la te r
than th os e in th e ot he r th re e sa nc tu ar ie s. Th e tr ad it io na l ap pr oa ch ha s be en to at -
tribut e th e en d of th e bu lg e in ma rb le st at ue de di ca ti on s in th e Sa mi an He ra io n to
the tyranny of Polykrates, by analogy with Ly gd am is ’ su pp os ed di sc ou ra ge me nt of
statue dedications on Naxos. Other expl an at io ns ar e po ss ib le an d ar e on ly be gi n-
ning to be pursued. A bulge in th e ma rb le ko ur os se ri es fr om th e Pt od n ha s be en
dated between ca. 550 and ca. 53 0, wi th a sh ar p fa ll in g- of f of de di ca ti on s of an y
type after 480; the few in sc ri be d ba se s fo un d on th e si te da te la te r th an th e ko ur oi
and may in fa ct be lo ng to lo st br on ze tr ip od s. Th e bu lg e in ma rb le st at ue s an d
the presence of bronze dedi ca ti on s by th e At he ni an s Al km eo ni de s an d Hi pp ar ch os
at th e Pt oé n (b ot h po ss ib ly me ta l ve ss el s ra th er th an st at ue s) ha ve pr ev io us ly be en
ex pl ai ne d in po li ti ca l te rm s, as th e re su lt of sh if ts in ow ne rs hi p of th e sa nc tu ar y by
the neighboring cities of Thebes and Akraiphia. Albert Schachter has suggested a
different explanation: that the Ptodn grew in popularity during the third quarter
of the sixth century because worshippers were discouraged from dedicating statues
at Delphi during this period as a result of the catastrophic fire that destroyed the
temple of Apollo there in 548/7 B.c.*?
Attempts to explain the Late Archaic bulge in statue dedications on the Acropolis
as a result of Kleisthenes’ reforms of 508/7 presuppose that the primary constituent
of the bulge is a group of dedications made by individuals whose presence on the
Acropolis was encouraged by the Athenian democracy — nonaristocrats, specifically
craftsmen and other banausoi. Yet the relative dating of statue dedications by this
group (and, in the case of the Nearchos/Antenor kore, the identification of the dedi-
cator as a potter) remains in some sense dependent upon the democratic explanatory
model because the letter forms of statue bases from the period between the death of
Peisistratos and the Persian Wars do not provide clear, unambiguous indications of
their absolute date. It also remains to be seen who the dedicators of statues on the
Acropolis over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries were and whether or not
we really can identify significant shifts in their social status over time.
Explaining the Late Archaic bulge in statue dedications on the Acropolis as
a result of Kleisthenes’ reforms does not explain why the bulge comes to an end
after the Persian Wars, the heyday of the radical democracy. On the Acropolis and
in other Greek sanctuaries, the end of the Archaic bulge in statue dedications is
not necessarily synonymous with a gap or a cessation. The idea that votive statue
dedications by private individuals stopped or were drastically curtailed after 480
B.C. on the Acropolis, or alternatively that they were replaced by official dedications
by the Athenian demos and other public bodies, is an exaggeration without support

60
 NoTHING TO Do witH Democracy? VoTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN History

from the evidence of inscribed statue bases.2° The revised relative chronology for
the Acropolis statue bases that appears in JG P makes some difference in this res-
pect: in /G I’, 82 statue bases have been assigned dates after ca. 480 compared with
Raubitschek’s 63. Statue dedications by official public bodies on the Acropolis only
begin soon after 507/6 B.c. with the Boiotians and Chalcidians monument; because
the great majority of the 82 votive statue dedications dated after 480 were private
rather than official ones, official dedications can hardly be said to “replace” private
ones.
In the end, it is probably impossible for us to explain either why the Late Archaic
bulge in Acropolis dedications before 480 happened, or why the absolute numbers
of votive statues on the Acropolis never again reached the level they had achieved
before 480, any more than we can explain why statue dedications succeeded metal
vessels as the primary form of monumental offering on the Acropolis in the sixth
century. The impression we get from Pausanias’ account of the Acropolis, where
a disproportionate percentage of the statues Pausanias mentions date to the fifth
century, might accurately reflect an even sharper falling-off of statue dedications in
the fourth century than in the fifth. /GII* (nos. 4318-4350) includes only 29 votive
statue bases dated from the beginning of the fourth century B.c. through the end
of the third century a.c. that name Athena as the recipient deity. This number may
be misleadingly small because another 26 votive statue bases without Athena’s name
on them and dating within the same broad chronological range were found on the
Acropolis and most likely were dedicated there." Still, the maximum of 55 votive
statue bases we get for these eight centuries combined is miniscule compared with
the approximately 330 bases for statues from the sixth and fifth centuries. Though
it is tempting to see the decline in votive statue dedications on the Acropolis in the
fourth century as a direct result of the introduction of honorific portrait statues,
the total number of fourth-century statue bases from the Acropolis, including both
votives and honorifics, comes to only 39.”
A variety of different factors, none connected with the politics of the Athenian
democracy, may have cont ribu ted to the shar p decr ease in stat ue dedi cati ons on
the Acropolis in the four th cent ury. Beg inn ing in the four th cent ury, stat ue dedi -
cations, both traditio nal voti ve stat ues and hono rifi c port rait s, were dive rted fro m
the Acropoli s to othe r Ath eni an sanc tuar ies such as the Askl epie ion on the Sou th
Slope and the sanc tuar y of Dem ete r and Kore at Eleu sis. Stat ues were no long er
invariably the most expe nsiv e and pres tigi ous form of voti ve dedi cati on on the
Acropolis already in the sec ond half of the fifth cent ury. The insc ribe d inve nto-
ries of the Acropolis temples signal the incr easi ng pro min enc e of tem ple offe ring s,
many of them made of bronze or prec ious meta l, mad e both by priv ate indi vidu -
als and by official bodies.?? Expensiv e an d pr es ti gi ou s de di ca ti on s of go ld cr ow ns

61
ANATHEMATA

or wreaths, as wel l as phi ala i (li bat ion bow ls) and oth er ves sel s use d in sac rif ici al
rituals, con tin ued in the fou rth cen tur y, whi le sta tue ded ica tio ns sim ult ane ous ly
decreased.?* Though not associated specifically with the Acropolis, private founda-
tions and interest-producing endowments began to be given to sanctuaries before
the end of the fifth century, as evidenced by Nikias’ sacred embassy to Delos in
426 (Plut. Mic. 3); such gifts represent private investment in Greek sanctuaries on
a level without direct precedents in the votive statue dedications of the Archaic
period.”

62
VeOuleVa
l EeSiGATULES «A N.D
ATHENIAN SOCIETY

nother form of correlation between the historical record and votive stat-
ues attempts to determine the relationship between social status and the
practice of dedicating statues in Greek sanctuaries. The statue dedications
on the Athenian Acropolis generate a fundamental desire to know who dedicated
what; statue bases and the inscriptions on them provide the answers. Just as relative
chronology is the tool used to correlate statue dedications with historical events,
prosopography is the primary analytical method available to determine the identi-
ties of the dedicators of statues on the Acropolis. Once again, the Acropolis provides
a body of evidence much more extensive than what we have from any other Greek
sanctuary in the sixth and fifth centuries. The Acropolis statue bases preserve all
or part of the names of approximatel y 200 dedicators; in contrast, the published
statue bases from the Samian Heraion from the same period have yielded only about
40 dedicator names.’
It is commonly assumed that votive sta tue s we re de di ca te d in Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s
primarily by aristocrats. Ho we ve r, as I ha ve al re ad y no te d in Ch ap te r 3, th eo ri es
correlating the Acropolis dedications with Kl ei st he ne s’ re fo rm s of 50 8/ 7 B.c . ma ke
mu ch of th e fac t th at no t on ly ari sto cra ts, bu t als o cr af ts me n an d ot he r ba na us oi
(m an ua l la bo re rs ), de di ca te d sta tue s on th e Ac ro po li s. Ev en if we rej ect th e no ti on
that the Acropolis was “opened up” to no na ri st oc ra ts as a dir ect res ult of Kl ei st he ne s
reforms, th e pr es en ce ofa co ns id er ab le nu mb er ofst at ue s de di ca te d by cr af ts me n an d
banaus wh
oi o in cl ud ed the ir oc cu pa ti on s al on g wi th the ir na me s in the ir de di ca to ry
inscriptions re ma in s un iq ue to th e Ac ro po li s.
Prosopog r a p h y in vo lv es id en ti fy in g individu al s b y ma tc hi ng na me s th at oc -
cur in ep ig ra ph ic al so ur ce s, su ch as th e dedicatory in sc ri pt io ns on st at ue ba se s or
the si gn at ur es of cr af ts me n on sc ul pt ur e an d po tt er y, wi th th e te st im on y o fot he r,
often more informative, so ur ce s su ch as hi st or ic al te xt s. In ot he r wo rd s, ev en w h e n
Acropolis dedicators tell us no th in g ab ou t th em se lv es in th ei r de di ca to ry in sc ri p-
ti on s, we mi gh t be ab le to id en ti fy th em on th e ba si s of th ei r na me s as th e sa me in -
dividuals mentioned by ot he r so ur ce s. T h e we al th of pr os op og ra ph ic al in fo rm at io n
available for Athens in the C l a s s i c a l p e r i o d cr ea te s g r e a t p o t e n t i a l fo r i d e n t i f y i n g

63
ANATHEMATA

the Ac ro po li s de di ca to rs in th is wa y; ev en in th e si xt h ce nt ur y, wh en le ss in fo r-
mation is av ai la bl e, fa mi ly re la ti on sh ip s be tw ee n de di ca to rs an d la te r in di vi du al s
with th e sa me na me s ca n be su gg es te d pr ec is el y be ca us e At he ni an fa mi li es te nd ed to
use the same names over the course of seve ra l ge ne ra ti on s. * Th e pe cu li ar ly At he ni an
use of the demotic in addition to th e na me an d pa tr on ym ic af te r Kl ei st he ne s’ re -
forms makes convincing identifi ca ti on s po ss ib le wh en de di ca to rs in cl ud e al l th re e
parts of the Athenian citizen name on th ei r de di ca ti on s: na me , pa tr on ym ic , an d
demotic.
Yet the usefulness of pro sop ogr aph y as a met hod of ana lys is dep end s upo n a
variety of factors. Bec aus e mos t ide nti fic ati ons rel y upo n nam e mat chi ng, the mos t
basic factor is our abi lit y to be cer tai n tha t ind ivi dua ls wit h the sam e nam e rea lly
are the same person. In Athens, the practice of naming sons after their paternal or
maternal grandfathers inevitably produced cousins with the same names; by the end
of the fifth century, name duplication had become endemic within the Athenian
citizen body.3 Dedicator names that are complete or near complete and that include
all three elements of the Athenian citizen name — name, patronymic, and demotic —
stand the greatest chance of being distinctive identifiers. Dedicators who omit their
patronymic and demotic are, in practice, almost impossible to identify with certainty
unless their names are unusual. Even in the second half of the fifth century, when the
demotic was commonly used, there was a continuing tendency among the dedicators
of statues on the Acropolis to inscribe only their names (without either patronymic
or demotic) on their dedications; this practice greatly reduces the chances of making
identifications stick.
Any prosopographical analysis, including an analysis of the dedicators of statues
on the Athenian Acropolis, is only as good as the sample of names available. As the
historian Lawrence Stone has warned:

Even if his documentation is adequate and his system of classification is

properly designed, the unwary prosopographer is still liable to draw erro-
neous conclusions from his data. One common hazard which faces him is
the possibility that that portion of the total population about which he can
discover reliable information does not represent a random sample of the
whole... . Another mistake which often occurs in prosopographical studies
springs from a failure to relate the findings about the composition of the
group under study to that of the population at large.4

In truth, neither the database of Athenian prosopography as a whole, nor the

list of Acropolis dedicators we can identify by using that database, qualifies as a truly
random sample. Most literary and epigraphical sources for Athenian names in the
sixth and fifth centuries show a marked bias toward aristocrats.’ The most notable
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

exceptions are the hundreds of potters’ and painters’ signatures that appear on Attic
black and red figure pottery of the Archaic period. This large pool of nonelite names
is a unique feature of Athenian prosopography, but also a potentially misleading
one. On the Acropolis, the only two social groups we can hope to identify through
name matches with other prosopographical sources are aristocrats and craftsmen
who signed their work. The very process of identifying dedicators through name
matching makes it look as if a disproportionate percentage of the dedicators were
either aristocrats or banausoi, when the reality is that we simply cannot identify
anyone else. Despite the potential to identify Athenian dedicators of the sixth and
fifth centuries by using prosopography, the social status of the majority of the
Acropolis dedicators remains unknown, a factor not adequately taken into account
by previous attempts to correlate statue types and dedicatory mechanisms (first-
fruits, tithe, and vow) with the social status of the dedicators. Thus the picture of
the Acropolis as a sanctuary initially dominated by aristocrats and opened up to
craftsmen and other banausoi by the end of the sixth century could be misleading,
not only because of our reliance upon relative chronologies but also because of the
quirks of Athenian prosopography.
In this chapter, I begin by presenting the prosopographical evidence for statue
dedications by aristocrats, nonaristocrats (specifically, self-identified banausot, pot-
ters, and vase painters), and women on the Acropolis. The correlations between
particular social grou ps in Ath ens and the type s of stat ues they dedi cate d that have
been proposed in previous scho lars hip are at the same time too empi rica l and not
empirical enough: they attempt to acco unt for phe nom ena in plai n sigh t, such as
the fact that some of the marble kora i were dedi cate d by nona rist ocra ts, but ofte n
fail to take into account the full rang e of evid ence avai labl e. On the basi s of the
extant marble statues, it is often assume d that the kora i were the prin cipa l type of
votive statue dedicated on the Acropoli s in the Arch aic peri od. The evid ence of
inscribed statue bases, however, suggests inst ead that the kora i were acc omp ani ed
by larg e num ber s of bron ze scul ptur es, both larg e and smal l scal e, whi ch alte r our
picture of who dedicated what, and wh y de di ca to rs ch os e pa rt ic ul ar st at ue ty pe s.

ARISTOCRATS

Defining aristocratic st at us in si xt h- a n d fi ft h- ce nt ur y A t h e n s is no t as si mp le as it
should be. Overlapping de fi ni ti on s of th e el it e in A t h e n i a n so ci et y co ex is te d ev en
after Solon’s reforms in th e ea rl y si xt h ce nt ur y, an d th ey we re fu rt he r c o m p l i c a t e d
b y th e e n d of th e fi ft h ce nt ur y b y th e ad ve nt of “ n e w m e n ” m a d e we al th y b y la rg e
scale, slave-powered in du st ry a n d ot he r pr ev io us ly in si gn if ic an t so ur ce s of so ci al
a n d p r o f i t . ® T h e cr it er ia w e us e to i d e n t i f y ar is to cr at s a m o n g t h e A c r o p o l i s
status
ANATHEMATA

dedicators inevitably sha p e a n d ci rc um sc ri be a n y de fi ni ti on o f ar is to cr at ic st at us in

Athens.
J. K. Davies, se ek in g to es ta bl is h “a n ob je ct iv el y de fi ne d up pe r cl as s” fo r Ar ch ai c
and Classi ca l At he ns , ba se d hi s de fi ni ti on pr in ci pa ll y u p o n m e m b e r s h i p in At he ni an
citizen fami li es k n o w n to ha ve pe rf or me d mi li ta ry an d fe st iv al li tu rg ie s. ” Ye t th e la ck
of evid en ce fo r th e li tu rg ic al sy st em be fo re th e 48 0s , c o m b i n e d wi th th e fa ct th at
only one liturgant can be identified amo n g th e Ac ro po li s de di ca to rs , m e a n th at
different definitions for aristocratic status ha ve to be fo un d to fi ll th e ga p. * Da vi es
himself employed two addition al cr it er ia : ev id en ce fo r ho rs e br ee di ng co nn ec te d
with competition in equestri co an nt es ts in th e Pa nh el le ni c fe st iv al s, an d m e m b e r s h i p
in the pentekosiomedi mn oi (liter al ly “t he 50 0- bu sh el me n” ), th e hi gh es t pr op er ty cl as s
de fi ne d b y So lo n in hi s re fo rm s (A ri st . At h. Po l. 7. 3- 4) .
Even if we enl arg e Dav ies ’ firs t cri ter ion to inc lud e evi den ce for com pet iti on
in any eve nt in any ath let ic or mus ica l fest ival , the num ber of Acr opo lis ded ica tor s
who pass the test is still small, and only one of their dedications dates to the Archaic
period.® One Alkmeonides, undoubtedly a member of the Alkmeonid family and
probably the son of Alkmeon I and grandson of Megakles I, dedicated a tripod or
bronze bowl on the Acropolis in the mid-sixth century jointly with another dedicator
whose name has been lost (DAA no. 317). The inscription commemorates victories in
both the pentathlon and an equestrian event, but the festival is not named; another,
contemporary victory dedication by Alkmeonides and his charioteer Knopi{adas]
from the Ptoén in Boeotia refers specifically to the Panathenaia."° A fifth-century
dedicator, Pronapes son of Pronapides, set up a bronze four-horse chariot group
commemorating a series of chariot racing victories (DAA no. 174); he was also a
hipparch in the Athenian cavalry, as evidenced by his dedication of an equestrian
group together with two other hipparchs, Lakedaimonios and Xenophon (DAA
no. 135)."" A second, probable four-horse chariot dedication (DAA no. 171) yields
the dedicator’s patronymic — probably Thetalos rather than Raubitschek’s Petalos —
but no preserved name."*
At Olympia and other sanctuaries in the Late Archaic period, it became cus-
tomary for victors in the games to dedicate portrait statues representing themselves.
Four of these statue dedications, all dating to the fifth century, can be recognized
on the Acropolis. The non-Athenian pentathlete and runner Phayllos of Kroton
(DAA no. 76) commanded a ship in the battle of Salamis. Kallias son of Didymias
(DAA nos. 21 and 164) was a pankratiast and the only pre-Hellenistic victor in all
four Panhellenic festivals (periodonikes) whose name we know. Epicharinos son of
Oph[olJo[nides] (DAA no. 120) dedicated a statue representing himself as an armed
hoplite runner (a hoplitodromos) described by Pausanias (1.23.11).3 Two additional
dedicators identify themselves as kitharodes: Alkibios (DAA no. 84) and Ophsios
(DAA no. 86) are otherwise unknown, as are the dedicators of tripods and bronze

66
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

bowls, which could (but might not) commemorate victories in athletic or musical
contests, Panhellenic or local."
Applying Davies’ second criterion, membership in the Solonian pentekosiomed-
imnoi, to the Acropolis dedications identifies two pairs of dedicators as aristocrats:
one father and son pair and one pair of brothers. Even in the fourth century, the
tamiai or treasurers of Athena on the Acropolis continued to be chosen only from
the highest Solonian property class.’ Chairion the son of Kleidikos identified him-
self as a tamias on his mid-sixth-century altar dedication (DAA no. 330). His son
Alkimachos in turn dedicated a marble scribe statue (Acr. no. 629) on an Ionic
column base (DAA no. 6; both discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 and in Ap-
pendix 3). Davies connected the brothers Thrasyllos and Gnathios who dedicated
DAA no. 112 with the family of a tamias of 407/6."
Holders of other civic offices in Athens, in particular archons and generals
(strategot), typically came from families of high status even after the “democratic”
archonship reforms of 487/6 and 457/6 recorded by the Aristotelian Ath. Pol.”
Yet, in practice, enlarging our criteria to include archons and strategoi yields only
Kallimachos of Aphidna, the polemarch at the Battle of Marathon (DAA no. 13),
and Telesinos of the deme Kettos (DAA no. 40), possibly but not certainly the
eponymous archon of the year 487/6: the name Telesinos is uncommon, but the
dedicatory inscription makes no mention of the archonship."® Other Acropolis
dedicators are probably relatives of known fifth- and fourth-centu ry strategoi based
upon name matches: these are Hermolykos son of Dieitrephes (DAA no. 132),
Spoudis son of Laispodias (DAA no. 87), and Strombfichos ] son of Strombich
[ides] (DAA no. 102 and the new fragment, Acr. no. 7355, published by A. P.
Matthaiou).””
Additional criteria define ari sto cra tic sta tus mo re loo sel y, eit her in te rm s of
relationships to aristocratic families an d ge ne (cl ans ), or th ro ug h pu bl ic na mi ng in
a contex t we be li ev e to be pr im ar il y ari sto cra tic .*° Kal lia s so n of Hi pp on ik os , th e
dedicator of DAA no. 11, cal led “L ak ko pl ou to s” be ca us e of his en or mo us we al th ,
en gi ne er ed th e mi d- fi ft h- ce nt ur y pe ac e wi th Per sia an d se rv ed as da do uc ho sa t El eu si s
by virtue of his me mb er sh ip in th e At he ni an ge no s of Ke ry ke s. ” He de di ca te d a los t
bronze stan di ng fi gu re on th e Ac ro po li s, wh ic h co ul d co nc ei va bl y co mm em or at e an
athletic victory. Timoth eo s so n of Ko no n of th e de me An ap hl ys to s (D AA no. 47 )

must be an earlier member of th e fa mi ly fr om tha t de me wh ic h pr od uc ed th e

father and son generals Ko no n an d Ti mo th eo s, wh o bo th re ce iv ed ho no ri fi c po rt ra it
statues in the Agor a in th e fo ur th ce nt ur y. ”” Th e fi ft h- ce nt ur y Ti mo th eo s de di ca te d
an under-life-size bronze sta tue of un ce rt ai n typ e. An ot he r po ss ib le me mb er of an
aristocratic genos whose na me ap pe ar s on th e Ac ro po li s is Kal lia s (D AA no. 136 ),

wh o, on on e ha nd , mi gh t co me fr om th e sa me fa mi ly as Kal lia s so n of Hi pp on ik os ;
on the other h a n d , K a l l i a s w a s a c o m m o n A t h e n i a n n a m e . ”

67
ANATHEMATA

The individuals named as candidat es on th e fi ft h- ce nt ur y os tr ak a ac hi ev ed po -

litical prominence that, in mo st cas es, re fl ec te d the ir we al th an d sta tus as me mb er s
of a hereditary aristocracy.4 Ye t be ca us e th e ch ro no lo gi ca l ra ng e of th e os tr ak a is
quite limited, few name matches wi th Ac ro po li s de di ca to rs tu rn up . Bo th Ka ll ia s so n
of Didymias and Kallias son of Hi pp on ik os we re ca nd id at es , an d so we re rel ati ves of
two other dedicators: Timokrates so n of Ar is ta ic hm os , th e de di ca to r of DA A no. 24,
was probably the fa th er of tw o ca nd id at es of th e 48 0s , an d Sp ou di s so n of La is po di as
(DAA no. 87) coul d be re la te d to th e La is po di as wh os e na me ap pe ar s on tw o ag or a
ostraka.?* Kalos name s on bl ac k an d re d fi gu re po tt er y co ns ti tu te an ot he r po te nt ia l
so ur ce of na me s wi th in an ari sto cra tic At he ni an mi li eu . Th ou gh so me ka lo i ma tc h
the names of dedicators on the Acropolis, all but a small group of mid-fifth-century
kalos names appear without patronymic or demotic, and the names are not rare
enough to justify making identifications.*© Finally, Archaic Athenian funerary mon-
uments produce only two (most likely fortuitous) name matches with the Acropolis
dedications, again without patronymic or demotic; this can probably be explained as
a function of the lack of chronological overlap between the bulge in funerary monu-
ments and the bulge in votive statue dedications, but it is still somewhat surprising.”
Any attempt at a catalog of aristocratic dedicators on the Acropolis is bound
to remain fuzzy around the edges (as this one is) because of the uncertainty created
by the methodology of name matching. All the same, the results suggest that the
Acropolis statue dedications are remarkably uninformative about patterns in aristo-
cratic display and ostentation in the sixth and fifth centuries. The only identifiable
aristocratic offerings that certainly predate 508/7 are those of Alkmeonides and
Chairion, neither one of them a statue. Apart from the agonistic victor Alkmeonides
and one other possible Alkmeonid dedication, members of other prominent fami-
lies of the sixth and fifth centuries we know from literary sources (such as the
Philaidai, the family of Miltiades and Kimon) are not to be found on the Acropolis
dedications.** Among the Peisistratids, only Hipparchos son of Charmos appears to
have dedicated a statue on the Acropolis, if we believe literary sources that tell us that
this statue was melted down to produce a bronze stele listing Athenian criminals
and traitors.” Perhaps the most expensive statue or statue group dedicated on the
Acropolis over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries, a colossal bronze Trojan
horse of the late fifth century (DAA no. 176) described by Pausanias, was dedi-
cated by Chairedemos son of Euangelos of the deme Koile, an individual otherwise
unknown.’*°
The only group of dedications that overtly “reflect” aristocratic status are com-
memorations of agonistic victories, and these are disproportionally well represented
in the catalog because agonistic victory proves to be one of the few applicable cri-
teria for defining aristocratic status. Other aristocratic occasions we might expect
to be marked by dedications are lacking from the dedicatory inscriptions on statue

68
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

bases. Apart from the treasurers of Athena, sacred personnel and their families did
not produce statue dedications comparable with the self-representations dedicated
by priestly families in East Greek sanctuaries such as the Samian Heraion and the
sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma. Even though name matches suggest that holders of
prestigious civic offices (such as the archonship and the office of strategos) and their
relatives dedicated statues on the Acropolis, the inscriptions on the statue bases make
no reference to office holding as the occasion for making an offering to Athena. The
same appears to hold true both before and after Kleisthenes’ reforms, and the only
exception is a problem case, the dedication made by Kallimachos, the polemarch
who died at Marathon (DAA no. 13). The reality of the inscribed statue dedications
on the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis is that most dedicators revealed nothing
about themselves and their dedications but their names.

BANACGS OT

The surprising exc ept ion s are vot ive ded ica tio ns by me n an d wo me n wh o ins cri bed
their occupations on the ir off eri ngs tog eth er wit h the ir nam es. In all , the re are as
many as 13 such dedicatio ns. Th es e inc lud e sev en sta tue s, two ma rb le per irr ant eri a
(water basins), two marble vot ive rel ief s, a sma ll br on ze vas e, an d a sma ll bro nze
shield. Their dedicators identify the mse lve s as Si mo n the ful ler (D AA no. 49, the
base for a marble kore statue); Polyxenos, the son of Mn es on the ful ler (D AA no.
342 , a per irr han ter ion ); Pol ykl es the ful ler (7 G P 554 , a bro nze vas e); Sm ik ro s the
tanner (D AA no. 58, a kor e sta tue ); a car pen ter (te kto n) wh os e na me has bee n los t
(DAA no. 196 , the bas e for a ma rb le sta tue of ahor se) ; Sm ik yt he the wa sh er wo ma n
(DAA no. 380 , a ma rb le bas in) ; an d Phr ygi a the bre ads ell er (J G P 546 , an ins cri bed
bronze shi eld tha t ma y ori gin all y hav e bee n att ach ed to an At he na sta tue tte ). Th e
Late Ar ch ai c Acr opo lis Pot ter rel ief (Fi g. 19) dep ict s the ded ica tor him sel f sea ted

and holding two dr in ki ng cup s in his han d: the se sho uld be un de rs to od as ex am pl es

of his own products an d the sou rce of the pro fit s he use d to ma ke his ded ica tio n.
We should also inc lud e in our pro vis ion al lis t of ban aus ic ded ica tio ns the fou r bas es
for statues dedicated by me n wh o ide nti fy the mse lve s as ker ame us, wh ic h can be
tra nsl ate d eit her as the oc cu pa ti on of “po tte r” or the de mo ti c for the Att ic de me
Kerameis. These are the ded ica tio ns of Ne ar ch os dis cus sed in Ch ap te r 3 (D AA no.
197); Eu ph ro ni os (D AA no. 225 ); Pei kon (D AA no. 44) ; an d the joi nt ded ica tio n by
Mnesiades and Andoki de s (D AA no. 178 ).
( r e s i d e n t a l i e n s ) i n A t h e n s s o m e t i m e s g a v e t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n s as a n al -
Metics
e to t h e d e m o t i c s u s e d b y A t h e n i a n c i t i z e n s af te r K l e i s t h e n e s ’ d e m o c r a t i c
ternativ
f 5 0 8 / 7 , b u t th is f o r m o f s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w a s n o t u s e d c o n s i s t e n t l y
reforms o
f i f t h c e n t u r y to i d e n t i f y t h e b a n a u s i c d e d i c a t o r s o n t h e A c r o p o l i s as
enough in the

69
ANATHEMATA

19. Acropolis Potter relief (Acr. no. 1332). Copyright Deutsches Archaolo-
gisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr. 69/1684.

metics.” On the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis, only two dedications include
ethnics that identify their dedicators as non-Athenians, and two other dedicators
can be identified as resident aliens by other means.** There is no reason to doubt
that the majority of the dedicators who inscribed their occupations were Athenian
citizens; Xenophon (Memorabilia 3.7.6) deprecatingly refers to the Athenian assem-
bly as being composed of “fullers or cobblers or carpenters or smiths or farmers or
merchants.”*? Scornful outbursts against male and female banausoi are common in
Classical Greek authors, which leads one to wonder why dedicators chose to include
their occupations in dedicatory inscriptions displayed on the Athenian Acropolis.
The simplest answer is that votive dedications by banausoi reflect the dedicators own

7O
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

pride in their occupations, regardless of what aristocrats might think; the inclusion
of the occupation in the inscription may also point to profit from this occupation
as the source of funds used to make the dedication.
Dedicatory inscriptions naming the dedicator’s banausic occupation have been
found (albeit in very small numbers) in other Greek sanctuaries; all but 4 of the
16 examples included in Lazzarini’s catalog of Archaic dedicatory inscriptions come
from the Athenian Acropolis.3° The tradition of craftsmen as votaries in Greek
religion stretches from the late seventh century B.c. to the Roman period.3”7 Some
fourth-century votive reliefs from Athens dedicated by craftsmen and other banausoi
show scenes of their dedicators at work; others take a more conventional approach,
depicting the dedicators as ordinary worshippers approaching the deity in an attitude
of prayer.® The great majority of attested Greek craftsmen’s dedications, though,
consist of inscribed examples of their own wares.?? What makes the Acropolis unique
is the relatively large concentration of banausic offerings found there, together with
the fact that some banausoi (a fuller, a tanner, a carpenter, and all four self-identified
“kerameis’) dedicated statues rather than the fruits of their own labors.
As I discussed in Chapter 3, the Acropolis statue dedications by potters and
other banausoi have been taken to be a result of Kleisthenes’ democratic reforms.
Yet the uncertainties built into the relative chronologies used to date statues and
inscriptions call into question any direct link between the Athenian democracy and
the “democratization” of statue dedications on the Acropolis. What we need to
determine is whether the statue dedications made by potters and banausoi on the
Athenian Acropolis are really an anomaly and, if they are, why banausoi in sixth- and
fifth-centur y Ath ens wer e mot iva ted to mak e suc h ded ica tio ns on the Acr opo lis .

DEDIGATIONS*SYPOTTERS AND VASE PAINTERS

A maximum of five dedicators called themselves kerameus on their Acropolis
dedications: Nearchos [keram e]u s (D AA no. 197, wit h alt ern ati ve res tor ati ons pos si-
ble), Euphronios (no. 225), Peikon (no . 44) , and the joi nt ded ica tor s Mne sia des and
Andokides (no. 178). All four ded ica tio ns app ear to hav e bee n sta tue s, and Nea rch os
dedicated an unusually large (an d the ref ore unu sua lly exp ens ive ) mar ble kor e. The
Nearchos dedication has already raised the pos sib ili ty tha t ker ame us sho uld be rea d
as the demotic for Kerameis rat her tha n the occ upa tio n “po tte r”; one cou ld arg ue,
though, that the name matches betwee n Nea rch os, Eup hro nio s, Mne sia des , and
Andokides and kno wn pot ter s inc rea ses the lik eli hoo d tha t all five of the ded ica tor s
in this group really should be identifie d as the pot ter s of the sam e nam e.
More di ff ic ul t to ex pl ai n, th ou gh , is th e “g en er at io n ga p” be tw ee n th e mi d-
sixth-century bl ac k fi gu re po tt er /p ai nt er Ne ar ch os an d th e re la ti ve da te of ca . 52 5—

510 normally assi gn ed to th e Ac ro po li s de di ca ti on by Ne ar ch os . As it tu rn s ou t,

two of the other four er a m e u s d e d i c a t i o n s pr es en t th e s a m e p r o b l e m o f a g a p

FL
ANATHEMATA

up to a ge ne ra ti on lo ng be tw ee n th e da te co nv en ti on al ly as si gn ed to th e po tt er 's
wo rk an d th e da te of th e de di ca ti on in th e Ac ro po li s re la ti ve ch ro no lo gy . Be az le y
dated the work of th e re d fi gu re po tt er /p ai nt er Eu ph ro ni os be tw ee n ca . 53 0 an d
ca. 50 0 B. c. an d co ns id er ed th e va se s he si gn ed as pa in te r to be ea rl ie r th an hi s
potter si gn at ur es ; in co nt ra st , th e le tt er fo rm da te fo r D A A no . 22 5 de di ca te d by
Euphronios kerameus hovers around 480. 4° Th e ga p be tw ee n th e jo in t de di ca to rs
Mnesiades and the red figu re po tt er An do ki de s ma y be le ss of a pr ob le m, bu t on ly
if we assume that Mnesiades was a gene ra ti on ol de r th an An do ki de s an d pe rh ap s
his teacher, an infere nc e ba se d so le ly up on th e ch ro no lo gi ca l di sc re pa nc y be tw ee n
e
Mnesiades’ only signatur (m id -s ix th ce nt ur y) an d th e da te s fo r bo th An do ki de s
(ca. 530-510) and DAA no. 178 (ca. 525)."
Raubitschek took such discrepancies as evidence that potters and vase painters
mad e thei r Acro poli s dedi cati ons at the end of thei r care ers; a fra gme nta ry refe r-
ence to Hygieia (“health”) in the accusative ({h]uyfe1a[v]) in the inscription on
Euphronios’ dedication has even been used to suggest that he made it in hopes of a
divine remedy for his failing health.4* A more plausible explanation for the appear-
ance of the word “health” in Euphronios’ fragmentary dedicatory inscription is that
his dedication took the form of a generalized prayer to preserve his health, or even
the “health” of his pots.#? An alternative solution to the problem of chronological
discrepancy, employed in the case of Nearchos, is to invent a grandson with the
same name as the potter or vase painter we know and to attribute the dedication to
him.
In addition to the 5 dedicators of statues on the Acropolis who described them-
selves as “kerameus’ in their dedicatory inscriptions, Raubitschek suggested that as
many as 25 other Acropolis dedicators of the sixth and fifth centuries were potters
or vase painters based upon name matches with the craftsmen who signed Attic
black and red figure pottery. Three of Raubitschek’s name matches with known
potters rely upon misleading exempli gratia name restorations on the dedications
and should be rejected outright.4# Other name matches (all without patronymics
or demotics) have rightly been rejected by other scholars as inconclusive because
the names are not unusual.‘ Still others require us to assume that the dedica-
tors were the eponymous grandsons of known potters or vase painters in order to
explain chronological discrepancies: these are the dedications by Aischines (DAA
no. 48), Archeneides (no. 184), Charinos (no. 291), Smikros (no. 53), and Xenokles
(no. 42).4°
In addition to name matches, Raubitschek used two subsidiary criteria to iden-
tify dedications by potters and painters: the possibility that some statue bases sup-
ported stone or metal vases, and the use of formulas referring to craft or labor in
dedicatory inscriptions.” As it turns out, these secondary criteria are no less prob-
lematic as criteria for identifying dedications by known potters and vase painters

Wi?
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

than name matching. Only one Acropolis statue base is likely to have supported
a bronze vase other than a tripod or lebes: like the tripod and lebes dedications,
this vase (possibly a hydria or a krater supported by a metal stand) could symbolize
either sacrifice or agonistic victory rather than the potter's craft.4* References to
techne “craft” or “skill”), sophia (“wisdom”), and erga (“works”, “products,” or “pro-
duce”) in dedicatory inscriptions could refer not only to potters but also to other
craftsmen, laborers, and even farmers.4? The net result is that, in addition to the
five names on the four kerameus dedications, we gain several possibilities, but only
two other dedications by potters or painters that can be convincingly identified by
name matching because the names involved are unusual: these are the dedications
by Kriton son of Skythes (220) and by Onesimos son of Smikythos, the joint dedi-
cator (with his son Theodoros) of a base for multiple bronze statuettes as well as an
extraordinary series of nine marble perirrhanteria.°°
Even if we reject the great majority of Raubitschek’s identifications, we are left
with a total of seven Athenian potters or vase painters who dedicated statues on the
Acropolis. The explanation offered for this phenomenon by Vickers and D.W. J.
Gill is that the individuals whose signatures appear on Athenian black and red figure
pottery were in fact makers of metal vessels, who enjoyed greater prestige in Archaic
and Classical Greek society than ceramicists did, and who undoubtedly earned larger
profits from their craft. In actuality, only one of the banausic dedications discussed
in this section is more likely to be the offering of a metal worker than of a potter.
This is the Acropolis Potter relief, which depicts its dedicator seated and holding two
drinking cups in his hand. Although these cups resemble Late Archaic black glaze
“Acrocups,” later examples of this shape in silver indicate that ceramic Acrocups
were based upon metal prototypes; for this reason, the Potter relief might actually
represent a maker of metal vessels rather than ceramic ones.** On the basis of the
cuttings preserved on the top of the Potter relief, its central acroterion was probably
a footed metal vessel such as a hydria, and its two corner acroteria were small bronze
statuettes of unknown type — further support for the dedicator’s identification as a
metalworker.”
A less extreme and more comm on ar gu me nt th an th at of Vi ck er s an d Fr an ci s
holds th at th e na me s th at ap pe ar in th e si gn at ur es on At ti c bl ac k an d re d fi gu re
pottery are , in at le as t so me ca se s, th os e of we al th y, hi gh -s ta tu s wo rk sh op ow n-
ers ra th er th an the : po tt er s th em se lv es . Tw o di st in ct fo rm ul as we re us ed in th es e
signatur es : th e ve rb eg ra ps en (“ X pa in te d it” ) re fe rs to th e va se pa in te r; th e ve rb
epoiesen (“X ma de it” ) sh ou ld re fe r to po tt er s, bu t in so me ca se s it se em s to wa rr an t
a broader in te rp re ta ti on . Th e pr im ar y us e of th e ve rb ep oi es en by po tt er s wh o ma de
the vases they signed wi th th ei r ow n ha nd s go es ba ck as fa r as th e Gr ee k co lo ny
at Pithekoussai in th e la te ei gh th ce nt ur y B. c. ** Ho we ve r, th e At he ni an re d fi gu re
evidence for epoiesen si gn at ur es p r o m p t e d R. M . C o o k to su gg es t th at , b y th e fi ft h
ANATHEMATA

century at leas t, “t he us e of ér ro fn ce v mu st ha ve b e c o m e re st ri ct ed pr im ar il y to th e
sense of ow ne rs hi p. ”* » Ne ve rt he le ss , I w o u l d ar gu e th at th e ex am pl es ci te d b y C o o k
can easily be re ad as ex ce pt io ns ra th er th an th e ru le . T h e a r g u m e n t th at ep oz es en
signer s we re w o r k s h o p ow ne rs ul ti ma te ly re li es u p o n bo th th e gr ea te r pe rc en ta ge of
ep oi es en th an eg ra ps en si gn at ur es on At ti c po tt er y an d th e re la ti ve pa uc it y of al l su ch
signatures; but signing practices on po tt er y, an d on sc ul pt ur e fo r th at ma tt er , we re
neither rational nor predictable.
In the end, the Acropolis dedicati on s ca n eas ily be co me .a so ur ce of sp ec ia l
pleading for the status of At he ni an pot ter s: if po tt er s co ul d af fo rd to de di ca te
statues on the Acropolis, so thi s re as on in g goe s, th ey mu st ha ve be en ar is to cr at ic
workshop ow ne rs ra th er th an si mp ly pot ter s. Th e fac t th at th e de di ca to rs Ne ar ch os ,
Euphronios, and On es im os we re cu p ma ke rs ha s be en ta ke n as ev id en ce th at th e
ma ke rs of dr in ki ng cu ps for sy mp os ia mo ve d in th e sa me soc ial cir cle s as the ir
aristocratic patrons.” The great majority of signatures on Attic pottery appear
on cups; this could mean that cup makers enjoyed more wealth and prestige
than the makers of other shapes, but at the same time the bias of our proso-
pographical sample in favor of cup makers is bound to generate name matches
with them. In a similar vein, claims that dipinti attached to symposium scenes
on Athenian red figure pottery refer to the potters Euphronios and Smikros have
not taken into account the likelihood that other Athenians with the same names,
and not the potters we know, are being referred to in a putatively “aristocratic”
context.

WHY BANAUSO??
If we accept that some potters dedicated statues on the Athenian Acropolis, as
I believe we should, their dedications do not necessarily tell us anything about the
social status of potters in sixth- and fifth-century Athens. The ability to afford a
statue, even one as imposing as the marble kore dedicated by Nearchos, carries with
it economic implications that do not inevitably reflect social position. In fourth-
century Athens, some sculptors (notably Praxiteles and his family) and at least
one family of potters did reach the highest levels of Athenian society, as evidenced
by their performance of state liturgies; but, as Andrew Stewart has pointed out,
retrojecting the more fluid interaction between wealth and status of fourth-century
Athens back to the fifth or even the sixth century is anachronistic.
Claims ofaristocratic status or sacred office for other Acropolis dedicators who
reveal their occupations strike me as equally suspect. Though it has been suggested
that the tekton who dedicated a statue on the Acropolis (DAA no. 196) was really
a high-status architect, fifth-century evidence for the use of the term tekton sup-
ports identifying this dedicator as a lowly carpenter.®° Although the “washerwoman”

74
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

(plyntria) Smikythe who dedicated a marble perirrhanterion on the Acropolis (DAA

no. 380) could conceivably have been a woman who took part in the Plynteria
festival of Athena rather than a washerwoman, dedications by male and female
washers have been found in other Greek sanctuaries.®' I prefer to treat the banausic
dedications on the Athenian Acropolis not as an anomaly to be explained away,
but rather as evidence that aristocrats and banausoi had equally good reasons for
dedicating statues on the Acropolis. Athena’s patronage of craftsmen finds an ex-
plicit expression in fourth-century dedications on the Acropolis to Athena Ergane,
“Worker Athena.”® Although the epithet Ergane does not appear in dedicatory in-
scriptions before then, it represents a codification of the goddess’ traditional role as
the patroness of “domestic craft and commercial industry,” which found particular
expression in the annual Chalkeia festival.°3 Because Athena fostered the rechne and
sophia associated specifically with craftsmen and other banausoi, it was appropriate
to give her thanks from the fruits of labor.
A more important point to make is that statue dedications on the Acropolis were
generated by occasions rather than by social status per se. Agonistic victory was the
aristocratic occasion par excellence, but equally valid occasions were experienced by
craftsmen who earned profits from their labor, and even by fishermen in thanksgiving
for a memorable catch. Votive statues could be cited as proof of wealth, as they were
by Attic orators in the fourth century, but they were never the exclusive preserve of
aristocrats. The Athenian Acropolis has produced far more dedications of statues
by craftsmen and other banausoi over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries
than any other Greek sanctuary; but the inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis
in this period so far outnumber the published examples found elsewhere that the
number of banausic dedications there may not be as statistically significant as it
first appears.® The lack of prosopographical evidence from Greek poleis other than
Athens prevents us from determining the social status of practically all dedicators of
statues in sanctuaries other than the Acropolis, and even on the Acropolis we know
nothing about the great majority of the 200 men and women whose names appear
on statue de di ca ti on s be tw ee n ca. 60 0 an d ca. 40 0 B.C .

WOMENAND VOTIVE STATUES

A total of only 17 names of women dedi ca to rs ap pe ar in th e vo ti ve in sc ri pt io ns

on st on e fr om th e si xt h- an d fi ft h- ce nt ur y Ac ro po li s, an d on ly 13 of th es e wo me n
dedicated statue s ra th er th an vo ti ve re li ef s or ma rb le pe ri rr ha nt er ia .° ° Al l bu t on e
of the wome n’ s de di ca ti on s be lo ng to th e bu lg e pe ri od of ca. 51 0- 48 0 or th e la t-
ter part of th e fi ft h ce nt ur y in th e re la ti ve ch ro no lo gy ; on ly on e (t he lo st st at ue

7S
ANATHEMATA

belonging to D A A no . 3) ap pe ar s to ha ve be en a la rg e- sc al e ma rb le st at ue , an d no ne
were expensive la rg e- sc al e br on ze s. O n l y tw o of the women identified themselves
explicitly as citi ze ns ’ wi ve s b y in sc ri bi ng th ei r husban ds ’ na me s an d de mo ti cs . T w o
wome n w h o m a d e a jo in t de di ca ti on we re n o n - A t h e n i a n si st er s fr om Ar go s ( D A A
no. 29 7) , an d an ot he r id en ti fi ed he rs el f as a w a s h e r w o m a n ( D A A no . 38 0) . W h o
were th e re st of th es e w o m e n ? D e t e r m i n i n g th e st at us of w o m e n w h o in sc ri be d th ei r
names on votive dedications without demo ti cs , pa tr on ym ic s, or hu sb an ds ’ na me s
is a persistent epigraphical problem; Sara Al es hi re , in he r st ud ie s of th e At he ni an
Asklepieion, questioned the co m m o n as su mp ti on th at th ey we re pr os ti tu te s an d
other noncit iz en s ra th er th an or di na ry At he ni an ci ti ze n w o m e n . * 7
The 13 wo me n who ded ica ted sta tue s on the Acr opo lis mak e up wel l und er 10
percent of the tot al of app rox ima tel y 200 ded ica tor s of sta tue s who se nam es hav e
been comple tel y or par tia lly pre ser ved . Sim ila rly , Laz zar ini inc lud es in her cat alo g of
1,000 Archaic dedicatory inscriptions only 77 belonging to dedications by women,
and very few of these dedications were statues.® In the sixth and fifth centuries, it
appears to have been more common for women to dedicate small, inscribed bronzes
than statues attached to inscribed stone bases. On the small number of Archaic and
fifth-century inscribed bronzes found on the Acropolis, the percentage of women
dedicators falls somewhere around 35 percent.®? A comparable percentage of the
dedicators of temple offerings (votive gifts stored inside buildings) on the Acropolis
were women. According to the Acropolis temple inventories of the late fifth and
fourth centuries, 29 (37 percent) out of 78 dedicators whose names were included in
the inventories were women.”° Statistics from the Athenian Asklepieion reinforce
the distinction between temple offerings and statue dedications. There a full 51.39
percent of the dedicators whose names were listed in the fourth- and third-century
temple inventories were women; yet only 12 percent of the dedicators of statues
from the entire history of the sanctuary were individual women, with another 21
percent of the preserved names coming from joint dedications by men and women,
a phenomenon without parallels on the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis.” In
the fourth century, statue dedications by women became more common on the
Acropolis: out of 41 dedications with recoverable names, 11 were made by women
(26.8 percent) compared with 27 by men and 3 by family groups.”
Archaic Attic funerary monuments show a bias in favor of co mmemorating men
comparable with the bias in favor of men as the dedicators of votive statues on the
Acropolis in the sixth and fifth centuries. Out of 68 inscribed Archaic gravestones
from Athens and Attica that preserve enough of the name of the deceased to tell his
or her gender, 61 (89.7 percent) commemorate men, compared with only 7 (10.3
percent) commemorating women, a discrepancy reinforced by the large numbers of
funerary kouroi and relief stelai representing men compared with korai and reliefs
showing women.” Surprisingly, even though Classical (Late fifth and fourth century)

76
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

funerary reliefs from Athens represent family groups composed of equal numbers
of men and women, the inscribed stelai set up in family grave groups continued to
name men far more frequently than women.”4
Votive offerings, including statues, were never the exclusive province of men,
even if in practice the social structures of Archaic and Classical Athenian society
prevented many women from freeing up the cash necessary to dedicate statues on
the Acropolis in their own names.” Perhaps the underrepresentation of women as
dedicators of statues compared with temple offerings on the Acropolis should be
understood in terms of public name display. Inscribed votive dedications highlight
the paradox of women’s status in Archaic and Classical Athens: women played an
integral role in Athenian religion, yet at the same time the naming of citizen women
in public was discouraged in social and political contexts.”° Statues dedicated by
women were inscribed with their dedicators’ names, and thus provided an occa-
sion for the public display of women’s names paralleled only by inscribed funerary
monuments.

SPA Eel VRB seANDas O GhATeS VAIUS

ONS TLESACR OPO LIS

The dedicators of statues on the Acropolis “represented” themselves by inscribing

thei r nam es on thei r dedi cati ons; the stat ues them selv es cons titu te a disj unct ive
form of disp lay and coul d repr esen t subj ects othe r than thei r dedi cato rs. Disj unc-
tive representation was the nor m. Yet, alt hou gh they rem ain ed ind epe nde nt of one
another, we would still expe ct to find som e for m of coor dina tion bet wee n the mes-
sages conveyed by votive stat ues and the dedi cato ry insc ript ions that acc omp ani ed
them. Votive statues have the pote ntia l to expr ess thei r dedi cato rs’ stat us even whe n
the inscribed nam e did not. The corr elat ion bet wee n the type of stat ue dedi cate d
and the identity of the dedicator has been trea ted in prev ious scho lars hip almo st
exclusively in terms of the dedicator’s soci al stat us and the pote ntia l for part icul ar
statue type s, such as the Arch aic kore , to expr ess it. Yet, at the same time , stud ies of
the sam e stat ue type have pro duc ed conf lict ing read ings of thei r soci al sign ific ance .
Lambert Schneider treats the kore as the sym bol of aris tocr atic valu es par exce l-
lence, which on the Acro poli s late r spre ad to dedi cati ons by nona rist ocra ts; R. Ross
Holloway used the sam e bod y of evid ence to argu e that nona rist ocra ts were the
primary dedi cato rs of kora i on the Acro poli s, and that the kore type shou ld ther e-
fore be recognized as “a gene rali zed figu re of goo d ome n, suit able for dedi cati ons
reco rdin g fina ncia l pro spe rit y.”
Though attentio n ha s hi th er to fo cu se d on th e Ar ch ai c ma rb le ko ra i, se ei ng
the big picture must invo lv e ta ki ng in to ac co un t th e fu ll s p e c t r u m of th e ev id en ce
ANATHEMATA

for statue type s de di ca te d on th e Ac ro po li s ov er th e co ur se of th e si xt h an d fi ft h

centur ie s, in bo th ma rb le an d br on ze . T h e ev id en ce fo r th e de di ca ti on of br on ze
sculptures on th e Ac ro po li s be fo re th e en d of th e fi ft h ce nt ur y is ex te ns iv e, b u t
often ov er lo ok ed be ca us e it de ri ve s p r e d o m i n a n t l y fr om st at ue ba se s. T h e sh if t fr om
marble to br on ze as th e p r e d o m i n a n t ma te ri al fo r la rg e- sc al e vo ti ve st at ue s cl ea rl y
plays a ro le in th e di sa pp ea ra nc e of th e ma rb le ko ur oi an d ko ra i fr om th e At he ni an
Acropolis and other Greek sanctuaries, su ch as th e S a m i a n He ra io n, t h o u g h th at
role has seldom been explored. The Acro po li s is th e on ly sa nc tu ar y wh er e th e sc al e
and impact of bronze statua in ry th e si xt h an d fi ft h ce nt ur ie s ca n be m e a s u r e d b y
using the evidence of statue base s: th es e pr ov id e ar ch ae ol og ic al ev id en ce no t on ly
for the us e of br on ze in st ea d of ma rb le bu t al so fo r th e de di ca ti on of sp ec if ic st at ue
types in bronze.
Before the types of statues dedicated on the Acropolis are considered, it is
necessary for the evidence that bases provide for identifying them to be summarized.
Statue bases of three major types were used on the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis:
columns fluted or unfluted, with Ionic capitals, round capitals, or no capital at all;
rectangular pillars with separate capitals (type A) or carved in one piece with a
molding at the top (type B); and low bases, rectangular or round, made of single
or multiple blocks, and occasionally stepped.7* All of the extant korai and feet for
korai from the Acropolis that can be matched with bases were supported by fluted
columns (with either Ionic or round capitals) or by rectangular pillars. Multiple
parallels for column bases used as supports for korai and their male counterparts,
the kouroi, have been found in the Cyclades.” Though the evidence suggests that
a high placement was desirable, it does not rule out the possibility that korai were
also displayed on low bases. The few bases for kouroi and other standing male
figures in marble from the Acropolis include both low bases and one rectangular
pillar.
The cuttings on the top surfaces of statue bases constitute the chief archaeo-
logical evidence for statue materials and types. The Acropolis bases of the sixth and
fifth centuries provide evidence for three distinct methods of attachment: the plinth
technique for marble statues and two different techniques for bronzes, which are
the Samian technique and the dowel technique. The sculptors who made votive
columns did not always obey the “rules” of the Doric and Ionic orders familiar
from temple architecture, and some dispensed with capitals altogether by attaching
bronze sculptures directly to the top ofthe column.°° Bases for marble sculptures of
any size are easy to identify: they feature a plinth cavity with a level floor (usually at
least 2 cm deep), where the statue’s plinth was set with lead soldering poured around
its edges for stability. Euthydikos’ kore (Figs. 1 and 2) provides a good example of a
plinth still attached to its base, in this case a round column capital.

78
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

i. kasMeeS S
Gf
a naetetwmaan SyTN
KSEE oy Uijie “les
VILLPLL
YU IITALA
eo 19 o Se
Nees

~ = oie eee TSF Arlee wa Tee ISne BA

a AS CRAWe
a ,
V7 a 7 .
PB ars
-

DOCO t
M
t e
E
, I N R
O
WY

T
M E
T e
tig

T N
T
e
,

E
Pug

a , ”
IL E Y a g
iy

u r y ibe
U Lipo Sify ss OP INGE ob i

%CYMME@Y_ EEE L E E E
4 4

20. Illustrations of the Samian technique. Reproduced from Borrmann 1888, Figure 28.

EEE VD DIEIN'
SC Bab ORB ROINIZ Es SalAm. OAR:
The earliest known examples of hollow cast bronze statues (both kouroi) come
from Olympia and the Athenian agora, and Carol Mattusch dates both somewhere
in the first half of the sixth century.” The new technique of hollow casting created
the potential for larger-scale freestanding sculptures than were possible when bronzes
were cast solid: the statues from Olympia and the agora stood somewhere between
40 cm and 1 m tall, whereas the tallest solid cast bronze sculpture of the sixth
century is a 42-cm-tall figure ofa flutist from Samos, dated by its sculptural style
to ca. 540-530 B.c.** The Roman art historical tradition associated innovations in
bronze working with the Archaic Samian sculptor and temple architect Theodoros;
though none ofhis works survives, statue bases dating to the third quarter of the sixth
century from the Samian Heraion provide unmistakable evidence for the dedication
in the sanctuary oflarge-scale bronze sculptures that were most likely hollow rather
than solid cast.
Eleven statue bases from the Athenian Acropolis, all dated between ca. 530 and
480 in the JG [ rela tive chro nolo gy, illu stra te the so-c alle d “Sa mia n tech niqu e”
for attaching large scal e, hol low cast bron ze stat ues to ston e base s (Fig . 20). °4 On
their top surfaces they feat ure dee p groo ves for min g a rect angl e and fra min g a
raised area; the feet of the stat ue were atta ched to a bron ze plin th, whi ch was then
anchored into the grooves with bron ze flan ges run nin g aro und all four edge s of
the plinth. Lead poured over thes e flan ges secu red the bron ze plin th to the top of
the statue base.** Despite the fact that the Acro poli s exca vati ons that pro duc ed 54
well-preserved marble korai turn ed up only isol ated fra gme nts of larg e scal e, holl ow
cast bronzes, archaeological and iconogra ph ic ev id en ce su gg es ts th at so me , if no t
ANATHEMATA

21. Berlin Foundry cup; exterior. Antike nsa mml ung , Sta atl ich e Mus een zu Ber lin Pre uss isc her Kul -
turbesizt inv. F2294. Photo: Ingrid Geske, neg. nr. N3.

all, of the Acropolis bas es usi ng the Sam ian tec hni que sho uld dat e bef ore the Per sia n
sack of 480. A Late Archaic bronze statue of Zeus from Ugento in southern Italy,
dated stylistically anywhere from ca. 530 to ca. 480, was attached to its limestone
column base by the Samian technique.*® The bronze Poseidon found in Livadhostro
Bay off the coast of Boiotia and now displayed in the Athens National Museum
stands on an inscribed bronze plinth; its style is also Late Archaic, though it is
impossible to say for certain whether it dates before or soon after 480.‘ The highly
detailed representation of a bronze sculptor’s workship on the Berlin Foundry cup
(Fig. 21), dated ca. 490-480, shows a colossal bronze warrior statue attached to a
correspondingly large bronze plinth with flanges.** Pausanias mentions two colossal
bronze statues at Olympia attached to bronze bases (bathra), a possible reference to
the bronze plinths used in the Samian technique: one of these, signed by Onatas of
Aegina, could date either before or after 480.*
It is easy to see why the Samian technique became obsolete for large-scale bronze
sculpture: bronze plinths were both expensive to produce and cumbersome to work
with. The dowel technique that replaced it involved attaching the statue’s feet directly
to the base with lead dowels created by pouring molten lead through holes in the
sole of the foot down into corresponding holes excavated in the top surface of the
base.?° Statue bases for bronzes attached by the dowel technique feature small, deep

80
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

holes corresponding with the positions of the statue’s feet. Though it is impossible
to prove, it seems likely that the dowel technique, like the Samian technique, came
into use on the Acropolis in the Late Archaic period. The original monument
commemorating the Athenian victory over the Boiotians and Chalcidians in 507/6
(DAA no. 168), though its base preserves no actual dowel holes, shows no grooves for
a bronze plinth, and a plinth would have been impractical for a large-scale bronze
chariot group.”

ATHENA PROMACHOS DA UE Tet ES

The best evidence for Archaic bronze sculpture on the Acropolis, however,
comes from a series of small, solid cast votive statuettes found in the nineteenth-
century excavations. One early (second quarter of the sixth century) statuette repre-
sents Athena standing with her feet close together and brandishing a spear over her
head, a type known as a Palladion in reference to the Trojan idol carried off by the
Achaeans.°* The series also includes statuettes (most of them Late Archaic or Early
Classical in style) representing Athena standing at rest, male figures including ath-
letes, two dancing women, a kore, a centaur, a sphinx, and a rock-throwing giant.
However, the most common type of bronze statuette found on the Acropolis is the
armed, striding, attacking Athena traditionally associated with Pheidias’ colossal
bronze Athena “Promachos” of the mid-fifth century, despite the fact that Pheidias’
statue stood at rest. Although neither Pheidias’ Athena nor the earlier statuettes were
called “Promachoi” by the Athenians themselves, the name Promachos has stuck.
Ten of these statuettes, ranging in height from 10.4 to 29 cm, were dedicated on
the Acropolis; stylistically, they are Late Archaic, and therefore the majority should
date before 480.94 Disembodied helmets, shields, snakes’ heads, and hands with
fingers clenched to hold a spear attest to a potentially large number of additional
Athena Promachos statuettes.?> The largest and best preserved example (Fig. 22) is
known as Mel eso ’s Ath ena bec aus e it sta nds on a bro nze pli nth ins cri bed wit h a
dedication by an oth erw ise un kn ow n wo ma n nam ed Mel eso ; she wea rs a hel met
with a crest made to loo k like a swa n’s nec k, and her aeg is is gil ded wit h gol d lea f
rather tha n thi cke r gol d foil , pos sib ly the earl iest exa mpl e of thi s tec hni que in Gre ek
sculpture.”°
There has bee n a tem pta tio n to pos it a mon ume nta l pro tot ype as the ins pir ati on
behind the small bronze Ath ena Pro mac hos sta tue tte s ded ica ted on the Acr opo lis
during the bulge period. In par tic ula r, C. J. Her ing ton con nec ted the str idi ng,
attacking pose as seen both in the sta tue tte s and on Pan ath ena ic pri ze amp hor as
with a lost cult statue of Athena on the Acr opo lis .” If we acc ept the ide a tha t the re
were already two major temples of Ath ena on the Arc hai c Acr opo lis — the Old
Athena te mp le wh os e fo un da ti on s un de rl ie th e ca ry at id po rc h of th e Er ec ht he io n
ANATHEMATA

22. Bronze Athena Promachos statuette

dedicated by Meleso from the Acrop-
olis (NM 6447). Copyright Deutsches
Archaologisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr.
NM 4742.

and an Ur-Parthenon or “Hekatompedon” underneath the Parthenon — then it

becomes possible that there was indeed a third Archaic cult image of Athena in
addition to the wooden xoanon of Athena Polias and the Athena Nike cult statue.**
Yet the active pose of the Athena Promachos statuettes would be unprecedented in
Greek sculpture before the Late Archaic bulge period of ca. 510-480 B.c., and the
Ur-Parthenon or Hekatompedon — if it really existed — was built in the mid-sixth
century or earlier.”
The pose of the Athena Promachos statuettes can probably be explained with-
out resorting to a lost cult statue as a prototype; it can be viewed instead as an
adaptation of Near Eastern bronze statuettes of the “smiting god” type to the re-
quirements of Greek religious iconography. Smiting god statuettes probably passed
into the Greek repertoire from Syro-Palestine either during the Late Bronze Age or

82
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

23. Bronze smiting god statuette (Baal?) from Ugarit, ca. 1300 B.c.;
Louvre iny. AO 11598. Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Art Resource,
NY.

the Greek “Dark Ages” (ca. 1100-900 B.c.). Within the context of the Levant, small
bronze statuettes representing a striding, attacking male figure holding a spear in
one hand and a bow in the other were used to represent the god Reshef, and possibly
human rulers as well (Fig. 23).'°° In a Greek context, the basic schema was adapted
to represent the gods as early as the tenth century B.c.: early smiting god figures
dedicated at Olympia could represent Zeus himself.'°' In statuettes of the mid-sixth
century and earlier, Athena was shown with her feet togethe r and her spear raised
over her head, the so-call ed Palladi on type; by the Late Archaic period, the pose
had been “opened up” into a stride. Late Archaic statuett es of Zeus and Herakle s
feature identical poses and differ only in their choice of weapon : a thunde rbolt for
7
Zeus and a club for Herakles.'°*
Although only ten Athena Promachos statuettes have been found on the
Acropolis, further evidence sho ws tha t bro nze Ath ena s (bo th sol id cast and hol low
cast) were a common dedication typ e bef ore the Per sia n sac k of 480 . The Acr opo lis
statuette series presents two technical prob le ms . In so me ca se s, it 1s im po ss ib le to

83
ANATHEMATA

distinguish freestanding statuettes used as vo ti ve s fr om sm al l br on ze fi gu re s th at

served as vessel attachments, tripod su pp or ts , or mi rr or ca ry at id s be ca us e of an
overlap in size between the ca te go ri es ." In ad di ti on to so li d ca st br on ze fi gu re s, at
least 15 inscribed bronze plin th s, so me wi th ou t pr es er ve d st at ue tt es , we re fo un d on
the Acropolis.!°+ Statuettes such as Meleso ’s At he na th at ha d de di ca to ry in sc ri pt io ns
on their plinths could have been de di ca te d an d st or ed in te mp le s an d ot he r cu lt
buildings on the Acropo li s, or at ta ch ed to un in sc ri be d st on e ba se s an d di sp la ye d in
the open air of the sanctuary. Ye ’ t 27 un in sc ri be d br on ze pl in th s we re al so fo un d,
and as many as 18 in sc ri be d st on e st at ue ba se s su pp or te d br on ze pl in th s so sm al l
that they sh ou ld be lo ng to st at ue tt es ra th er th an la rg er , ho ll ow ca st br on ze s. An
ad di ti on al fi ve in sc ri be d ba se s su pp or te d sm al l br on ze st at ue tt es at ta ch ed by fo ot
dowels alone without bronze plinths.'°° As many as ten of the inscribed stone statue
bases from the Acropolis supported bronze statuettes with their left foot advanced
and their feet far apart, which should probably be identified as Athenas in the
Promachos pose; these have been listed in Table 4 below.'°’ Thus, though some
of the extant Athena Promachos statuettes — in particular those with inscriptions
on their plinths — could have been dedicated within temples and other build-
ings on the Acropolis, others were attached to inscribed stone bases and displayed
within the same context as more monumental votive statues in the open air of the
Acropolis.
By far the most common type of small bronze statuette dedicated on the
Acropolis that we can identify is the Athena Promachos type. Larger bronze Athenas
were also dedicated on the Acropolis, both before and after 480. The inscribed bases
for bronze sculpture challenge the typological (rather than merely technical) distinc-
tions customarily made between large- and small-scale bronze statuary: I estimate
that as many as 36 out ofthe 77 bases that are certainly for bronzes supported statues
under 1 m tall, with no obvious gaps in the spectrum ofsizes.’°* The evidence of
the Acropolis statue bases also suggests that continuity in size and continuity in
the formulas of dedicatory inscriptions may have been accompanied by continuity
in the subjects votive statues represented: at least two dowel technique bases, DAA
nos. 41 and 277, probably supported hollow cast bronze Athenas of the “Promachos”
type based upon the positions of their foot holes, evidence that this particular type
was not confined to smaller, solid cast statuettes.‘
When viewed from the perspective of the Acropolis statue bases, the “great
divide” of 480 B.c. has more to do with the shift from marble to bronze as the pre-
dominant material for large-scale sculpture than it does with a sociological revolution
marked by the demise of the kouros and kore types. The statue bases make it clear
that the traditional dedicatory formula (X dedicated) continued in use after 480,
and that the same formulas could be inscribed on the bases for marble korai, Athena
Promachos statuettes, larger Athenas, and other life-size bronzes. The “shift” on the

84
 VoTIve STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

Acropolis should be conceived of mainly as a matter of chronological distribution:

overall, it appears that life-size or larger bronzes were far more common after 480 than
they were in the Archaic period, with very few marble statues in the round dedicated
after 480."

SLATUE TYPES
The number of Acropolis statue bases from the Archaic period that supported
bronze sculptures rather than marble ones may come as a surprise to anyone who
thinks of the marble korai as the quintessential votive statue type of the Archaic
period. Statistics derived from the bases help to show how much the disproportionate
survival of the korai has distorted the big picture. Surprisingly, very few of the
marble statues found on the Acropolis can be matched with extant inscribed bases;
this is one of the reasons why it has become customary to study the statues without
reference to the bases, and to arrive at the conclusion that marble korai were the most
common type of statue dedicated on the Acropolis. The number of Acropolis statue
bases that most likely supported kore statues is 15; these constitute only between
6 and 7 percent of the 228 inscribed bases dated before 480 by the /G P relative
chronology. The total number of bases from the period before 480 in the chronology
that certainly supported marble rather than bronze statues is 42, of which r5 (or
roughly 36 percent) were certainly korai.™ It is only when we tabulate the maximum
number of pre-480 column and pillar bases that could conceivably have supported
korai rather than some other statue type that we come up with a figure of around
57 percent (131 out of 228); but given the number of better-preserved column and
pillar bases that did support other types of statues, it is extremely unlikely that all
of the fragmentary bases really were for korai."*
Though often ignored, the Acropolis statue bases do provide potentially valuable
evidence for the types ofstatues they supported. In the case of marble statuary and
bronzes attached to plinths, type identification depends upon the plinth’s shape
and proportions as recovered from the plinth cavity on top of the base; in the case
of bronzes attached by the dowel technique, the location of the dowels gives the
position of the statue's feet." The problem of who dedicated which statue types on
the Acropolis has to be approached from two different directions. Tables 2 and 3
list the types of dedications made by each of the possible aristocrats and banausoi
identified in the earlier sections of this chapter; Table 4 lists by type each of the statues
I have been able to identify from a combination of preserved marble sculpture and
the evidence of statue bases. Both lists deal with statue types and purposely avoid
drawing further conclusions about whom or what these types represented (this
problem is reserved for Parts II and III).
The evidence produced by ins cri bed sta tue bas es dis cou rag es fac ile cor rel ati ons
between the social status (an d, for tha t mat ter , the gen der ) of th e ded ica tor s of vot ive

85
ANATHEMATA

Table 2. Aristocratic Dedicati on s on th e At he ni an Ac ro po li s, ca. 60 0- 40 0 B.C .

DAA no. Dedicator Statue Type and Material

6 Alkimachos marble scribe

317 Alkmeonides and —os bronze tripod or bowl (agonistic)
330 Chairion altar
120 Epicharinos bronze victor portrait
132 Hermolykos unknown
21 Kallias son of Didymias marble victor portrait
164 Kallias son of Didymias bronze victor portrait
ul Kallias son of Hipponikos standing figure (victor portrait?)
Way Karkinos unknown
135 Lakedaimonios, Xenophon,
and Pronapes bronze horse and groom
76 Phayllos of Kroton victor portrait
174 Pronapes bronze chariot group (victor)
87 Spoudis unknown
102 Strombichos unknown
Acr. no. 7355 Strombichos marble herm?
40 Telesinos bronze Athena Promachos statuette
112 Thrasyllos and Gnathios bronze standing figure (portrait)
24 ‘Timokrates unknown
47 Timotheos small bronze standing figure

statues and particular statue types in marble and bronze. It is impossible to determine
the statue types supported by the great majority of the inscribed statue bases from
the Acropolis (the “unknowns” in the table charts), a fact bound to call into ques-
tion the status correlations suggested by Schneider and Holloway for the marble

Table 3. Banausic Dedications on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 600-400 B.C.

DAA no. Dedicator Type and Material

383 Mechanion (scribe?) marble perirrhanterion
342 Polyxenos (fuller) marble perirrhanterion
49 Simon (fuller) marble kore
58 Smikros (tanner) unknown
380 Smikythe (washerwoman) marble perirrhanterion
196 — (carpenter) marble horse
31 — (sculptor) unknown
225 Euphronios kerameus unknown
178 Mnesiades and Andokides kerameus bronze statuette
197 Nearchos [kerame]us marble kore
44 Peikon kerameus unknown
70 —ios Acropolis Potter relief
224 — (techne and sophia) unknown
com
sent
awo
mpane
e: eren LANES Eee Sse SSS SSE SSNS

86
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

Table 4. Types of Statues Dedicated on the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 600-400 B.C.
S
e EAR s
DAA no. Dedicator Name Material Description
Korai
8 [Lys]eas and Aris[tion]
10 Epiteles
14 Kiron
45 Eupr-
48 Aischines
49 Simon the fuller
Sa os Smikros and sons
55a Lysibios
56 Euthydikos ,
57? Thelochares
197 Nearchos kerameus
229 [Nau]lochos
290 Lyson
292 (2) Lysias and Euarchis
294 Euthydikos
Equestrian Monuments
88 bronze
176 Chairedemos bronze
236 Timarchos small bronze
65 Hegesandros marble
148 Dionysios marble
169 [Diok]leides marble
221 Etearchos bronze
210 Tychandros marble
74 — Salaminios marble
196 — the carpenter marble
211 — [ek Mel]lites bronze
66a? Nauklas marble
135 Lakedaimonios, Xenophon,
and Pronapes bronze
109 Phaidon bronze
110 Archonides and Hebdomias bronze
I7I — Son of Thetalos bronze four-horse chariot
174 Pronapes bronze four-horse chariot

Nike
3 Kallimachos

Seated Scribe
6 Alkimachos marble

Seated Figure
7I Euangelos marble

“Moschophoros”
59 Rhombos marble

(continued)

87
ANATHEMATA

Table 4 (continued)
a
DAA no. Dedicator Name Material Description

Kouroi
62 10S
209 Tatrokles and Kephalos
IGP 804a

Athenas
40 Telesinos of Kettos small bronze
41 Heortios and Opsiades bronze
79 (2) Kynarbos small bronze
80 Philon, Aristion, Nau—, and
Pyrion small bronze
I9I Phileas and Chairedemos small bronze
241 Spinthon small bronze
260 Kar— small bronze
277 small bronze
313 small bronze
314 small bronze
315 Antiphanes small bronze
oy) Angelitos marble
4B Neokleides small bronze
160 [Arist]eas and Opsios bronze

Bronze Statuette Groups

81 Psakythe small bronze
217 Onesimos and Theodoros small bronze
233 Hierokleides son of Glaukios small bronze

Portraits
21 Kallias son of Didymias marble athlete
76 Phayllos of Kroton marble? athlete
120 Epicharinos bronze athlete (Aoplitodromos)
164 Kallias son of Didymias bronze athlete
112 Thrasyllos and Gnathios bronze warrior? (reinscribed)
121 Hegelochos bronze warrior? (reinscribed)
140 —Lamptreus bronze warrior group? (reinscribed)
146 bronze standing figure? (reinscribed)
177 bronze equestrian? (reinscribed)

korai. Schneider interpreted the Acropolis korai as expressions of a fundamentally

aristocratic ethos; but as Tables 2 and 3 show, Holloway was right to point out that
no known aristocrats dedicated marble korai. At the same time, Holloway probably
overestimated the significance of the connection between banausoiand the Acropolis
kore series. Two of the dedicators of korai, namely Nearchos kerameus (DAA no.
197) and Simon the fuller (DAA no. 49), could be banausoi, but the status of the
other 13 is completely unknown."

88
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

HORSES AND EQUESTRIAN GROUPS

In addition to the korai, two other statue types seem as if they should correlate
with the dedicator’s social status: kouroi and equestrian statues. The latter category
includes statues of horses, horses with riders, and more complex groups composed
of horses, chariots, and standing human figures. Though more kouroi were
dedicated on the Acropolis than one would think from looking only at the pre-
served statues, not enough inscribed bases for kouroi survive from the Acropolis to
draw any conclusions whatsoever about their dedicators."5 In contrast, between 9
and11Archaic marble statues of horses with riders have been found on the Acropolis,
as well as 17 possible bases for horses and equestrian groups identifiable from the
technical evidence of plinth cavities and dowel holes. Both Mary Ann Eaverly and
Sarah Morris have stressed the social and historical significance of the disappearance
of marble horses with riders from the Acropolis after 4sox% yet it is misleading to
treat the marble statues in isolation because equestrian figures in bronze were al-
ready being dedicated on the Acropolis in the Archaic period, and these dedications
continued after 480."7
One subset of equestrian dedications in Greek sanctuaries was undoubtedly
linked to aristocratic status: the statues of horses, riders, and equestrian groups ded-
icated to commemorate victories in the equestrian events of the Panhellenic athletic
festivals. Yet only two of the sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis statue dedications
involving horses can be identified with certainty as victory dedications: these are the
two bronze four-horse chariot groups, DAA nos. 171 (pre-480) and 174 (post-480).
The equestrian victory monuments at Olympia and Delphi ranged in size and com-
plexity from under-life-size figures of individual horses through life-size chariots
flanked by standing portrait statues of their dedicators."* There was no strict cor-
relation between the equestrian event and the form of the dedication, and some
victors in equestrian contests dedicated portraits of themselves without horses or
chariots."° Because none of the Archaic marble riders from the Acropolis can be
matched with any inscribed base, it is impossible to tell how many of these might
be self-portraits dedicated by equestrian victors, and the same goes for the inscribed
bases for horses that make no mention ofvictories by their dedicators.
In the Archaic per iod , ma rb le rid er sta tue s wer e use d to rep res ent the dec eas ed
on Attic grave monuments.'*° Th e as su mp ti on tha t six th- and fif th- cen tur y vot ive
statues of horses and riders should als o be int erp ret ed as por tra its has bee n enc our -
aged by the fact that equestrian honori fic por tra its , ins cri bed wit h the na me s of th e
subjects they represented, became comm on in Gr ee k san ctu ari es in the Hel len ist ic
an d Ro ma n per iod s.' ** On e ex am pl e of a rid er sta tue fro m the Acr opo lis dat ing
to the lat e fif th cen tur y (D AA no. 177 ) can be rec ogn ize d as a por tra it bec aus e the
statue was re us ed an d re in sc ri be d as an ho no ri fi c po rt ra it of a R o m a n su bj ec t. Th e
ANATHEMATA

marble Rampin ride r m i g h t be ei th er a vi ct or st at ue or a po rt ra it de di ca te d u p o n

some other o c c a s i o n . ” T h e br on ze ho rs e a n d g r o o m de di ca te d in th e mi d- fi ft h
century by the A t h e n i a n ca va lr y a n d it s th re e h i p p a r c h s ( D A A no . 13 5) , a l t h o u g h
probably not i n t e n d e d as a po rt ra it of a pa rt ic ul ar in di vi du al , se em s to m a k e us e
of an eq ue st ri an g r o u p as an e m b l e m fo r th e ca va lr y a n d it s ar is to cr at ic , ag on is ti c
connotations."
A final problem raised by the inscribed ba se s fr om th e Ac ro po li s is wh et he r or no t
we can tell the difference between bases fo r st at ue s of ho rs es (o r ho rs es an d ri de rs )
and those for other types of qu ad ru pe ds . Ba se s fo r ho rs es ca n be id en ti fi ed ei th er by
the long, narrow shapes of th ei r pl in th ca vi ti es or by th e po si ti on s of do we l ho le s,
but the same holds true fo r st at ue s re pr es en ti ng ot he r qu ad ru pe ds — co ws , bu ll s,
lions, and do gs — wh ic h we kn ow we re al so de di ca te d on th e Ac ro po li s. "* Ev en
though bases for qu ad ru pe ds wi th le ng th -t o- wi dt h pr op or ti on s be tw ee n 3:1 an d 5:1
sh ou ld be lo ng to eq ui ne s ra th er th an bo vi ne s, mo st of th e ca se s li st ed in Ta bl e 4 fal l
somewhere between 2:1 and 3:1, making horses possible but not certain.'** Statues
of riders tended to have their inscriptions on the narrow end of the base, but there
are exceptions to this rule, and some statues of cows and bulls were also inscribed
on the short side of the base rather than the long side.’*°
One statue dedication on the Acropolis that, based upon its plinth proportions,
should be a marble horse was dedicated by a tekton or carpenter (DAA no. 196). If
a banausos could dedicate a statue of a horse or a horseman on the Acropolis, then
we must conclude that equestrian statue dedications did not invariably express their
dedicators’ aristocratic status. Horses without riders, in addition to commemorating
agonistic victories, could also have been dedicated as aga/mata guaranteed to please
the horse-loving goddess Athena.'*7 The small bronze quadruped (probably a horse)
dedicated by Timarchos and signed by the Aiginetan sculptor Onatas (DAA no. 236)
may well have been such an agalma. The dedicatory inscription designates the
offering both as the outcome of an oracle and as the fulfillment of a vow made
by the dedicator’s mother, neither circumstance overtly connected with Timarchos’
social status, whatever it was.
Though commonly thought to reveal the social status of their dedicators, neither
the marble korai nor equestrian statues in marble and bronze correlate in any
predictable way with dedications by either aristocrats or nonaristocratic banausoi.
Even within the context ofthe same sanctuary, examples ofthe same statue type had
the potential to “mean” different things. Furthermore, the frequent dedication of
bronze Athenas on the Acropolis, both before and after 480, raises the possibility that
some types of votive statues concealed their dedicators’ status rather than revealing
it. The dedicators of Athena Promachos statuettes range from Telesinos of the deme
Kettos (DAA no. 40), a possible archon, to Phrygia the breadseller, whose inscribed
bronze shield with a gorgoneion on it could belong to a statuette ofthis type. Oddly

90
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

enough, the dedications of Phrygia and other banausoi advertise their social status
openly, whereas most of the Acropolis dedications by aristocrats did not: we can
only guess that Telesinos is the archon of the same name because his dedication
reveals nothing about him beyond his name and deme.

SEATUES AStV-OTIVESOPFERINGS

The first and most obvious way of reading the Acropolis dedications is as mnemata
(memorials) of the abiding wealth and social status of the Athenian aristocracy. How-
ever, the votive statues from the Athenian Acropolis offer more than reflections of
Athenian history and society. The unintentional by-product of the emphasis upon
historical and social correlations in previous scholarship has been the underesti-
mation of the dedications’ significance as products of ritual performance. It may
seem odd to think of votive statues such as Antenor’s kore in terms of ritual, but
for ancient viewers such as Pausanias, the same works of art displayed in Greek
sanctuaries inspired simultaneous ritual, art historical, and historical “discourses”
that did not strike them as inherently incompatible.’* Votive offerings of every
type, including statues, expressed relationships of reciprocity between the gods and
their worshippers; unlike sacrifices, inscribed votives also offered an opportunity for
memory preservation.”
In recent years, ritual-centered interpretations of Athenian funerary monuments
have gained currency, and some suggest precedents for a ritual-based interpretation
of the votive statues dedicated on the Acropolis.¥° One case in point is Sourvinou-
Inwood’s recent treatment of the Archaic funerary monument series." From the
inscribed gravestones alone, we would think that the typical deceased in sixth-
century Athens was a young male; in reality, the practice of commemorating the
dead through inscriptions and sculpture was heavily biased toward men rather
than women, toward the prematurely dead of both sexes, and toward the dead who
died abroad, aw ay fr om th ei r fa mi li es . 3? Alth ough funer ary monu ment s comb inin g
sculptural repres en ta ti on wi th in sc ri pt io ns in Ar ch ai c At he ns we re pr ob ab ly set up
by aristocrats, it was not ar is to cr at ic st at us pe r se th at de te rm in ed wh o re ce iv ed su ch
a monument, but funerary id eo lo gy an d at ti tu de s to wa rd de at h. Th e pe rc ei ve d
need to commemorat e in di vi du al s wh o di ed “b ad ” de at hs ca n be se en as a ri tu al
imperative that generate d th e ar te fa ct s we re co ve r ar ch ae ol og ic al ly .
The three main ritual mech an is ms for ma ki ng a de di ca ti on cit ed by th e in-
scriptions on Acropolis statue bases of th e six th an d fif th ce nt ur ie s — fir st- fru its
(aparche ), tit he (de kat e), an d vo w (e uc he ) — are no t sy no ny mo us wi th oc ca si on s for
ma ki ng of fe ri ng s to th e go ds , al th ou gh the ir use co ul d co ns ti tu te su ch oc ca si on s
in them se lv es . Fo r ex am pl e, wi nn in g a vi ct or y at Ol ym pi a pr ov id ed an oc ca si on

OI
ANATHEMATA

for dedicating a st at ue or so me ot he r ty pe of of fe ri ng on th e Ac ro po li s; th e re su lt -
ing dedication m i g h t al so co ns ti tu te th e fu lf il lm en t of a vo w, wh ic h un de r ot he r
circumstances mi gh t be su ff ic ie nt ca us e in it se lf fo r m a k i n g a de di ca ti on . N o n e of th e
dedica to ry m e c h a n i s m s at te st ed on th e si xt h- an d fi ft h- ce nt ur y st at ue ba se s pr es en ts
any ob vi ou s co rr el at io n ei th er wi th st at ue ty pe s or wi th th e de di ca to r' s st at us as an
aristo cr at or a no na ri st oc ra t. As in th e ca se of st at ue ty pe s, th e m a g n i t u d e of th e
“unknowns” seriously weakens argume nt s th at de di ca to ry m e c h a n i s m s we re st at us
linked. As Holloway has pointed out, ba na us oi de di ca ti ng st at ue s on th e Ac ro po li s
used the aparche mechanism and contin ue d to do so in th e fo ur th ce nt ur y, bu t th e
identity and status of 30 ou t of th e 33 si xt h- an d fi ft h- ce nt ur y de di ca to rs of ap ar ch ai
are unknown."3 Isaeus 5, in the early four th ce nt ur y, lo ca te s th e ap ar ch e m e c h a n i s m
within an ov er tl y ar is to cr at ic co nt ex t. Si mi la rl y, tw o de di ca ti on s b y ba na us oi we re
inscribed as deka ta i, bu t an ot he r 29 de ka ta i we re de di ca te d b y un kn ow ns .' ** V o w s
ar e m e n t i o n e d ex pl ic it ly on tw o de di ca ti on s m a d e b y ar is to cr at s ( D A A no s. 6 an d
171), on none made by banausoi, and on 18 made by dedicators of unknown status.
Several marble korai were inscribed as either aparchai or dekatai, but so were large
numbers of bases for statues of unknown type.
Vow fulfillment — though seldom explicitly mentioned in the sixth- and fifth-
century votive inscriptions from the Acropolis — may in fact have been the most
common ritual mechanism generating statue dedications, and this particular mech-
anism defies the straightforward logic of social status and economics. If the dedicator
who made an extravagant vow could not afford to fulfill it, the obligation passed
down to the next generation, making it possible (in theory at least) for multiple
generations’ worth of surplus economic resources to be channeled into a single
statue dedication. Votive inscriptions seldom make this process explicit in terms of
the time elapsed between the vow and its fulfillment.° In addition to the three
mechanisms already discussed here (first-fruits, tithe, and vow fulfillment), oracles,
dreams, and visions also generated occasions for dedicating statues. These mecha-
nisms became far more common in the fourth century and later periods, but they
already make their appearance ona small number of earlier Acropolis dedications.'*°
Timarchos, the dedicator of the bronze horse statuette signed by Onatas of Aegina
(DAA no. 236), gives two different reasons for his offering, neither overtly con-
nected with his wealth or status: the advice of oracles and the fulfillment of his
mother's vow. As ritual mechanisms, oracles, dreams, and visions allowed the gods
to order their own dedications directly and sometime to prescribe the form they
should take; they only appear to be a dissimulation of the dedicator’s true motives to
nonbelievers.
Votive statue dedications did not simply reflect the economic, social, and politi-
cal structures of Athenian society; on occasion, they had the power to revise them.37
Plutarch (Cim. 5) tells a story about Kimon, the fifth-century general and son of

92
 VOTIVE STATUES AND ATHENIAN SOCIETY

Miltiades, which illustrates this point. According to Plutarch, when Athens faced
the Persian invasion of 480, Kimon led his aristocratic companions to the Acropolis.
There he dedicated his horse’s bridle to Athena, “since, in its hour of crisis the city
needed not the prowess of knights on horseback, but men to fight on ships”; at the
same time he took down a votive shield from the temple wall and carried it with
him to the Piraeus to join the Athenian fleet."®
Plutarch’s anecdote becomes fully intelligible only when read in a ritual as well
as a historical context; whether or not the story is true, Kimon’s Acropolis dedication
had to be plausible to a Greco-Roman audience thoroughly familiar with the practice
of making votive offerings in sanctuaries despite the 600 years that separate Kimon
and Plutarch. By making his dedication before the impending battle of Salamis,
Kimon invoked the protection of Athena, whose role as the civic goddess of Athens
was to guarantee the safety of the city and its inhabitants. Both bridles and shields
really were dedicated on the Acropolis in the fifth century, and Kimon’s dedication
of a bridle evokes a long tradition of dedicating “tools of the trade” upon retirement
exemplified by a series of epigrams in the Palatine Anthology. 4° Most commentators
have concentrated on the dedication of the bridle and ignored the reciprocal act of
taking away a shield, yet both halves of the votive transaction are essential. Before
the battle of the Granicus, Alexander the Great dedicated his armor in the temple
of Athena at Ilium and took away with him a shield and panoply from the Trojan
War, possibly in direct emulation of Kimon, though no ancient source makes the
connection.“ Kimon used the mechanism of a votive offering to express vividly
the need for Athenian aristocrats to adapt to new circumstances in order to defeat
the Persians. At the same time, his act of dedication renegotiated the relationship
between worshipper and goddess in a time of stress.
Kimon’s dedication on the Acropolis was not a statue, but votive statues worked
in the same ways as less mon ume nta l vot ive off eri ngs . The pra cti ce of ded ica tin g
statues on the Acropolis and in oth er Gre ek san ctu ari es con tin ued acr oss the chr ono -
logical divide between the Archaic and Cla ssi cal sty les in scu lpt ure , but it did not
remain static. In Parts II and III, I rec ons ide r how the sub jec ts tha t Arc hai c and
Classical votive statues represented co nt ri bu te d to th ei r ef fi ca cy as vo ti ve of fe ri ng s.

93
 ng a ePrOkrt:
papers
A sind : : ws
" yay _ Shall ie omni ue As mo Setpeters a 7
a bp pe bsNett tan =
yo casteadiat van wake 4 1Sp-aAphiyetbeibane
i - _
_ _ 7 f ; ; ™ 7 ; v b> a ud _
.
 PANaTe stl

DIVINE IDENTITIES
eres DUE INaa SRE Se@iReals EE
ACROPOLIS KORAI

n Part I of this study, I stressed the point that votive statues with inscriptions
using the traditional X dedicated formula constitute a form of disjunctive repre-
sentation: votive inscriptions “represented” the dedicator by making public his
or her claim to reciprocal relations with the gods, but disguised the identities of
the votive statues they accompanied. I have suggested that votive statue dedications
deserve to be viewed as documents of a vital and enduring religious practice rather
than primarily as reflections of the political and social history of Athens in the sixth
and fifth centuries. In addition to their inscriptions, statue bases from the Acropolis
provide evidence for the extensive dedication of bronze statues and statuettes be-
ginning in the sixth century, a necessary supplement to the picture provided by the
marble statues found in excavations. To draw attention to the context created for vo-
tive statues on the Acropolis by their inscribed bases, until now I have intentionally
suppressed the testimony of the extant statues themselves.
Somewhere between 54 and 75 Archaic marble statues of the kore type were
found on the Acropolis, compared with 29 from the Samian Heraion; multiple
korai have also been foun d in the sanct uarie s of Apol lo and Arte mis on Delos
and of Deme ter and Kore at Eleus is.' Unlik e their male count erpar ts, the kouro i,
the great majority of extan t korai were votiv e rathe r than funer ary in funct ion.*
Both statue types are chara cteri zed by a sche mati c appr oach to repre senti ng the
human form — in other words , a relia nce prima rily upon stand ardiz ed sche mata
rather than direct observation of the huma n body and its fleet ing states of rest and
movement. The kore schema, the set of chara cteri stics that make a kore recog nizab le
as such, inclu des the follo wing eleme nts: the use of marbl e, the prese nce of cloth ing,
frontal presentation, and a rigid stance with legs close toget her and, in most cases,
the left foot adva nced . The Acrop olis korai attri buted to the bulge perio d of ca.
510-480 B.C. feature some additional chara cteri stics illus trate d by Anten or's kore
(Fig. 11): decor ative treat ment of the hair, a step hane (dia dem) raise d at the front
and flat at the back, jewel ry and hair orna ment s some time s adde d in metal , and the

extension of one or both forea rms. When the Acrop olis korai exten d only one of
their forearms, the ot he r h a n d li ft s u p a se ct io n of th e ch it on fo ld s, pu ll in g t h e m
Divine IDENTITIES

tightl y ac ro ss th e lo we r le gs . Th e ex te nd ed fo re ar ms of th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i we re
almost always carved separately and fixed in pl ac e by me ta l pi ns an d ce me nt .’ Th e
objects the korai held in their hands were ei th er ca rv ed to ge th er wi th th e ha nd in
marble or added in metal. The kora i cu rr en tl y on di sp la y in th e Ac ro po li s Mu se um
whose hands are intact hold fruits an d bi rd s, bu t ot he r ob je ct s ar e at te st ed fo r ko ra i
found elsewhere, such as fl ow er s, wr ea th s, br an ch es , an d sm al l an im al s.
Because the Acropo lis has pr od uc ed mo re ex am pl es of the Ar ch ai c kor e sta tue
type than any other Gree k san ctu ary , the que sti on add res sed in thi s cha pte r is the
following one: does the st ud y of vot ive ins cri pti ons an d the vot ive con tex t of the
Acropolis shed any ne w lig ht up on the kor e? Th e me an in g of the Ar ch ai c ko ur os an d
kor e typ es pre sen ts a se em in gl y int rac tab le pr ob le m wit h a vas t mo de rn bi bl io gr ap hy
attempting to solve it. Here I cannot hope to deal with Archaic sculpture of every
type in every context. Instead, by reassessing the evidence for how korai were used
as votive offerings on the Acropolis and in other sanctuaries, I offer a primarily
contextual approach to the problem of the kore type and its meaning.
Most scholarship on the Acropolis korai takes it as a given requiring no further
proof that the majority of them represented generic, anonymous female votaries
rather than the recipient deity Athena or some other goddess. Gisela Richter, for
example, remarked that “most of the korai found in Samos or on the Athenian
Acropolis can obviously not represent Hera or Athena (or Artemis or Pandrosos,
who also had sanctuaries on the Acropolis hill), for they do not have the appropriate
attributes.”4 In this chapter and the following one, I argue that, on the contrary, most
of the korai dedicated on the Acropolis could have been understood by contemporary
(and later) viewers as representations of Athena. The return to a divine identification
recalls interpretations of the kouros and kore that prevailed 100 years ago. However, I
must stress that my argument, unlike the old identification of all kouroi as “Apollos,”
applies only to a single votive context, the Athenian Acropolis, and does not presume
that korai dedicated in other sanctuaries represented the same subjects as those
dedicated on the Acropolis.
Why Athena? The practice of dedicating statues of the gods to the gods needs no
justification; it has a long tradition in Greek religion, represented on the Acropolis
by the Athena Promachos statuettes dedicated before 480 and several large bronze
Athenas dedicated in the fifth century. Arguing that the majority of the Acropolis
korai were intended by their dedicators to represent Athena requires nothing less
than a paradigm shift in our approach to these statues. My main argument in
this chapter is a negative one, calling into question the prevailing paradigm ofthe
generic, anonymous female votary promoted by Richter and others. In contrast to
the well-attested practice of men dedicating representations of themselves or their
entire families as votaries in sanctuaries, the proposed category of the generic female
votary dedicated by men to goddesses such as Athena is largely a modern construct

98
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

lacking positive support from historical and epigraphical sources. Self-representation

was an option open to men on the Archaic Acropolis, though it seems to have been
less common there than in East Greek sanctuaries; such dedications were understood
as representations of their dedicators, not as anonymous servants of the gods, the
role postulated for the Acropolis korai.

VIEW DN GeARGH AIGasGULPTURE

INZASVOLIVE CONTEXT

One of the chief characteristics of Archaic sculptural types in marble such as the
kouros and the kore is their multivalence: statues of the same type were regu-
larly employed in two entirely distinct contexts, funerary and votive. Most scholars
would agree that funerary kouroi and korai were intended to serve as stand-ins for
deceased men and women, and that these statues “represented” on some level the
deceased individuals named by the inscriptions on funerary monuments. Votive
kouroi and korai present their own set of questions. Perhaps the most important
methodological problem affecting any study of votive sculpture, of any chrono-
logical period or medium, is distinguishing votive statues representing the votary
himself or herself from those intended to represent the recipient deity, or some other
deity or hero.’ In a surprising number of cases, we cannot tell the difference between
votaries and deities on the basis of votive statues’ iconography, and this is true of
the vast majority of the korai found on the Acropolis.
One thing is clear: the Acropolis korai cannot represent their dedicators. All
of the Acropolis statue bases certain or likely to have supported kore statues were
dedicated by men; until the fourth century, dedications of statues of any type by
women were uncommon in every Greek sanctuary. This is not to say that women
never dedicated korai; the over- life- size marb le kore dedic ated by Nika ndre on Delos
(Fig. 24) is an excep tion, as far as I know the only one, but the gend er mism atch
between dedic ator and subje ct on the Archa ic Acrop olis is strik ing and preve nts
the korai from bein g unde rsto od as strai ghtfo rward self- repre senta tions of huma n
votaries.° Nor can the kouro i foun d in small numb ers on the Acrop olis and large r
numbers in other sanctuaries have funct ioned exclu sivel y as self- repre senta tions : at
least two votive kouroi with preserved inscr iptio ns were dedic ated joint ly by more
than one man, and thus on a litera l level “repr esent ed” none of their indiv idual
dedicators.”
It does remain possible tha t at lea st so me of th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i re pr es en te d
real women, despite the fact that the korai de di ca te d on th e Ac ro po li s we re ne ve r
accompanied by inscribed name labels identi fy in g the ir su bj ec ts . | ho pe , ho we ve r, to
make clear over the course ofthis chapter wh y I co ns id er th is so lu ti on to th e pr ob le m

ey)
DiviInE IDENTITIES

24. Nika nd re ’s ko re fr om De lo s (N M 1). Al is on

Fr an tz Ph ot og ra ph ic Co ll ec ti on , Am er ic an Sc ho ol
of Classical Studies at Athens, neg. AT 365.

of identity unlikely. On the Acropolis, four prepubescent girls were chosen every
year to serve as arrhephoroi entrusted with a variety of important tasks, including
bringing sacred objects up to the sanctuary (Paus. 1.27.3) and helping to weave the
peplos presented to Athena at the annual Panathenaia.* An unknown number of
kanephoroi or basket bearers would have been chosen to assume a prominent place in
the sacrificial procession ofthe Panathenaia and other Athenian state festivals. These
girls were older but still unmarried, and were chosen from prominent aristocratic
families.? The Acropolis korai do appear to be young women like the maidens
who served as kanephoroi, and the long mantle (himation) worn draped over both
shoulders by a small number of them might imitate a garment typically worn by
kanephoroi.'° Consequently, some scholars in recent years (specifically J. A. Turner,
Pierre Brulé, and H. A. Shapiro) have suggested that the korai might represent

100
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

either priestesses or lesser sacerdotal personnel such as kanephoroi." Early on, Ernst
Langlotz objected that the korai seem too young to be priestesses of Athena Polias and
too old to be arrhephoroi.’* One problem is that there is in fact no explicit evidence for
the dedication of individual statues representing female sacerdotal personnel in any
Greek sanctuary before the late fifth century. When portrait statues of priestesses
and arrhephoroi were dedicated on the Acropolis in the fourth century and later, they
were invariably inscribed with honorific formulas naming the subject represented
rather than the votive X dedicated formula. Viewers would thus have been able
to recognize the subjects of these statues by reading their inscriptions. The earliest
clearly attested statue of a priestess on the Acropolis is that of Lysimache, who served
as priestess of Athena Polias for 64 years, ending sometime in the first half of the
fourth century (Pliny HN 34.76 and /G II’ 3453); her handmaid (diakonos) Syeris
also received a statue (JG II* 3464). In contrast to the Acropolis korai, two Archaic
kore statues belonging to a family group from the Samian Heraion (Figs. 8 and 9)
had their names inscribed to mark them clearly as representations of particular
human subjects, and one wonders why the same practice was not followed for korai
in Athens if the korai were intended to represent “real” servants of Athena.
Most recent scholarship on Greek sculpture has pushed the question of the
identities of both the kouros and the kore into the background. An important step
forward in the unders tan din g of the kour os type was the reco gnit ion that the Ten ea
kouros found near Cor int h cam e fro m a cem ete ry rath er than a sanc tuar y; at aro und
the same time, in the fina l deca des of the nine teen th cent ury, Char les Wal dst ein
argued that the Arch aic kour os sch ema mig ht also have been used to repr esen t
athletic victors.'4 As multiple poss ible iden titi es for the sam e scul ptur al type , the
kouros, became a certainty, the prev ious glob al iden tifi cati on of all exa mpl es of the
type as “Apollos” had to be aba ndo ned , tho ugh ther e is still goo d reas on to thin k
that some votive kouroi withou t any add ed attr ibut es were und ers too d by anci ent
viewers as repr esen tati ons of the god Apol lo.”
In the place of questions of identity, th e qu es ti on as ke d ofbo th th e ko ur os an d
the kore has become, Why can’t we determin e th ei r id en ti ti es ?" ° Th e sa me ne ss of th e
kouros in pa rt ic ul ar , it s la ck of an y ap pa re nt sp ec if ic it y, ha s be en he ra ld ed as in it se lf
a positive at tr ib ut e an d a be ar er of me an in g. Th e ko ur os , nu de , wi th ar ms at hi s
side and nothin g in hi s ha nd s, ha s be en re ad as a bl an k sl at e ac qu ir in g it s me an in g
only from the voti ve or fu ne ra ry co nt ex t in wh ic h he wa s di sp la ye d. Pe rh ap s th e
strong es t st at em en t of th is vi ew to da te is th at of A n d r e w St ew ar t:

The true kouros ha s no at tr ib ut es , no ex cl us iv e fu nc ti on s, an d no ea si ly

explicable pattern of di st ri bu ti on . In de ed , th e ve ry fa ct th at it ha s to be fu r-

nished wi th at tr ib ut es to de pi ct sp ec if ic pe rs on al it ie s li ke of fe ri ng -b ea re rs ,

athletes, or Apollo, in di ca te s th at no pa rt ic ul ar id en ti ty ca n b e a t t a c h e d

IO]
Divine IDENTITIES

to the basic type.... The kour os is ba si ca ll y me an in gl es s — or ra th er , its

significance must lie in its only di st in gu is hi ng ch ar ac te ri st ic s, na me ly , its
nudity, its youth, its beauty, its auto no my , an d its im mu ta bi li ty : in ot he r
words in its form... . Clearl y fo r th e “t ru e” ko ur os me an in g in th e no rm al
sense of precise si gn if ic at io n is a se co nd ar y ma tt et , ac qu ir ed on ly (i f at al l)
from context.”

This approa ch to the kou ros typ e, whi ch I wou ld cha rac ter ize as pri mar ily
a formal app roa ch, use s sta tue typ es as its fun dam ent al org ani zin g pri nci ple : as
Jeffery Hurwit puts it, “the fundamental meaning of the kouros and ore is thus
indistinguishable from their appearance.”
In contrast to some formal approaches, the contextual approach I advocate
does not treat the reliance of the Acropolis korai upon context for their meaning as
a drawback. The korai and other votive statues were never meant to be viewed out
of context, or without their dedicatory inscriptions. This reliance of sculpture upon
context did not pose a problem for ancient viewers, but only for us. The same
kore type, without further elaboration and with analogous formal characteristics,
could have been used to represent deceased maidens in a funerary context and
entirely different subjects in a votive context. By the same token, in Greek sculpture
radically different sculptural types were used to represent the same subject. For
example, visitors to the Acropolis in the Classical period would have seen the goddess
Athena represented by statues of different forms, styles, and materials: by the ancient
wooden cult statue of Athena Polias, by Pheidias’ colossal gold and ivory Athena
Parthenos, and by Athena Promachos statuettes, if any of them happened to survive
the Persian sack. The Athena Polias and the Athena Parthenos are cult statues rather
than votives, but the only real distinction between cult statues and votive statues
representing the gods was that they were displayed in different contexts.

SAMOS AND DIDYMA

To begin with, an important distinction has to be made between the use of the
kore type and other common Archaic statue types in marble on the Acropolis and
in two other major sanctuaries that have produced Archaic sculpture, the Samian
Heraion and the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma. In both the Samian Heraion and
the sanctuary at Didyma, family groups combining male and female figures may
have been the typical form of votive statue dedication in the Archaic period. As
noted in Chapter 1, the only epigraphical evidence for the use of Archaic votive
statues to represent the dedicator or the dedicator’s family comes from these two
sanctuaries. The seated statue dedicated by Chares of Teichioussa from Didyma
(Fig. 7) is not only the closest thing to a Near Eastern speaking statue found in
a Greek milieu, it was also originally part of a statue group according to a later

102
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

25. Ornithe from the Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion

(Staatliches Museum, Berlin inv. 1739). Alison Frantz Photo-
graphic Collection, American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, neg. EU 89.

inscription recording details of the rituals performed by priestly personnel in the

sanctuary." The Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion consisted of six statues
lined up in a row on a single base, including three korai (two of them preserved),
one draped kouros, a seated female figure, and a reclining male figure representing
the dedicator, —arches; a combination of name labels inscribed on the individual
statues and the dedicat ory inscrip tion reading “—arche s dedicat ed ws to Hera” makes
it clear that the group represe nts —arches togethe r with his family. *°
One comm on mis tak e has bee n to tak e Cha res ’ ded ica tio n of a sta tue rep -
resenting himself as typica l, and to cite it as evi den ce tha t Arc hai c mal e fig ure s
dedicated in other sanctuaries als o rep res ent ed the ir ded ica tor s. The kor ai fro m the
Geneleos group labeled as rep res ent ati ons of —ar che s’ dau ght ers Orn ith e (Fi g. 25)
and Philippe have also be en ta ke n as co nf ir ma ti on tha t ot he r kor ai, ev en th e

103
Divine IDENTITIES

anonymous ones dedicated on the Acro po li s, co ul d re pr es en t fe ma le fa mi ly me m-

bers of th ei r de di ca to rs .* ’ Bu t Ch ar es ’ de di ca ti on at Di dy ma is un iq ue — li te ra ll y
one ce rt ai n ex am pl e of se lf -r ep re se nt at io n ou t of th e 1, 00 0 Ar ch ai c de di ca to ry in -
scriptions catalogued by Lazzarini — an d so ar e th e na me la be ls on th e st at ue s of th e
Geneleos group from Samos.” Both de di ca ti on s po in t to di st in ct iv e vo ti ve co nt ex ts
in the Heraion and at Didyma that we re un li ke th e vo ti ve co nt ex t on th e Ar ch ai c
Acropolis.
The shortage of pre ser ved ins cri pti ons an d pu bl is he d sta tue bas es fr om bo th
the Samian Heraion and the san ctu ary of Ap ol lo at Di dy ma co mp ar ed wit h the
Acropolis makes any con clu sio ns pro vis ion al. On e ar gu me nt in fav or of the ded i-
cation of other fam ily gro ups in add iti on to the Ge ne le os gr ou p in the Sa mi an
He ra io n is the par ity in the nu mb er of kou roi an d kor ai fo un d in the san ctu ary ;
as of 197 4, the tot als sto od at 27 kor ai co mp ar ed wit h 20 kou roi , in cl ud in g bo th
canonical nude kouroi and draped standing male figures of the Archaic period.» To
this total should be added one more kore published by Uta Kron, and yet another
nearly identical to the “Hera” now in the Louvre and inscribed on its body with the
name of the same dedicator, Cheramyes.*4 These discoveries bring the total number
of korai from the Samian Heraion to 29, and the number of statues dedicated by
Cheramyes in the Heraion to four: the remaining two are a kore holding a rabbit,
and a fragmentary kouros.”
Along with the new Cheramyes kore was discovered an uninscribed joint base
for it and the kore in the Louvre.”® According to the excavator Helmut Kyrieleis,
this base cannot be the original one (even the base for the Geneleos group was
renovated in antiquity); even so, this joint base for two korai raises the possibility
that either these two or all four of Cheramyes’ statue dedications originally formed
part of afamily group displayed on the same base. Another group base for at least
three marble statues, of which the only remains are a single block with the feet and
plinth of an over-life-size kouros still attached, was probably moved at some point in
the history of the sanctuary, but nevertheless seems to be original.*” Even large-scale
bronzes were dedicated as groups, as evidenced by an unpublished base with a row
of cuttings for four lost statues attached to the base by the Samian technique and a
fifth by the dowel technique.**
The context for viewing and understanding votive statues dedicated in sanc-
tuaries was created largely by statue bases, and very few bases from the Samian
Heraion have as yet been published. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that at least some
of the kouros and kore statues found in the Heraion were combined to form groups
representing human families — with the exception of two colossal kouroi and one
over-life-size kore dedicated in the seventh century — fits the evidence available.”
Even if we were to interpret korai such as the two identical ones dedicated by
Cheramyes as representations of Hera, no obvious divine or heroic identification

104
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS Korat

for the many kouroi found in the sanctuary springs to mind; Hermes was wor-
shipped along with Hera and Aphrodite in the Heraion, but the role of his cult has
never been adequately explained.
In the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma, the types of marble statues dedicated
in the Archaic period include seated figures both male and female, korai, kouroi,
draped kouroi, and reclining banqueters like the statue of —arches in the Samian
Geneleos group. Chares’ seated statue and most of the others were discovered in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, lining the Sacred Way between Miletus
and Apollo's sanctuary at Didyma. From the beginning it was suspected that the
surviving statues were moved there at some point late in the sanctuary’s history.*° The
recent discovery of the so-called temenos on the Sacred Way outside the sanctuary
may shed some light upon the composition, identification, and meaning of the
seated statues dedicated within the sanctuary. This temenos is an enclosure built
around a semicircular base for a group of seated statues, including a mixture of
male and female figures both life-size and over life-size. The entire area seems to
have been intentionally destroyed at the time of the Persian sack of Didyma in
494 B.c. and never restored.** Didyma was utterly unique within the Greek world
for being a semiautonomous preserve administered by a priestly caste, called the
Branchidai or Molpoi, and attached to the territory of the city-state Miletus.* It
has been suggested by the excavator Klaus Tuchelt that the temenos functioned as
a sanctuary where the ancestors of one particular clan or genos belonging to the
Branchidai were worshipped as founding heroes.
Even if the sea ted fig ure s fou nd in earl ier exc ava tio ns wer e ded ica ted ins ide
rather than outside the san ctu ary , the y cou ld stil l hav e rep res ent ed fam ili es bel ong ing
to the caste of the Branch ida i. Th ou gh it is not ori ous ly dif fic ult to det erm ine the
genders ofArchaic sea ted fig ure s, Tuc hel t inc lud es, in his cat alo g of Arc hai c mar ble
sculpture from Didyma, 14 seated mal e fig ure s (in clu din g Cha res ) and 6 or 7 sea ted
female figures that could hav e bee n use d for this pur pos e.* ? All but one of the se
statues lack any handheld attributes or other ico nog rap hic fea tur es tha t mig ht aid in
their identification.*+ The inscription on Cha res ’ sta tue (“I am Cha res son ofKle isi s,
rul er of Tei chi ous sa; the aga lma is of Apo llo ”) imp lie s tha t Cha res hi ms el was
f bot h
the dedicator and the subject of the sta tue , and it pro vid es evi den ce tha t sta tue
groups were being used to represent liv ing fam ili es rat her tha n her oic anc est ors ;
Chares call s him sel f rul er (&p yés ) of Tei chi ous sa, a set tle men t tha t mig ht als o hav e
bee n con tro lle d by the Bra nch ida i.* * A lost sea ted sta tue ded ica ted by Her mes ian ax
also belonged to a sta tue gro up, as did a lost kou ros cal led one of a gro up of sta tue s
by its dedicatory ins cri pti on. © By ana log y wit h the Sam ian Her aio n, it may be
suggested that some of the 6 or 7 kor ai, 10 kou roi , and 12 or 13 dra ped kou roi
found at Didyma als o bel ong ed to fam ily gro ups . Fro m the ver y few ins cri pti ons
and statue bases surviving fro m th e A r c h a i c pe ri od , h o w e v e r , it is s i m p l y i m p o s s i b l e

105
Divine IDENTITIES

to say ho w ma ny of th es e st at ue s mi gh t in st ea d ha ve re pr es en te d Ap ol lo an d hi s
sister Artemis.
In light of the evidence from the Sa mi an He ra io n an d Di dy ma , it sh ou ld be
significant that there are no bases at all for fa mi ly gr ou ps am on g 23 0 or so in sc ri be d
statue bases from the Acropolis da te d be fo re 48 0. Th e im ba la nc e in th e nu mb er
of korai dedicated on the Acropoli s co mp ar ed wi th ko ur oi in it se lf ar gu es ag ai ns t
the use of these statues to re pr es en t hu ma n fa mi ly gr ou ps . Tw o st at ue ba se s fr om
the Acropolis supporte d gr ou ps of mo re th an on e ma rb le st at ue , bu t ne it he r on e
allows us to interpret th e st at ue s as re pr es en ta ti on s of a hu ma n fa mi ly . In Ch ap te r
1, I described DAA no . 29 2, a ba se fo r tw o ko ra i of di ff er en t si ze s de di ca te d by tw o
men named Lysias an d Eu ar ch is (F ig . 3) , wi th an in sc ri pt io n ca ll in g on e of th e ko ra i
a ti th e (d ek at e) an d th e ot he r a fi rs t- fr ui ts of fe ri ng (a pa rc he ). Th e dr as ti c di ff er en ce
in scale between the two korai (the “Red Shoes” kore, Acr. no. 683, shown in Fig. 4,
is the larger of the two) and the lack of any clue in the inscription that Lysias
and Euarchis were related to one another argue against interpreting these korai as
representations of real women belonging to the dedicators’ families.
The “Red Shoes” kore, Acr. no. 683, stands with her right foot forward instead
of her left, the inverse of the normal pose of the Acropolis korai; this shows that
sculptors on the Acropolis used a mirror image of the normal kore schema within
the context of a statue pair.*7 Another Acropolis kore, Acr. no. 672, has her right
foot forward, and also has her diagonal himation reversed and grasps the folds of her
chiton with the right hand rather than the left; this statue, too, could have belonged
to a mirror-imaged pair, but pairing may not be the only explanation for the reversal
of the normal kore schema. We should note also that the two paired korai from
the Geneleos group in the Samian Heraion and two nearly identical korai dedi-
cated by Cheramyes in the same sanctuary are pendants, not mirror images of one
another.
Two other important Archaic sanctuaries, the sanctuaries of Apollo on Delos
and at Klaros in Asia Minor, have (like the Samian Heraion) produced a mixture
of votive kouroi and korai, but here the combination of male and female figures
might better be explained as a result of dedications to both Apollo and Artemis
rather than self-representation by families.** Unfortunately, the finds of Archaic
votive statues from both sites have still not received a comprehensive publication.
The predominant identity or range of identities for the same statue types could have
varied considerably from sanctuary to sanctuary in the Archaic period; in the Samian
Heraion and the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma, the display of formally “generic”
marble statues in groups would have helped contemporary viewers to identify them
as representations of families.
The Ptoén in Boiotia, one of the very few Greek sanctuaries to have produced as
much Archaic marble sculpture as the Acropolis, presents a pattern similar to the one

106
 Tue IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAI

on the Acropolis rather than the one in the Samian Heraion and Didyma. Compared
with the approximately 120 kouroi from the site, only 3 marble korai were found, an
even starker gender imbalance than we find on the Acropolis.” The meager remains
of inscribed bases from the Ptodn reveal next to nothing about the original display
of any of the statues dedicated in the sanctuary. The long stone socle in front of
the fourth-century temple, thought by Jean Ducat to be a collective display area for
up to 50 kouroi on separate bases, probably dates to the time the temple was built
rather than the sixth century; it could attest to a later rehabilitation of surviving
Archaic votive statues, much like what archaeologists now think occurred in the
Samian Heraion and at Didyma.*°
Though there is always a danger of overrationalizing both the differences and the
similarities between the statue dedications made in different sanctuaries, on the face
of it the votive contexts of the Acropolis and the Ptoén present no inherent obstacle
to interpreting most of the korai dedicated on the Acropolis as representations of
Athena and most of the kouroi in the Pto6n as representations of the recipient deity
Apollo. This interpretation goes some way toward explaining why so few canonical
kouroi were dedicated on the Acropolis and why so few korai were dedicated in the
Ptodn.

Trine ORO). FeEBS GN ERA G3

ANONYMOUSIHFEMALEE VOTARY
ON, LHEACROPO LIS

Because the Acr opo lis kor ai do not loo k like rep res ent ati ons of Ath ena or som e oth er
goddess, because the y do not bel ong to fam ily gro ups , and bec aus e the y obv iou sly
cannot represent the male votari es who ded ica ted the m, spe cia l int erp ret ive cate -
gories have been suggested as a sol uti on to the pro ble m of wh om or wha t the y did
represent. Henri Lechat, in 190 3, see ms to hav e bee n the firs t to exp lai n the Acr opo lis
korai as representations neither of the god des s Ath ena nor of real Ath eni an wom en,
but rather as formally generic, anonym ous fem ale fig ure s: he coi ned the ter m “ko re”
to describe this newly proposed cat ego ry rep
of res ent ati on. *' The gen eri c ico nog ra-
phy of most of the korai permits their interp ret ati on as ano nym ous fem ale s rat her
tha n rep res ent ati ons ofeit her “re al” wo me n or god des ses and , in Gu y Dic kin s’ vie w,
prevents their interpretation as rep res ent ati ons of Ath ena .*
Subsequent “r ea di ng s” of th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i in th e sa me ve in ex pl ai n th em as
symbol ic vo ta ri es or ha nd ma id en s of At he na , th ei r ap pe ar an ce mo de le d up on th at
of young an d be au ti fu l mo rt al wo me n. Un li ke ko ur os st at ue s, th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i
typically stood wi th th ei r fe et to ge th er an d on e or bo th fo re ar ms ex te nd ed . Th is
extended fore ar m ge st ur e ca n be in te rp re te d as a ge st ur e of of fe ri ng th at ch ar ac te ri ze s

107
Divine IDENTITIES

the korai as sc ul pt ur al vo ta ri es wh os e de vo ti on , un li ke th at of re al h u m a n vo ta ri es , is
perpetual an d th er ef or e em in en tl y de si ra bl e. Na ne tt e Sa lo mo n go es fu rt he r, re ad in g
th e of fe ri ng ge st ur e as si gn if yi ng th e su bo rd in at e st at us of w o m e n in re la ti on to me n
in Ar ch ai c At he ni an so ci et y. In he r vi ew , th e ex te nd ed fo re ar m ge st ur e is a ma rk of
passivity complemented by the kore’s stan di ng po se co mp ar ed wi th th e “w al ki ng
pose” with feet apart characteristic of ko ur oi .# A si mi la r fe mi ni st in te rp re ta ti on of
the differences between the kouros an d th e ko re is Ro bi n Os bo rn e' s id en ti fi ca ti on of
the korai as anonymou w s o m e n ch ar ac te ri ze d as co mm od it ie s su it ab le fo r ex ch an ge
in aristocratic society by th ei r ex te nd ed fo re ar m ge st ur e, wh ic h at th e sa me ti me
alludes to the status of th e ko re st at ue it se lf as an of fe ri ng su it ab le fo r ex ch an ge
be tw ee n th e ma le de di ca to r an d th e re ci pi en t go dd es s At he na .* *
Lambert Schneider's interpretation of the Acropolis korai as a product of aristo-
cratic ideology also treats the korai as anonymous and formally generalized represen-
tations of women. In Schneider’s view, kore statues, with their striking depiction of
youthful beauty and their adornment with decorative garments and jewelry, mimic
the appearance of the real aristocratic girls (“korai”) who typically took part in festi-
val dances, choruses, and processions. The dedicators of the sculpted korai were the
fathers and husbands of the “real” ones, and both sets of girls (real and sculptural)
functioned as agalmata, gifts pleasing to Athena. Individual girls are not named
by the dedicatory inscriptions for kore statues, making these statues at the same
time expressions of an overtly aristocratic ideology and anonymous female figures.*
Schneider's interpretation is in some respects incompatible with that of Holloway,
who considers the kore statue type to be a “generalized figure of good’omen” dedi-
cated on the Acropolis by craftsmen, banausoi, and other nonaristocrats.*° The con-
textual basis for Holloway’s argument is the lack of aristocratic dedicators for kore
statues compared with the attested kore dedications by Nearchos kerameus (DAA
no. 197) and Simon the fuller (DAA no. 49). Yet, as I have explained in Chapter 4,
the problem is that we simply have no way of knowing the status of most dedicators
of korai on the Acropolis, whether aristocrats or otherwise, a fact that weakens both
Schneider and Holloway’s arguments linking the meaning of the kore type as a
votive offering to the status of its dedicators.
Each of these variations on the theme of the generic, anonymous female votary
presents notable advantages. Views of the korai as iconographic expressions of the
notion of exchange and as a medium ofexchange in themselves are fully in keeping
with the prayer language of votive statue inscriptions, which stresses the reciprocal
relations between the dedicator and the god. Richter, Barber, and Holloway have
expanded further upon the role of the Acropolis korai as agalmata pleasing to the
gods, a role for which the generic formal qualities ofthe korai and a lack of specific
identities would be equally appropriate.” The korai certainly were agalmata in the

108
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAl

sense of pleasing gifts for the gods, but we must keep in mind that they would also be
agalmata if they represented Athena rather than generic, anonymous female votaries.
Salomon and Osborne’s premise that women in Archaic Athens were subordinate to
men is completely valid, and it finds further support in the lack of statue dedications
by women on the Acropolis and the lack of funerary monuments for women in Attic
cemeteries in this period. Nevertheless, we can begin with the same premise about
women and still interpret the korai differently, as representations of Athena rather
than iconographic expressions of women’s role.
“A few basic assumptions have been used to justify interpreting the Acropolis
korai as generic, anonymous female votary figures and to explain why such figures
were dedicated on the Acropolis in the Archaic period. I address these points by
looking at two individual Acropolis dedications, and by more closely examining the
evidence that has been cited in support of the category of the generic, anonymous
votary in Archaic Greek sculpture. One wonders first of all why the male votaries
who dedicated statues dedicated female korai rather than portraits of themselves.
In an attempt to come to grips with this problem, Lechat, followed by Dickins,
Humfry Payne, and most recently Martin Robertson, cited the need to dedicate
female “companions” matching the gender of the recipient deity Athena rather
than the gender of the dedicator, just as the gods usually (but not always) received
sacrificial animals of their own gender.*® This theory of “gendered offerings” has
never, to the best of my knowledge, been called into question, precisely because it
seems to explain why the Acropolis has produced so many marble korai, and also
why by far the most common type of statue dedicated at the Pto6n is the kouros.
Still, the same phenomenon of votive statues that match the gender of their recipient
deity can be explained equally well if these statues were intended to represent the
deity himself or herself.
Unlike the two korai belongin g to th e Ge ne le os gr ou p fr om th e Sa mi an He ra io n,
no Acropolis korai were inscribed wi th na me lab els or an y ot he r in sc ri pt io ns id en -
tifying them as representations of rea l wo me n. Th e la ck of in sc ri be d na me s in th e
Archaic period contributes to the argu me nt tha t th e ko ra i we re me an t to re ma in
an on ym ou s an d tha t th ey di d no t re pr es en t an y spe cif ic su bj ec t, eit her hu ma n or
divine. It co ul d be ar gu ed tha t th e At he ni an soc ial mi li eu tha t ge ne ra ll y di sc ou ra ge d
the naming of wo me n in in sc ri pt io ns als o ma nd at ed tha t th e ko ra i not be ass oci -
ated with the na me of an y li vi ng gir l or wo ma n; Sc hn ei de r' s in te rp re ta ti on of th e
Acropolis korai as an on ym ou s, ge ne ra li ze d re pr es en ta ti on s of ari sto cra tic At he ni an
women in fact ta ke s it for gr an te d tha t th es e wo me n ha d to re ma in na me le ss for th e
sake of propriety.
With the except io n o f a re la ti ve ly sm al l n u m b e r of Ar ch ai st ic ko ra i da ti ng to
later periods, both the kore a n d th e k o u r o s w e n t ou t o f us e in G r e e k c e m e t e r i e s

109
Divine IDENTITIES

26. Inscribed pill ar base for the “kor e” dedi cati on of Nau loc hos (DA A no. 229) , vie wed lyin g on its
right side to facilitate rea din g the insc ript ion. Cop yri ght Deu tsc hes Arc hao log isc hes Inst itut -Ath en,
neg. nr. NM 5234.

and sanctuaries right around 480 B.c. This incontrovertible fact has generated the
assumption that the meaning and function of the two statue types, like the statues
themselves, were also restricted to the Archaic period. As Sarah Morris has written of
the kouros, “the desecration of sanctuaries and cemeteries [in 480] destroyed not only
many standing examples of the statue type, but also what they represented.”*? Yet,
when reconsidered in light of the full spectrum of statue dedications on the Acropolis
over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries, the belief that the marble korai —
the great majority of which were dedicated during the bulge period of ca. s10—480
— constituted a category of representation unto themselves becomes problematic.
The roles of perpetual votary, agalma, embodiment of the status of women, and
typological companion to the goddess Athena variously assigned to the Acropolis
korai would each have been equally relevant in the fifth century. Both before and after
480, it seems that the most common type offemale figure in bronze dedicated in the
sanctuary was the image of Athena herself. My approach to the korai makes them less
of an anomaly within the big picture of votive statue dedications on the Acropolis.

“KORE IN°THE DEDICATION OF [NAUIL@GCHOS

(WOTAPAIIN|
@ ieee)
When Lechat used the term “kore” to describe a generic, anonymous marble
female figure of the Archaic period, he cited as an ancient authority for his use
of the term DAA no. 229, an inscribed rectangular pillar found in the sanctuary
(Fig. 26). The metrical epigram inscribed (in the stoichedon style) on the base reads
as follows: “[NauJlochos dedicated this kore, first fruits of the catch/Which the
sea-ruler with the golden trident provided to him.” Though DAA no. 229 has
sometimes been referred to as the dedication of [Iso]lochos, [Nau]lochos is both the
better restoration on the stone and necessary for the meter." Like Lechat, Hiller, in

Ilo
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

the second edition of the corpus of Attic inscriptions, recognized this inscription’s
importance; to paraphrase his Latin commentary, “This epigram demonstrates that
most of the ancient statues of maidens found on the Athenian Acropolis, if not all
of them, are justly termed korai.”*
In subsequent scholarship on Archaic sculpture, DAA no. 229 has been taken
as evidence, probably correctly, that the statues we now call korai were called the
same thing by the people who dedicated them.® For the purposes of this chapter I
assume that Naulochos' lost votive statue really was what we call a kore, but only after
pointing out that DAA no. 229 provides no physical (as opposed to epigraphical)
evidence for the type of statue it supported. DAA no. 229 is what Raubitschek called
a type A pillar base with pillar and capital carved separately, a type used to support
both marble and bronze sculpture on the Acropolis. Its capital, which would have
preserved either a plinth cavity for a marble statue or cuttings for a bronze one, is
lost. DAA no. 290, a pillar similar in form though larger in dimensions, has been
matched with a half-life-size marble kore, Acr. no. 612.54 However, DAA no. 229 is
equally close in dimensions to DAA no. 236, a type B pillar base for a small bronze
quadruped signed by the sculptor Onatas of Aegina. A bronze statue cannot be
ruled out; because the dimensions of DAA no. 229 are smaller than those of DAA
no. 290, any marble kore the base supported would have to be smaller than half-
life-size. The letter forms and the stoichedon order of the inscription point toward
a late date for the base, right around ca. 480, meaning that this lost kore would be
one of the latest in the Acropolis series, comparable in date with the one dedicated
by Euthydikos.
The second question raised by DAA no. 229, beyond the type of statue it
supported, is what precisely the term “kore” in the dedicatory inscription means.
Despite the fact that this inscription has been taken as explanatory ofthe entire kore
series, it isan anomaly in three major respects according to the principles outlined in
Part I of this book. The inscriptions on statue bases from the Acropolis rarely refer to
the object dedicated as anything other than an agalma (in the sense of “pleasing gift
for the gods”), an aparche (first-fruits), a dekate (tithe), or a vow. Three exceptions
to this rule are similar, generalized references that could be applied to any votive
offering, or to a statue of any type: doron (“gift”, as in DAA no. 296 dedicated to
Aphrodite), mnema (“memorial,” DAA nos. 53 and 121), and Aieron (“sacred object,”
DAA no. 87).°° Only 5 dedicatory inscriptions out of about 330 from the Acropolis
make any reference at all to the type of statue dedicated or to the subject the statue
represented. These are DAA no. 229; the herm dedication DAA no. 302, which reters
to itself as a herm; DAA nos. 168 and 173, the two versions of the Boiotians and
Chalcidians victory monument that refer to the dedication of “these horses”; and
DAA no. 13, which refers to the marble Nike dedicated by Kallimachos of Aphidna
as the “messenger of the immortals.”

III
Divine IDENTITIES

DAA no. 229 is the only inscribed dedicati on fr om th e Ac ro po li s th at us es th e

word “kore” in some other se ns e th an as a re fe re nc e to th e go dd es s At he na . Th e on ly
other examples of the term “kore” on th e Ac ro po li s de di ca ti on s oc cu r in ad dr es se s
to Athena as Dios Kore (“daughter of Ze us ”) an d Gl au ko pi s Ko re (“ gl ea mi ng -e ye d
maiden’). In this context of invoki ng At he na an d di re ct in g of fe ri ng s to wa rd he r,
“kore” never appears on its ow n wi th ou t th e mo di fi er “D io s” or th e ad di ti on al
epithet “Glaukopis,” an d th e wo rd ne ve r ap pe ar s in th e ac cu sa ti ve ca se as it do es
on DAA no . 22 9. On its ow n, “k or e” in th e in sc ri pt io n on DA A no . 22 9 co ul d no t
have been unders to od in Gr ee k as a re fe re nc e to a st at ue re pr es en ti ng At he na , bu t
must mean something different.”
Another irregularity apparent in the dedicatory inscription on DAA no. 229,
and potentially the most important one for understanding the kore statues dedicated
on the Acropolis, is the fact that the inscription seems to be a prayer of thanksgiving
to Poseidon, not to Athena. Though it was fairly common to omit the name of the
recipient deity Athena on sixth- and fifth-century Acropolis dedications, in this case
all signs point toward a dedication to Poseidon. I tend to agree with Hurwit that
inscribing a poetic expression of gratitude to Poseidon on a votive offering means
that he is the intended recipient. Such a dedication would not be entirely unique
on the Acropolis: in the mid-fifth century, a marble perirrhanterion (DAA no. 384)
was dedicated there to “Poseidon Erechtheus.” This presents an interesting problem
for the hypothesis of the generic, anonymous female votary: if korai were preferred
to kouroi as dedications on the Acropolis because they matched the gender of the
recipient goddess Athena, why is the only explicit reference to the dedication ofa
kore on the Acropolis a dedication to Poseidon rather than Athena?
Another Archaic inscription refering to an anonymous female statue involves
a similar gender mismatch between statue and recipient. An epigram attributed to
Kleoboulos of Lindos, preserved only in the literary tradition, was purported to
have been inscribed upon the tomb of King Midas.*? This epigram takes the form
ofa first-person utterance by a statue that calls itself a “bronze maiden” (yaAKén
Trap8€évos); she promises to proclaim forever the name of the monument’s owner.
According to the epigram, a female statue (seemingly anonymous) was displayed on
the tomb ofMidas, rather than a statue representing Midas himself. Taken together,
DAA no. 229 and Kleoboulos’ epigram suggest that Archaic female figures were
understood as generic or anonymous specifically when they did not represent the
recipient deity (DAA no. 229) or the deceased (Kleoboulos’ epigram). This raises the
possibility that Naulochos, by calling his statue dedication a “kore,” signaled that
his kore was not intended to represent Athena; visitors to the Acropolis would have
had to read the inscription on his dedication to know that it was different from the
other korai dedicated to Athena.

112
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAI

None of the other attestations of statues called korai from literary and epi-
graphical sources concerning Athens can possibly refer to Archaic marble statues of
the kore type. The first three sets of references come from temple inventories. The
building accounts for the Erechtheion on the Acropolis refer to the six caryatids
holding up the building’s south porch as “korai,” a generic reference typical of the
way in which both temple inventories and building accounts habitually described
statues, even statues that had specific identities.°° A series of references to korai
in bronze or precious metal appear in the Acropolis temple inventories of the sec-
ond half of the fifth century. The first entry mentions “korai from the baskets”
(UG II? 1425.380-382). Interpretations of these range from bronze statuettes that
were dedicated by the girls who served as kanephoroi (basket bearers) and that were
stored in baskets, to metal attachments for the baskets carried by these girls in fes-
tival processions.*' Two examples of a “gold kore on a stele” were listed among the
golden objects kept in the Parthenon and Hekatompedon in 431/o0 B.c.; “stele” here
could refer to a column base rather than a relief slab.
Two literary anecdotes, both set in an Athenian context, are more informative
about possible identities for female figures called korai. In Plato’s Phaedrus (230B-C),
Socrates describes a rural sanctuary belonging to the nymphs and the river god
Acheloés; the owners of the sanctuary can be recognized specifically from the “korai
and agalmata’ displayed there.“ Agalmata here might refer either to statues or to
any other type of votive offering. Are the korai a type of offering distinct from
the agalmata? It seems unwarranted to read into this passage a confirmation that
korai were formally generic, anonymous female figures, given that, unlike Athena,
nymphs were often called korai without the addition of any other cult epithet.°4
Another mention of a kore dedicated on the Acropolis might also refer to a statue
of anymph rather than an anonymous female figure. In his life of Themistokles,
Plutarch (7emistocles 31) reports that when Themistokles was in exile in the Persian
empire, he visited the temple of Cybele in Sardis and saw a bronze kore called the
“water-carrier’ (USpopdpov Kdpnv YaAKf\v) two cubits tall, which he himself had
dedicated on the Acropolis from fines he collected as commissioner of the Athenian
water supply. Themistokles’ dedication is known only from this passage; because he
certainly held this offic e befor e 480, we shoul d imag ine a Late Archa ic femal e figur e
in bronze rathe r than the Early Class ical and Class ical hydr opho ros type habit ually
cited to expla in the passa ge.® A grou p of Late Archa ic and Early Class ical terra -cott a
figurines of women holding a water jar migh t repre sent water nymp hs, and the same
can be sugg este d for Them isto kles ’ bronz e water carrie r.°°
DAA no. 229 is clearly impo rt an t be ca us e it att est s to th e de di ca ti on on th e
Acropolis ofavotive sta tue cal led a ko re an d tha t is lik ely to ha ve be en an Ar ch ai c
marble statue of the kore type. Thi s los t sta tue mi gh t hav e bee n un de rs to od as

113
Divine IDENTITIES

an an on ym ou s fe ma le la ck in g an y sp ec if ic id en ti ty . As I ha ve ar gu ed , th ou gh , th e
wording of the dedicatory text inscribed on th e ba se fo r Na ul oc ho s’ st at ue ma rk s hi s
dedication as an anomaly. The in sc ri pt io n cr ea te s a co nt ex t fo r th e st at ue di st in ct
from the contexts of other korai de di ca te d on th e Ac ro po li s; fo r th is re as on , D A A
no. 229 does not imply that all of th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i we re un de rs to od by th ei r
dedicators or by visito rs to th e sa nc tu ar y as ge ne ri c, an on ym ou s fe ma le fi gu re s.
Naulochos’ kore is simu lt an eo us ly th e on ly Ac ro po li s ko re no t de di ca te d to At he na ,
and the only one that ca nn ot ha ve re pr es en te d At he na . Th e ge nd er of th e re ci pi en t
deity in th is ca se do es no t ex pl ai n th e de di ca ti on of a fe ma le ko re st at ue .

THE DEDICATION OF KYNARBOS ON THE ACROPOLIS

(DAA NO. 79)
The fact that the Acropolis has not produced any examples of korai with name
labels comparable with those of Ornithe and Philippe in the Geneleos group from the
Samian Heraion has been taken to mean that the Athenians, unlike the Samians,
found it inappropriate to assign specific identities to the Acropolis korai. Yet an
important piece of evidence that Athenian women other than the dedicators of
statues could in fact be named in Archaic votive inscriptions on the Acropolis
has been overlooked. This is DAA no. 79, the top block of a stepped base that
originally supported two small bronze statuettes. The fragmentary dedicatory in-
scription reads as follows: (“Aristomache and Archestrate . . . daughters,/Parthenos,
and family... /Kynarbos, son of Li—”).67 The dedicator Kynarbos names his two
daughters Aristomache and Archestrate in the accusative case in the first line; by
analogy with the wording of an early-fourth-century Acropolis votive dedication, it
is tempting to restore this as a prayer by Kynarbos to Athena (called “Parthenos”)
for his daughters.® If this is the case, we should restore an imperative form of
the verb owZeiv (ode, “save”) in the first line and postpone the verb of dedi-
cation dvéOnxe until the third.®? Both of the bronze statuettes originally supported
by DAA no. 79 (as shown in Fig. 27) had long, narrow plinths suitable for Athena
Promachos figures, one larger than the other; the larger plinth on the left preserves
holes that certainly belong to the feet of a striding figure with left foot forward.7°
Kynarbos thus seems to have dedicated one Athena Promachos statuette on behalf
of each ofhis two daughters, Aristomache and Archestrate.
What does Kynarbos’ dedication have to do with the Acropolis korai? One of
the few scholars to mention DAA no. 79, Bernhard Schweitzer, assumed without
looking at the top of the base that the dedication must have consisted of two marble
korai intended to represent Kynarbos’ daughters Aristomache and Archestrate.”! The
reality is that Kynarbos chose to name his daughters but not to represent them.”
This suggests that if the Acropolis korai were intended to serve as representations

114
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

SYS *
. o

\\SEs T I N Ss a l tI Ihe Wy
Hy iS AAW. ee
ae =i} Ww)
Ws

27. Inscribed base for the dedication of Kynarbos (DAA no. 79), with the drawing showing bronze
plinths attached to the top of the base. After Raubitschek 1938, Figure 1. Permission granted by the
family ofA. E. Raubitschek.

of human subjects, there is no specific reason connected with the votive context of
the Archaic Acropolis why they had to remain anonymous: they could have been
inscribed with proper names such as Philippe and Ornithe in the Geneleos group. If
Kynarbos’ dedication of two Athenas is analogous to the Archaic kore dedications,
then they too might combine an inscribed text concerning the dedicator with statues
representing the recipient deity.

Reebi NG TRE SELE AS VOTARY

It is important to ask why men would have dedicated generic, anonymous female
votaries to Athena on the Acropolis rather than statues representing themselves. The
traditional explanation is that, in the Archaic period at least, the gender of votive
statue dedications should match that of the recipient deity, just as in Greek religion
goddesses usually have priestesses instead of priests and receive female animals as
sacrificial victims rather than male ones. On the Acropolis, Athena was served not
only by a female chief priestess, but also by the arrhephoroi and other groups of girls
chosen to hold temporary sacred office.
The maidens who took part in Athena’s festival processions and who sang
and danced at the all- nigh t cer emo ny (pan nych is) of the Pan ath ena ia were , like
statues and othe r per man ent voti ve gift s, conc eive d of as kosm os (dec orat ion) for
the sanctuary. The ide a tha t mai den s wer e like vot ive off eri ngs was som eti mes mad e
explicit, as in a passage fr om Eur ipi des ’ Pho eni ssa e (22 0-2 21) , in wh ic h a cho rus of
maidens singing the praises of Ap ol lo co mp ar es its elf bot h to go ld en ag al ma ta and

115
DIvINE IDENTITIES

to a handmaiden (Aé&tpis) of the god. Bu t de sp it e th e cu lt ic ju st if ic at io n of fe re d

by modern scholars for the depict io n of wo me n in vo ti ve sc ul pt ur e de di ca te d to
goddesses, gods as well as goddesse s (a s th e ju st -c it ed pa ss ag e in di ca te s) ap pr ec ia te d
having real female worshi pp er s pe rf or m th e fu nc ti on of de co ra ti ng th ei r sa nc tu ar ie s.
By the same token, there is no ex pl ic it ba si s in Gr ee k re li gi ou s pr ac ti ce fo r th e no ti on
that goddesses preferre d vo ti ve st at ue s re pr es en ti ng wo me n to re pr es en ta ti on s of
men.
Men were by far the pre dom ina nt ded ica tor s of vot ive sta tue s on the Acr opo lis
throughout the sixth and fift h cen tur ies . As it hap pen s, the sel f as vot ary is a cat e-
gory of votive dedica tio n mor e sec ure ly att est ed by com par ati ve mat eri al tha n the
anonymous votary, male or female.” In the pre-Persian civilizations of the Near East,
there was a long tradition of men and women of high social status dedicating statues
of themselves in the guise of votaries.7* A pose with both hands clasped and held
against the chest was used to characterize freestanding votary figures going back to
the third millenium B.c., as illustrated by a group of ten Sumerian statuettes (eight
male and two female) from Tell Asmar.”> The Elamite queen Napir-Asu’s speaking
statue mentioned in Chapter 1 (Fig. 6) stands in the same pose, as do multiple
self-representations dedicated by the Mesopotamian dynast Gudea of Lagash.”° A
kneeling pose could also be used to depict an attitude of worship, as in the stat-
uette of Hammurabi in the Louvre inscribed as a dedication of himself to the
god Amurru.”” In Near Eastern votive sculpture, both conjunctive and disjunctive
representation were practiced, with the consequence that the distinction between
statues of the gods and statues of votaries is not always clear-cut. When a distinctive
pose characterizing a votary is absent, we can only tell votaries from the gods when
inscriptions make their identities clear; some poses and handheld attributes were
shared by statues representing gods, kings, nobles, and priests.” Still, it is clear
that votive statues in Near Eastern sculpture were equipped with specific identities,
and that even anonymous looking, uninscribed terra-cotta figurines dedicated in
sanctuaries could have been intended to represent their dedicators.”°
In Egypt, the tradition of representing oneselfas a votary goes back to the Middle
Kingdom. Votaries were shown standing, kneeling, or seated; their statues were most
often made of stone, but wooden and bronze examples have also been found.°®° In the
Late Period, the primary function for freestanding sculpture shifted from funerary
to votive, with temples replacing tombs as loci for sculptural display.*' In the Karnak
temple of Amon-Ra at Egyptian Thebes, Herodotus (2.143-144) reported seeing a
series of hundreds of wooden statues representing high priests; nearly all of the
statues found there and in other temples were made ofstone and represented priests
and a variety of other individuals granted the right to represent themselves.** Greeks
living in Egypt on occasion dedicated statues of themselves in Egyptian temples in
the Egyptian style.

116
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

Inscriptions identifying the dedicator and giving details about his family history
and accomplishments were a prominent feature of Egyptian votive statues. These
inscriptions were located on the back pillar of standing figures and usually on the
lap or the throne of seated ones. In the Late Period, male votaries were the norm and
female ones the exception: even in the Hellenistic period, when female votaries be-
came more common in Greek sanctuaries, according to B. von Bothmer, only about
one-quarter of the self-representations dedicated in Egyptian temples represented
women. In Egyptian votive sculpture of the Late Period, the scarcity of statues
representing women correlates directly with the lack of women votaries dedicating
statues, a situation very different from what we see on the Archaic Acropolis where
korai were common, but women as dedicators were rare. Votive statues of the Late
Period from Egypt thus bear out the idea that male votaries dedicated statues repre-
senting themselves, not generic votary figures matching the gender of the recipient
deity.
One option open to men on the Acropolis in the Archaic period was to dedicate
representations of themselves, and some of these involved characterizing oneself as
a votary.** Despite the practice of disjunctive representation, such dedications were
not really anonymous because, in the case of self-representations, the inscribed name
of the dedicator was understood simultaneously as the subject of the statue. It is not
at all surprising that corresponding dedications of self-representations by women
are absent.*° In Greek sanctuaries during the Archaic and Classical periods, women
rarely dedicated statues of any kind, much less statues representing themselves. As I
noted in Chapter 4, only 10 percent or so ofthe inscribed Archaic dedications com-
piled by Lazzarini were dedicated by women, and the percentage of female dedicator
names on Acropolis statue bases from the sixth and fifth centuries is even smaller.
The Moschophoros, one of the earliest surviving marble statues from the
Acropolis and one of the most striking, may represent its dedicator Rhombos as a
votary bringing a bull calf to the Acropolis for sacrifice to Athena (a rare example
of agender mismatch between sacrificial victim and recipient deity).8”7 What makes
the Acropolis unusual in the Archaic period is the low number of“canon ical” nude
kouroi compared with more iconogr aphical ly elabora te male statue types found
there; these include not only the Moscho phoros , but also riders such as the Rampin
horseman, one draped kouros with its forearm extende d, and three small marble
scribes. Some of the kouroi and the more iconogr aphical ly “loaded ” male figures
alike could be self-representations. As in the case of Archaic female figures, the same
male statue types could be used to represe nt multipl e subject s, even within the same
sanctuary. Thus no single male “votary type” compar able with Near Eastern figures
with their hands clasped in front of their chests emerge s clearly on the Archaic
Acropolis. During the period from ca. 480 to the end of the fifth century , athletic
victor statues probably constituted the larg es t cl as s of se lf -r ep re se nt at io ns de di ca te d

117
Divin_E IDENTITIES

on the Acropolis. These did not ch ar ac te ri ze the ir su bj ec ts as vo ta ri es , an d th ey

were in several respects dist in ct fr om ot he r ty pe s of sc ul pt ur al se lf -r ep re se nt at io ns
dedicated in Greek sanctuaries.
The evidence for the representati on of wo me n as vo ta ri es ap ar t fr om th e
Acropolis korai suggests some co nc lu si on s th at co rr el at e wi th th e ep ig ra ph ic al ev-
idence for the participation of wo me n in vo ti ve st at ue de di ca ti on s pr es en te d in
Chapter 4. As far as we kn ow , wo me n we re ne ve r pr oh ib it ed fr om de di ca ti ng sta t-
ues in Greek sanctu ar ie s, bu t in pr ac ti ce fe w ac tu al ly di d so be fo re th e He ll en is ti c
period. Indeed, the sa nc tu ar ie s ot he r th an th e Ac ro po li s th at ha ve re ce iv ed th e mo st
at te nt io n in thi s ch ap te r — th e Sa mi an He ra io n, Di dy ma , an d th e Pt oé n — ha ve
pr od uc ed no sta tue de di ca ti on s by wo me n at all in th e six th an d fif th ce nt ur ie s.
We should expect to see even fewer examples of women representing themselves as
votaries; none can be identified on the Archaic Acropolis. The fact that only men are
known to have dedicated korai on the Acropolis may be primarily a consequence of
the absence of women as dedicators, a phenomenon parallel to the relative scarcity
of commemorations of women in Archaic Attic cemeteries.

VOUT
DV Bake DES
After ca. 430 B.c., marble votive reliefs became a common dedication type in
Athenian sanctuaries, though most of the extant reliefs come from the Athenian
Asklepiecion, the sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron, and lesser sanctuaries rather than
the Acropolis.** The practice of dedicating votive reliefs ourished down to the end
of the fourth century. These reliefs served as an important vehicle for dedicators to
represent themselves specifically as votaries; the standard format for votive reliefs was
to show the dedicator, either alone or accompanied by family members, approaching
the recipient deity with his or her right hand raised in a gesture of prayer. Though
votive reliefs take us into the Classical period, they illustrate important points about
how and in what context votaries represented themselves. In votive reliefs depicting
both votaries and the recipient deity, the distinction between the two is made clear
by size differentiation (the gods are always noticeably larger than the votaries),
the gods’ attributes, and the prayer gesture of the votaries. They thus illustrate in
sculpture both halves of the votive equation, dedicator and recipient deity, mapped
out by dedicatory inscriptions in words alone. In this chapter, the question being
asked of the Archaic korai from the Acropolis is which half of this equation they
represent, the votary or Athena herself.
Because the majority of preserved votive reliefs lack dedicatory inscriptions —
these would have been placed on the pillars used to display the reliefs — conclusions
about who dedicated them often rely upon the votaries they depict. It is striking
that, even in Artemis’ sanctuary at Brauron, where the dedicators oftemple offerings
recorded by inventories were overwhelmingly female, votive reliefs hardly ever show

118
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

28. Votive relief of Xenokrateia; NM 2356. Copyright Deutsches Archaologisches Institut-Athen,

neg. nr. Hege 1135.

women on their own. Instead, the rule is that men appear as votaries either on their
own or as members of a family group, but women are shown almost exclusively
within the context of a family.*? This is true even of votive reliefs that we know were
dedicated by women, such as the fourth-century relief in the Athens National Mu-
seum dedicated by Xenokrateia (Fig. 28). The inscription reveals that Xenokrateia
dedicated not only the relief, but an entire shrine to the river god Kephisos and
other gods who share his altar, all depicted by the relief. Xenokrateia calls herself
“mother and daughter of Xeniades of the deme Cholleidai,” and the relief shows
Xenokrateia introducing her infant son, named Xeniades after her own father, to the
gods.?° In contrast, one of only three well-preserved Archaic votive reliefs from the
Acropolis, the Acropolis Potter relief (Fig. 19), omits even the recipient deity Athena
and shows only the male dedicator himself holding examples of his wares. Whether
he was a potter or a metalworker, the profits generated by his craft provided him
with the means to dedicate the relief as a dekate (tithe), and the relief should be
understood as depicting its dedicator in the guise ofa votary.
The important role played by the family in most votive reliefs of the Classi-
cal period recalls the Archaic Geneleos group from the Samian Heraion; as in the
Geneleos group, the dedicators of votive reliefs took some pains to represent accu-
rately the comp osit ion of their famil ies, show ing child ren of the corre ct numb er
and gender with size gradations reflecting their ages. This principle is illustrated by

119
Divine IDENTITIES

29. Archaic Pig Sacrifice relief from the Acropolis (Acr. no. 581). Athena wears a
helmet with a neck guard and lifts the folds of her himation with her left hand.
Copyright Deutsches Archiologisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr. 69/1599.

a second Archaic votive relief from the Acropolis, the so-called Pig Sacrifice relief
(Fig. 29). Here a family including the parents and three children, one girl and
two identical boys who might be twins, approach Athena with a sow destined
for sacrifice.” This and later Athenian votive reliefs represent the whole family as
votaries, not just its female members. It follows that the votaries depicted in vo-
tive reliefs, like the freestanding statues displayed on the same base in the Geneleos
group, were not intended to be seen as anonymous human figures. Instead, they were
understood as representations of the dedicator himself and the individual members
of his family, an interpretation supported by examples of votive reliefs in which
inscribed or painted name labels identify the votaries, male and female alike.”

120
 THE IDENTITIES OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

The evidence of votive reliefs challenges the notion that freestanding votary
statues dedicated on the Acropolis should be female to match the gender of the
recipient deity Athena. In the case of votive reliefs, a context in which we can be sure
that human votaries represented themselves, women appear frequently within larger
family groups but seldom on their own as either dedicators or sculptural subjects.
The iconography of these reliefs suggests no reason why men would dedicate statues
of female votaries in isolation, or why these votaries would need to remain anony-
mous. Honorific portrait statues, which began to be dedicated on the Acropolis
and in other Athenian sanctuaries early in the fourth century, show a marked gen-
der imbalance. The great majority of honorific portraits before the late Hellenistic
period represented men; in practice, the only women who received the honor of
statues on their own, outside the context of family groups, were priestesses, lesser
sacerdotal personnel such as arrhephoroi, and Eleusinian initiates. These, like their
male counterparts, had their names inscribed and thus did not remain anonymous.
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE
ACROPOLIS KORAI

he most significant object ion to rec ogn izi ng the Acr opo lis kor ai as rep re-
sentations of Athena has alw ays be en the ir gen eri c ic on og ra ph y. Th e kor ai
appear to us, as modern vie wer s, to be gen eri c in the bes t pos sib le sen se of
the word, em bo dy in g an ide al of yo ut h an d be au ty rat her tha n dep ict ing spe cif ic
subjects, either human or divine. As many scholars have pointed out, there is every
reason to think that the costume, headgear, and jewelry of the Acropolis korai re-
semble those of real Athenian women in the Late Archaic period, when, according
to the bulge chronology, most of the korai were dedicated. The objects the extant
korai hold in their hands look like offerings for the gods as opposed to the identify-
ing attributes of Athena. Athena began to be shown fully armed with helmet, aegis,
and spear in Athenian vase painting of the first half of the sixth century, and this is
how she appears in the bronze Promachos statuettes contemporary with the marble
korai. Thus if we adopt a primarily formal approach to the iconography of the
Acropolis korai, we are forced to conclude that the clear iconographic distinction
between armed Athena Promachos statuettes and formally generic korai means that
the two types of votive statues represented entirely different subjects.
Formal approaches to Archaic Greek marble sculpture, more forcefully stated in
reference to the kouros than to the kore type, treat the generic kore schema as itself
a bearer of meaning. The kore schema undoubtedly did exert some hold over both
sculptors and their patrons over the course of the 100 years or more when statues
of the kore type were being made and dedicated in Greek sanctuaries. Nevertheless,
any appeal to the kore schema as a bearer of meaning has to address at the same
time the schema’s survival and its obsolescence: why does the schema continue in
use in the Late Archaic period of ca. 510-480 when more active and unambiguously
characterized figures were being produced by Greek sculptors?! If the kore schema
was so desirable before 480, why did it cease to be desired after 480? No single
theory provides a completely satisfying answer to both questions at the same time,
and these are not questions I can answer in any definitive way.” In the case of the
kore, the mere assertion that the kore schema was meaningful does not necessarily
unlock a single meaning relevant in every context in which kore statues appeared.

122,
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

At the same time, the iconographic complexity of the typical kore compared with
the typical kouros means that it is possible to stress several different aspects of the
schema while searching for its meaning.
Though the problem of the meaning of the korai has usually been treated as
a formal and iconographic one, in fact it is a problem simultaneously formal and
contextual. To interpret the korai within the context of the Acropolis in the Late
Archaic period, we need to look at the full range of female figures displayed on the
Acropolis — votive statues and statuettes in marble, bronze, and terra-cotta, as well
as cult statues — and to reconsider the place of the korai within it. Did female figures
of different sculptural types represent different subjects, or did they represent the
same subjects in poses and guises influenced by the tradition of a particular statue
type and medium? Does the discontinuity between the Archaic and the Classical
styles in Greek sculpture mean that Archaic and Classical votive statues represented
different subjects, or merely that the same subject was represented in different styles?
My approach to the iconography of the korai has two distinct parts. A very small
number of Acropolis korai were characterized as armed Athenas by the addition of
helmets and handheld spears. These “hybrids” represent adaptations of the generic
kore schema to represent Athena by the addition of distinctive, identifying attributes,
and as such they are a minority. Kore/Athena hybrids raise the possibility that more
of the Acropolis korai are not really as generic as they look, but at the same time they
reaffirm the distinction between armed Athenas recognizable by their attributes and
the bulk of the korai not equipped with any identifying attributes.
The second part of my iconographic argument concerns the generic kore schema
itself. Formal approaches risk losing sight of the fact that not all attributes in Greek
art were distinctive identifiers; by the same token, “generic” iconography does not
preclude a specific identity, though it might make multiple identifications of the
same figure possible. The iconography of the generic Acropolis korai is at best
equivocal when used as evidence for their identities. Their clothing, headgear, and
jewelry can be read equally well as the kosmos of marriageable young women or as the
attire of goddesses; the objects that kore statues hold in their hands can be interpreted
either as offerings to the gods or as generic (rather than identifying) divine attributes.
In the end, we are forced to admit that the generic formal characteristics of the
Acropolis korai are multivalent, suitable for representing either anonymous female
votaries or goddesses within the votive context of the Acropolis.
In contrast bot h to tho se who see the kor e sch ema as the sum tota l of the
meaning of the Acropolis kor ai and tho se who won der why Gre ek scu lpt ors did not
abandon Archaic schemata soo ner , I arg ue tha t the re is a rea son why the Acr opo lis
korai looked the way they did at this par tic ula r mo me nt in the his tor y of Gre ek
sculpture. Though the formally gen eri c kor e sch ema is an inh eri tan ce fro m the
early sixth century, what distinguishes the Ac ro po li s ko ra i of th e bu lg e pe ri od fr om
Divine IDENTITIES

earlier examples of the kore type is the ir use of th e ex te nd ed fo re ar m ge st ur e. Wi th

the exception of six early korai th at ho ld on e fo re ar m up to th e ch es t, all of th e
extant, well-preserved korai from the Acro po li s ex te nd ei th er on e or bo th of th ei r
forearms. The extended fore ar m ge st ur e ca n th us be sa id to co ns ti tu te an in te gr al
element of the kore schema as it wa s em pl oy ed on th e Ac ro po li s in th e La te Ar ch ai c
period.
As I noted in Chapte r 5, oth er sch ola rs hav e als o con sid ere d thi s ges tur e to be
important, either as a sim ple ges tur e of off eri ng tha t cha rac ter ize s the Acr opo lis
korai as votaries or, in the cas e of Osb orn e and Sal omo n, ‘as an em bl em of the
rol e of wo me n in Ath eni an soc iet y. My int erp ret ati on of the ext end ed for ear m
ges tur e is dif fer ent . Lit era ry and epi gra phi cal sou rce s ass oci ate thi s ges tur e wit h
statues of the gods in Greek sculpture. There are reasons to believe that several
of the lost Archaic cult statues equipped with extended forearms, including the
wooden cult statue of Athena Polias on the Acropolis, had acquired them by the
final decades of the Archaic period when most of the extant korai were dedicated
on the Acropolis. Unlike the kore schema, the extended forearm gesture continued
to be used in Classical representations of the gods: the most famous examples are
Pheidias’ colossal gold and ivory Athena Parthenos and Zeus Olympios, each of
which held a figure of winged Nike in its outstretched right hand. Regardless of
the generic nature of most of the objects the Acropolis korai actually held in their
hands, the extended forearm gesture in itself may have associated the korai in the
minds of Late Archaic viewers with contemporary cult statues on the Acropolis and
in other Greek sanctuaries.

TH BeV.OcCVeEs CONT
Boe lwGin «RAG
O E
BOS

One orthodoxy governing the interpretation of votive sculpture holds that Archaic
marble statues and the bronze statuettes dedicated in the same sanctuary at the same
time did not represent the same subjects.’ Korai were the most common statue type
in marble on the Acropolis before 480; Athena Promachos figures appear to have
been the most common type of small bronze statuette during the same period.
As I stressed in Part I, the context within which the marble korai and the bronze
Promachoi were dedicated and displayed was for all intents and purposes identical:
both were set up on stone bases inscribed with the X dedicated formula. It is worth
questioning, then, whether the only representations of Athena dedicated on the
Acropolis in the Archaic period were small bronze statuettes of the Promachos type,
together with a small number of seated female figures in marble and the few hybrid
korai explicitly characterized as Athena by the addition of ahelmet or spear.* Could
the bulk of the standing marble korai also have been intended to represent Athena

124
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

despite the difference in pose and iconography between them and the bronze Athena
Promachos statuettes?
The interpretation of the Acropolis korai as divine rather than anonymous or
human representations has attracted renewed interest in some quarters after a long
hiatus. The category of divine representation that E. B. Harrison favors is that of
nymphs or other lesser female divinities; she has also opened up the possibility
that votive korai were meant to represent heroines, in particular the daughters of
the legendary Attic kings Kekrops and Erechtheus.’ Brunilde Ridgway’s argument
that some, if not all, of the Acropolis korai could have represented Athena and
other goddesses in fact signals a return to the view of W. H. D. Rouse.® One
of Ridgway’s arguments in favor of Athenais contextual. She suggests an analogy
between the marble korai and the female terra-cotta figurines dedicated in great
numbers on the Acropolis and in other Greek sanctuaries: “To say that they [the
Acropolis korai] represent goddesses or divine beings is to do no more than extend
to these luxurious marble offerings the same interpretation that is routinely given
for any terra-cotta statuette found in a sanctuary.”” Though the iconography of the
marble korai appears to be generic, they might still have been understood by their
dedicators and visitors to the sanctuary as representations of the recipient goddess.
Ridgway’s appeal to the votive context of Greek sanctuaries as in itself a bearer
of meaning draws attention to a significant and largely overlooked aspect of votive
statue dedications. “Votive context” can be defined as any combination of factors,
other than the iconography of the statues themselves, which contributed to con-
temporary viewers understanding of them. These factors include the information
provided by inscriptions, the types and appearance ofstatue bases, and the arrange-
ment ofvotive statues within the sanctuary, though as I noted in Chapter 1 there is
very little direct physical evidence for where and in what order votive statues were
originally displayed on the Acropolis.
Ridgway’s analogy between terra-cotta figurines (found in much larger numbers
than mar ble and bro nze voti ve stat ues in most sanc tuar ies) and mar ble stat ues of the
kore type may help to brid ge the gap bet wee n the kora i and the bron ze Pro mac hoi .
Seated female figures were the most pop ula r type of terr a-co tta figu rine dedi cate d
on the Acropolis dur ing the sixt h cent ury, as they were in othe r Gre ek sanc tuar ies.
However, the Acropolis is unus ual for the subs tant ial num ber s sta
of ndi ng fema les
(Fig. 30) found there in addition to seat ed ones .* The se wear the same clot hing as
the marble korai, some with the addi tion of a veil dra ped over thei r head s, and man y
hold up the folds of their skir ts with the left han d just as the kora i do; most stan d
with both arms at their sides or hold one fore arm up to thei r ches ts, but at leas t one
example illustrated in the publ icat ions exte nds its fore arm like most of the Acro poli s
korai.? Dedicators might have chosen the stan ding figu rine type spec ific ally beca use
of its resemblance to the more ex pe ns iv e an d pr es ti gi ou s ma rb le ko ra i. '°
Divine IDENTITIES

30. Archaic terra-cotta fig-

urines from the Acropo-
lis. The figurine on the
right (Acr. no. 10695) rep-
resents the generic stand-
ing female type; the one
on the left (Acr. no. 11142)
has been equipped with
a helmet crest. Copyright
Deutsches Archdologisches
Institut-Athen, neg. nr. Akr.
557-

In truth, votive figurines in terra-cotta from the Acropolis present the same
methodological problem as the marble korai: is it fair to assume that all or most of
them were meant to represent Athena, unless explicitly characterized as some other
goddess or as representations of female worshippers?" Ifthey had difterent identities,
how did viewers recognize them and tell them apart? On the Acropolis, both seated
and standing figurines were sometimes modified by the addition of a helmet crest (as
in the statuette on the left in Fig. 30) or an aegis to characterize them more clearly
as representations of Athena; others were made into kanephoroi holding baskets
on top of their heads, iconography that points to the representation of human
votaries rather than goddesses."* All the same, there is still a great likelihood that
the “generic” figurines, despite their lack of identifying attributes, were intended
to represent Athena along with the ones with added helmet crest and aegis. As a
working assumption for terra-cotta votive figurines of the Archaic period, “Athena
unless not Athena’ is less problematic than a comparable a priori assumption applied
to the marble korai."
Would the difference in medium alone have caused Archaic visitors to the
Acropolis to understand terra-cotta figurines, bronze statuettes, and marble statues
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAI

as representing different identities? Sculptural types as we define them tended to

develop in association with a particular medium in Archaic Greek sculpture. For
example, seated figures were made in marble and terra-cotta, but, as far as we can
tell, never in bronze, whereas figures in action poses such as the attacking Athena
Promachos were far more common in bronze than in marble, and virtually unheard
of in terra-cotta figurines. In Classical sculpture, the stylistic differences between
female figures in marble, bronze, and terra-cotta vanished for the most part. Type
definitions are the mainstay of formal approaches to Archaic sculpture, but sculptural
types were not always synonymous with identities. Standing female figures in terra-
cotta continued to be dedicated on the Acropolis after 480, but with a change from
the chiton and himation worn by the marble korai of the ca. 510-480 bulge to
the simpler peplos.'* These Early Classical “peplophoroi” have been treated as a
sculptural type that is distinct from Archaic korai wearing the chiton and himation,
but, on the Acropolis, bronze statuettes representing Athena also changed from
the chiton and himation to the peplos after ca. 480.5 The fact that the terra-cotta
figurines dedicated in the same sanctuary changed their costume at the same time
does not imply that they also changed their identities.
From the evidence of statue bases and of Pausanias’ account of statues he saw
on the Acropolis, large-scale bronze Athenas were a common dedication type from
ca. 480 to the end of the fifth century, and perhaps we should see these as replace-
ments for the marble korai. If they were, then the obsolescence of the marble kore
type on the Acropolis was primarily a consequence of the shift from marble to bronze
as the predominant material for large-scale votive statues and the stylistic change
from Archaic to Classical. When viewed in this light, Angelitos’ Athena (Fig. 31), a
Severe style marble Athena wearing a helmet and gorgoneion aegis and leaning on
her spear, marks the culmination of the trend toward making ordinary marble korai
into Athenas through the addition of a helmet or spear, a trend concomitant with
the ca. 510-480 bulge in kore dedications. The pose of Angelitos’ Athena in fact
resembles that ofa lost bronze Athena signed by the sculptors Kritios and Nesiotes
and probably dedicated soon after 480."°
A late-fourth-century inventory (/G II’ 1498—15or1A) listing at least 25 bronze
statues intended to be melted down and recast into new offerings for Athena suggests
that Athena continued to be the primary female subject — though certainly not the
only one — represented by votive statues on the Acropolis in the fourth century,
further evidence in favor of thematic continuity over time on the Acropolis.'? This
inventory regularly refers to individual statues by the names of their dedicators,
an indication that at least some were still attached to their inscribed bases at the
time the inventory was compiled; other statues described as missing their feet must
already have found their way onto the scrap heap. The only female statues included
in the Acropolis inv ent ory , and the onl y one s tha t cer tai nly rep res ent a god or her o

127
Divine IDENTITIES

31. Angelitos’ Athena (Acr. no. 140). Copyright

Deutsches Archaologisches Institut-Athen, neg.
nr. 75/448.

rather than a human subject, are three Palladia. This term could refer specifically
to small bronze statuettes of the Palladion or Athena Promachos types described in
Chapter 4, but in the Classical period it might also have been used to refer to any
bronze Athena regardless of size, pose, or material."
A final, tantalizing piece of contextual, as opposed to iconographic, evidence
suggests that the Archaic marble korai displayed on the Acropolis were understood
as representations of Athena in antiquity. Near the end of his tour of the Acropolis,
Pausanias (1.27.6) refers to a group of ancient pyaia) agalmata of Athena, intact
but blackened by fire during the Persian sack of 480. In keeping with his usage
of the term, Pausanias here uses aga/ma to mean a divine image rather than in
the more general sense denoting an offering pleasing to the gods. Because elsewhere
Pausanias applies the term “archaios” only to artworks of the Archaic and Severe
styles, there is a good chance that his explanation for how these statues came to
be damaged was correct."? Could this be a reference to Archaic marble korai?
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

Pausanias’ ancient Athenas should be made of marble because bronze statues

melt when burnt. Multiple korai with traces of burning were found in the Acropolis
excavations of the late nineteenth century; some korai that came to light before these
excavations seem to have survived above ground after the others were buried in pits
on the Acropolis.*° Firm evidence for the renovation of Archaic statue dedications in
the Samian Heraion, and indications of the same phenomenon in the Ptoén, create
the possibility that a few korai that survived the Persian sack were grouped together
for display on a new base after 480, to serve as a sculptural memorial analogous to
the preserved ruins of the Old Athena Temple and the column drums of the Older
Parthenon built into the north wall of the Acropolis.”

Fu
B RIS

The statues I call hybrids are female figures in marble identical to the other Acropolis
korai in pose and dress but that, at the same time, feature added attributes — a helmet
or a spear — that clearly characterize them as representations of Athena. Were it not
for these attributes, they would be impossible to distinguish from generic korai.
This category of kore/Athena hybrids does not include Archaic marble and bronze
Athenas not in the kore schema. The latter category encompasses not only bronze
Athena Promachos statuettes, but also a small number of freestanding Archaic
marble Athena statues that may date before ca. 480. The Seated Athena Acr. no. 625
(Fig. 10), often attributed to the sculptor Endoios, wears a gorgoneion aegis and
could have held either a spear and shield or (a less likely reconstruction in my
view) a spindle and distaff by association with the handheld attributes of Endoios’
Athena Ergane cult statue at Erythrai.** The standing Angelitos’ Athena wears the
gorgoneion aegis and a helmet, of which only the crest trailing down the back of
the hair remains; she leaned on a spear held vertically in her right hand. Though
stylistically Severe rather than Archaic, the statue could date either soon before 480
or soon after. Three other freestanding, Archaic marble Athenas in action poses
could belong to sculptural groups.”
The most intriguing kore/Athena hybrid from the Acropolis is Acr. no. 136,
a fragmentary kore supported by the column base DAA no. 10 (Figs. 32 and 33),
signed by Pythis and dedicat ed by Epiteles . Thoug h only her feet and lower legs
survive, this kore can be identif ied as an Athena by the deep spear hole located to
the right and in front of her right foot.”4 From the surviving fragments of the legs,
we can tell that the kore’s left hand pulled up a section of her chiton in keepin g with
the normal kore schema. The positio n of the spear hole shows that the lost spear
was held by the kore’s extended right forearm . A depicti on of Athena standin g at
rest and holding a spear upri gh t in eit her he r ri gh t or lef t ha nd fin ds am pl e par all els

129
Divine IDENTITIES

32. Fragmentary ko re (A cr . no . 13 6) an d in sc ri be d co l-
umn base dedicated by Ep it el es (D AA no . 10 ). Co py ri gh t
Deutsches Archao lo gi sc he s In st it ut -A th en , ne g. nr. 95 /7 .

in Classical freestand ing sta tue s and reli efs as wel l as Ang eli tos ’ Ath ena .* Th ou gh
I can find no other bas es for Acr opo lis kor ai wit h sim ila r spe ar hol es, Acr . no. 136
mig ht not be uni que . One pli nth tha t cou ld bel ong to a muc h sma lle r sea ted fem ale
figure rather than a standing kore has a similar hole in the same position; as we
will see, three fragmentary hands belonging to korai but not matched with any of
the extant statues held cylindrical metal objects in their left (rather than their right)
hands.”° Unfortunately, without the head or torso, it is impossible to tell whether
Acr. no. 136 was also equipped with either a helmet or aegis in addition to her spear.
Further evidence for the dedication of kore/Athena hybrids on the Acropolis
comes from three disembodied kore heads wearing helmets with neck guards, one
of them a small fragment (Langlotz 1939, no. 92). The best preserved of these is
Acr. no. 661 (Figs. 34 and 35), which clearly shows a helmet with the combination of
a neck guard and a front rim, which looks very much like the raised stephane worn
by most of the Acropolis korai of the bulge period. This head also wears disk earrings

130
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

33. Fragmentary kore (Acr.

no. 136) and _ inscribed
column base dedicated by
Epiteles (DAA no. 10); de-
tail shows the hole for a
spear. Copyright Deutsches
Archaologisches _ Institut-
Athen, neg. nr. 72/2917.

typical of the korai and has a round hole for a lost metal spike on top of its head;
though the helmet as rendered in marble shows no signs of a crest, a metal spike in
the shape ofacrest would have completed the rendering of the helmet. The second
well-preserved example ofahelmeted kore head, Acr. no. 305 (Langlotz 1939, no. 101),
also shows both a neck guard and a round hole for a cranial spike; this example also
has a second hole for a trailing helmet crest originally added in metal.
Ridgway has recently suggested that the numbers of the kore/Athena hybrids on
the Archaic Acropolis should be expanded to include at least some of the 16 generic
kore heads with hole s for cran ial spik es or meni skoi , and her arg ume nts are wor th
examining clos ely. ’7 The meta l spik es atta ched to the tops of the head s of man y
Archaic marble statues from Athens have been called meniskoi (“little moons”)
in reference to a passage in Aris toph anes ’ Bird s, whi ch men tio ns the prac tice of
attaching meniskoi to stat ues’ head s to kee p bird s from roos ting on them . Rid gwa y
argues that, rather than miniature umb rel las fun cti oni ng as bir d rep ell ent s, the los t
Divine IDENTITIES

34. Head of a kore/Athena

hybrid (Acr. no. 661), seen
from the front. Alison
Frantz Photographic Col-
lection, American School
of Classical Studies at
Athens, neg. AT 504.

cranial spikes attached to the heads of the korai and other extant statues could have
been added metal attributes. In particular, she suggests that the metal spike attached
to the head of Antenor’s kore (Fig. 11) might really have been a helmet crest: when
combined with the smooth rendering of the top of her head and the raised stephane
with holes for decorative metal attachments, the headgear of Antenor’s kore would
have been read as a helmet despite its lack of a neck guard.
The typical rendering of the stephane with its front part raised does resemble
the rim of a helmet; combined with a crest added in metal, it might have been
enough to suggest a schematic rendering of a helmet. Support for Ridgway’s theory
comes from Acr. no. 646, another helmeted marble kore head from the Acropolis,
this one without a neck guard. Though the head is battered, it is clear that a helmet
is represented because the top of the head is painted green; here, though, a trailing
helmet crest can also be made out, and the hole for the missing cranial spike is
square rather than round like the meniskos holes ofthe other korai.*® A small bronze

132
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

35. Head of a kore/Athena

hybrid (Acr. no. 661), seen
from the right side. Alison
Frantz Photographic Collec-
tion, American School of
Classical Studies at Athens,
neg. AT 50s.

statuette in the kore schema from the Acropolis, NM 6491 (Figs. 36 and 37), might
also represent a helmeted Athena without a neck guard. She wears a chiton and
diagonal himation like the marble korai and stands with her left hand grasping
some of the chiton folds and her right holding a missing cylindrical object. Though
it is possible that NM 6491 is a mirror support figure rather than a freestanding
votive statuette, the broken project ion on top of her head looks nothin g at all like
the supporting cradle for a bronze mirror and more like a helmet crest; if she held
a spear in her right hand, she would resembl e the marble kore with spear just
discussed.”?
In response to Ridgway’s the ory , Pet er Da nn er has col lec ted evi den ce tha t bir d
repellent spikes really were common in Gr ee k scu lpt ure an d arc hit ect ure .° Wh en
preserved, these take the fo rm of sma ll tri den ts rat her tha n “li ttl e mo on s” ; one of
the Acropolis korai, Act. no. 674, in fac t pre ser ves the be gi nn in gs of a th re e- pr on ge d
cranial spike that cannot be reconstru cte d as a hel met cre st. Th e cas e can stil l be
made that Antenor’s kore and Acr. no. 669, an ot he r ko re wi th a pl ai n re nd er in g of

133
Divine IDENTITIES

36. Bronze statuette from the Acropolis (Athena?), seen

from the front (NM 6491). Alison Frantz Photographic
Collection, American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, neg. AT 617.

the top of the head, a cranial spike, and an unusually prominent stephane that is
raised all the way around instead of only in the front, would have been recognized
when complete as kore/Athena hybrids.** At the same time, the presence of a neck
guard or a trailing helmet crest on three out of four of the helmeted kore heads
argues against recognizing more of the korai with meniskos holes as hybrids. All of
the extant bronze Athena Promachos statuettes wear helmets with neck guards, as do
the Athena from the east pediment of the Old Athena temple and the Athena on the
Archaic Pig Sacrifice votive relief from the Acropolis (Fig. 29), who otherwise closely
resembles a freestanding kore in dress and pose. Though the heads of 16 Acropolis
korai have holes for cranial spikes, twice as many of them (31) do not, and therefore
cannot have been made into hybrids by the addition of a helmet crest.
A final, atypical Acropolis kore that might in fact be a kore/Athena hybrid is
Euthydikos’ kore (Fig. 38), one of only two wearing a flat taenia or fillet wrapped

134
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS Korat

37. Bronze statuette from the Acropolis (Athena?), seen from

the right side (NM 6491). Alison Frantz Photographic Collec-
tion, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, neg. AT
619.

around her head instead ofa stephane ora polos headdress.** Her taenia resembles the
headband that Athena wears to keep her hair in place under her helmet. Euthydikos’
kore also originally had a scene of two racing chariots painted on her left shoulder,
a possible reference to the myth of the gigantomachy in which Athena played a
prominent role. At the same time, though, I must stress both that the Euthydikos
kore’s taenia is unique among the Acropolis korai of the bulge period, and that on
its own it cannot be considered a definitive identifying attribute because Athenian
women also on occasion wore fillets tied around their heads.*4

THE RPEPEOS* KORE CACR.N OF 679)

An ot he r po ss ib le ex am pl e of a hy br id ko re fr om th e Ac ro po li s mi gh t re pr es en t
Artemis rather than At he na . Th e Pe pl os Ko re (A cr . no . 67 9, us ua ll y da te d ca. 55 0—
530) confor ms to the bas ic kor e sch ema but is aty pic al of the Acr opo lis kor e seri es
Divine IDENTITIES

38. Euthydikos’ kore (Act.

no. 686); detail is of the right
side of the head. Copyright
Deutsches Archiologisches |
Institut-Athen, neg. nr. Akr. |
1381. |

RARR4
in several respects, first of all because she wears the peplos instead of a chiton and
himation (Fig. 39). Also unusual is the row of 35 holes for lost metal attachments
circling her head instead of the customary raised stephane.*> This is the only well-
preserved Acropolis kore certain to have held a metal object in her hand: her right
hand, held against her side, is pierced all the way through for a metal rod, just like
the left hand of Nikandre’s kore from Delos (Fig. 24). The combination of a metal
rod in the Peplos kore’s right hand and the extension of her missing left forearm
suggests that she originally held a bow in her left hand and an arrow in her right.
Nikandre’s kore may in fact have held the same attributes, because she has a hole
for a metal rod bored in each of her clenched fists; the one in the left hand is larger
and goes all the way through the fist.*°
Because archers normally hold their bow in the left hand rather than the right
when shooting, in Greek sculpture Artemis, Apollo, and other archers are shown
holding the bow in the left. Extant statues and statuettes of Apollo, as well as literary

136
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

39. Peplos kore (Acr. no. 679). Copyright Deutsches

Archaologisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr. Akr. 2378.

descriptions oflost Apo lli ne cul t sta tue s, bea r out this “mi met ic” pla cem ent the
of
bow in the left han d, jus t as Ath ena Pro mac hos and oth er god s sho wn str iki ng wit h
a raised weapon alw ays hol d the wea pon in the rig ht han d. The col oss al Nax ian
Apollo on Delos had its left han d pie rce d for the ins ert ion of a met al bow , as doe s a
second colossal han d fra gme nt fou nd in the sam e san ctu ary .” The Ear ly Cla ssi cal
Béarn Apollo statuette still holds a bow in its left han d; a bro nze sta tue tte of Apo llo
in the National Museum has hol es in its left han d for a bow and two arr ows ; it 1s
also likely (but not certain) that the wel l-k now n sev ent h-c ent ury bro nze sta tue tte
dedicated by Mantiklos to Apollo “th e far dar ter of the silv er bow ” hel d a bow in
his left hand.3 The lost cult statue of Delian Apo llo by Tek tai os and Ang eli on hel d
figures of the Charites in its right ha nd an d a bo w in its lef t; an ot he r Ar ch ai c st at ue

137
Divine IDENTITIES

40. Archaic bronze stat-

uette of Artemis from Mazi
near Olympia; Boston Mu-
seum of Fine Arts. Henry
Lillie Pierce Fund, inv.
98.658. Courtesy of Mu-
seum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Reproduced with permis-
sion. Copyright 2000 Mu-
seum of Fine Arts, Boston.
All rights reserved.

of Apollo known only from literary sources, Kanachos’ Apollo Philesios at Didyma,
held a bow in its left hand and a deer in its right (Pliny HN 34.75)? A bronze
statuette of Artemis in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (Fig. 40) shows Artemis
dressed in a peplos and holding a bow in her left hand, with a smaller hole behind
it probably for one or more arrows; the larger hole in the right hand may be for a
small animal.*°
A further iconographic detail of the Peplos kore beyond her extended left fore-
arm that supports her identification as a kore/Artemis hybrid is the figural deco-
ration painted on the front of her garment. A watercolor published in 1887 shows
a series of metopes running vertically down the center of the Peplos kore’s skirt:
Vinzenz Brinkmann’s ultraviolet photographs of this area have revealed a “story
frieze” consisting of four metopes showing animals and a horseman, possibly a
hunter.*" Because her left forearm is missing, we cannot be sure that the Peplos kore
held a bow in her left hand rather than some other object in marble or bronze.

138
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS Koral

Ridgway has suggested an alternative reconstruction as a kore/Athena hybrid with

a spear in her right hand and a shield strapped onto her left forearm, but a spear
held horizontally rather than vertically would present practical problems. If the
Peplos kore really did represent Artemis, we need not assume that she was dedi-
cated to Artemis Brauronia rather than to Athena. The earliest ceramic evidence
for the sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia on the Acropolis dates to the end of the
sixth century; the idea that the tyrant Peisistratos founded the sanctuary is an in-
ference based upon sources that associate Peisistratos with Brauron. Because there
are ho sixth- or fifth-century statue bases from the Acropolis inscribed as dedi-
cations to Artemis, any associations between statues found on the Acropolis and
Artemis’ sanctuary are purely hypothetical.47 Rather than an isolated dedication
to Artemis, the Peplos kore could be a rare Archaic example of what Brita Alroth
calls a “visiting god,” a representation of one god dedicated in the sanctuary of
another.**

WISTIPIMIUSUG “GODS ON) TNISE, AMIDEUBINGUNING ANC RO PONEIES

Evidence for the dedication of visiting gods in any medium in Greek sanctuaries
before the Hellenistic period is scarce.’ They can only be recognized when their
iconography rules out representation of either the recipient deity or a human subject
and at the same time positively identifies them as some other god. The only Archaic
statues from the Acropolis other than the Peplos kore that meet these conditions are
marble Nikai and herms. Nevertheless, Pausanias saw several fifth-century votive
statues of gods other than Athena still standing on the Acropolis, and it is possible
that the practice of dedicating statues of visiting gods in the sanctuary goes back to
the Archaic period. Two prominent fifth-century examples recorded by Pausanias
are the so-called “Locust Apollo” (Apollo Parnopios) made by Pheidias (1.24.8) and
supposedly dedicated as a thank-offering to Apollo for driving locusts out of Attica,
and the Aphrodite made by Kalamis and dedicated by Kallias (1.23.1-2), which
might belong to the fragmentary base DAA no. 136.
A third example that reveals more about the possible motives for dedicating vis-
iting gods on the Acropolis is the bronze aga/ma of Artemis Leukophryene dedicated
by the sons of Themistokles (1.26.4). Without an inscribed base, it is impossible
to be sure that the statue was dedicated to Athena rather than Artemis, but the act
of representing Artemis in a form peculiar to Asia Minor speaks against any con-
nection with the Acropol is cult of Artemi s Brauron ia. Themis tokles himself had
dedicated a temple of Artemi s Aristob oule in Athens in thanks for the Greek victory
at Salamis. Artemis in the guise of Leukop hryene preside d over Themist okles’ final
days in Magnesia, and his sons may have hoped to effect a symbol ic reconci lia-
tion between their family and the Atheni ans by introd ucing their patron deity into
Athena's sanctuary.* 6

139
Divine IDENTITIES

WHY HYBRIDS?
One thing the five certain ex am pl es of ko re /A th en a hy br id s fr om th e Ac ro po li s
do not tell us is how thorough th e ch ar ac te ri za ti on of ar me d At he na wa s. Be ca us e
none preserves a torso, we do not kn ow wh et he r an y of th es e hy br id s wo re th e aeg is;
from the single example with a sp ea r an d th e fo ur he lm et ed he ad s, we ca nn ot tel l
whether any hybrid kora i on th e Ac ro po li s we re eq ui pp ed wi th bo th a he lm et an d
a spear. Wh et he r or no t we als o ac ce pt An te no r’ s ko re , Eu th yd ik os ’ ko re , an d th e
Peplos ko re as hy br id s, it is cle ar th at hy br id ko ra i we re at yp ic al on th e Ar ch ai c
Acropolis. |
The significance of these hybrids can be read in two, diametrically opposed
ways. If the generic kore type was used to represent Athena (or Artemis) when
modified, then it can be argued that the generic, unmodified kore schema cannot
represent Athena because it does not share the same iconography. An important
function of distinctive, identifying attributes such as Athena's helmet and spear was
to ensure that viewers would be able to recognize statues’ subjects and be able to
distinguish statues representing different subjects from one another. Nevertheless,
it is still possible that contemporary viewers on the Acropolis would also have
recognized the generic korai as representations of Athena in a different guise, one in
keeping with the long tradition of the kore statue type. Kore/Athena hybrids seem
strange to us because they combine the helmet or spear of an armed Athena with the
kore schema, which we tend to read as a representation of a pretty girl. However, the
existence of hybrids in itself shows that the kore schema was not seen as inherently
incompatible with the representation of Athena. It is possible to see both the terra-
cotta figurines from the Acropolis and the marble korai as representations of a single
subject with varying degrees of characterization.

THE KORE SCHEMA? CLOTHING, HEADGEAR.

AND JEWEERRY

The clothing and kosmos (headgear and jewelry) of the korai dedicated on the
Acropolis have been interpreted by Schneider and others as an element of their
characterization as mortal girls (albeit anonymous ones) rather than goddesses, but
the specifics oftheir iconography do not provide decisive evidence in favor of one
identity or the other. Around the middle of the sixth century, korai on the Acropolis
begin to wear the chiton and himation rather than the peplos; two Naxian marble
korai probably made by emigrant Naxian sculptors, Acr. nos. 619 (Fig. 41) and
677, could mark the introduction of this costume.47 The Acropolis korai of the
Late Archaic bulge period wear their himation pinned on the right shoulder with a

140
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

41. Naxian kore from _ the

Acropolis (Acr. no. 619). Copy-
right Deutsches Archaologisches
Institut-Athen, neg. nr. 92/357.

diagonal crossband, a fashion almost always accompanied by the gestures of pulling

up some folds of the chiton with the left hand and extending the right forearm.*® In
Early Classical sculpture, the peplos replaces the chiton and himation once again;
on the Acrop olis, this chan ge in fashi on is illus trate d by Angel itos’ Athe na in marbl e
and by a bronze Athena statuette in the same pose.
Even if we acc ept tha t the ori gin al shif t fro m pep los to chi ton and him ati on
represents not onl y a scu lpt ura l con ven tio n int rod uce d by Eas t Gre ek scu lpt ors
but also a change in the gar men ts wor n by real Ath eni an wom en, it by no mea ns
follows that the Acropolis kor ai who wea r the chi ton and him ati on mus t rep res ent
women rather than goddesses.4? Com par iso ns wit h the dre ss of the bro nze Ath ena
Promachos statuettes are particularly rev eal ing , bec aus e the se cer tai nly rep res ent
Athena and were dedicated in the sam e vot ive con tex t as the mar ble kor ai. Lik e
the korai, most of the Athena Pr om ac ho s sta tue tte s, in cl ud in g Me le so ’s At he na

141
Divine IDENTITIES

42. Propylaia kore (Acr.

no. 688). Alison Frantz
Photographic Collection,
American School of Classi-
cal Studies at Athens, neg.
AT 535.

(Fig. 22), wear the chiton and himation with diagonal crossband, with or without
the addition of an identifying aegis.°° So does the Athena in the Late Archaic Pig
Sacrifice relief (Fig. 29), who wears no aegis and even holds up some of the folds of
her chiton with the left hand like most of the korai.
Did variations in the costume of the korai signal the representation ofdifferent
identities? Only four Acropolis korai wear the peplos, and all (including the Peplos
kore just discussed) should date before the bulge in kore dedications between ca. 510
and ca. 480. Another variation, the chiton without himation, appears on between
four and seven of the marble korai of the bulge period and also on three ofthe Athena
Promachos statuettes in bronze, compared with six Promachoi that wear the chiton
with a himation. Thus these two costumes — chiton with himation and chiton

142
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAl

without himation — were used interchangeably in representations of Athena from

the Acropolis.** The three Charites (Graces) on an Archaic votive relief from the
Acropolis (Acr. no. 702) also wear the chiton without himation as well as stephanai
identical to the ones worn by the freestanding marble korai. Finally, nine of the
korai from the Acropolis wear a long himation draped over both shoulders. Despite
the association of this costume with kanephoroi or maiden basket bearers in vase
painting and Classical reliefs, its occurrence among the Acropolis korai can most
easily be explained as a variation designed to accomodate the gesture of extending
both forearms, because most of the korai who wear the himation over both shoulders
(such as the Propylaia kore, Fig. 42) also stand with both forearms extended.
The stephane or headband raised at the front worn by most of the Acropolis
korai seems, at first glance, to be incompatible with the warlike personality of Athena
and much more in keeping with the costume of marriageable young girls.5> However,
the basic tenet of anthropomorphic polytheism is that the gods look like people,

43. Marble Nike (Acr. no.

693). Copyright Deutsches
Archaologisches — Institut-
Athen, neg. nr. Hege 739.

143
Divine IDENTITIES

only better. Descriptions of both gir ls an d go dd es se s in Ho me ri c po et ry , in cl ud in g

the epiphany of Demeter in the Ho me ri c hy mn to De me te r (/ / 27 5- 28 1) , str ess
the beauty of their hair and he ad ge ar . Bo th he ad ba nd s an d je we lr y we re eq ua ll y
appropriate for human and di vi ne su bj ec ts in Ar ch ai c Gr ee k sc ul pt ur e. Ev en if we
reject Ridgway’s identification of th e st ep ha ne of th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i as an el em en t
in the schematic representation of a he lm et , th e Ac ro po li s ko ra i wi th th e st ep ha ne
could still represen t At he na . Th e go dd es se s on th e Si ph ni an Tr ea su ry fri eze , wi th
the exception of th e ar me d At he na an d Ar te mi s in th e no rt h fri eze gi ga nt om ac hy
scene, wear a head ba nd fla t at th e ba ck an d ra is ed at th e fr on t ju st lik e th e on es wo rn
by the Acropolis kora i, co mp le te wi th ea rr in gs ad de d in me ta l. °” Th e si ng le Ar ch ai c
ma rb le Ni ke fr om th e Ac ro po li s (Ac r. no. 69 3) wh o ha s ke pt he r he ad (Fi g. 43 )
wears a stephane and marble disk earrings. The lost golden Nikai dedicated by the
Athenian demos in the Parthenon from the 430s through the first half of the fourth
century wore headbands called stephanai, though we cannot be sure that these were
in fact the same as the headgear worn by the Archaic korai; they also wore earrings,
necklaces, and bracelets. By the fourth century, even the old wooden cult statue of
Athena Polias had been equipped with a headband called a stephane, earrings, and
necklaces.”

HANDHELD OBJEG@TS27 OFFERING.

O ReA PO REB Ue be

Most of the Acropolis korai as we see them today are incomplete. Although we can
be sure that every extant kore either extended its forearm or held one forearm up
to its chest (with the possible exception of 7 korai in Langlotz’ catalog represented
only by a fragmentary torso or legs), only 14 out of the 54 korai preserve one or
both forearms. Only 5 well-preserved korai with extended forearms still have their
hands intact, and only r kore, Acr. no. 593, still holds objects in both of its hands; 24
of the Acropolis korai extended their right forearms only, 7 extended the left only,
and 10 extended both right and left. To decide whether the objects the Acropolis
korai held in their hands can be identified as the handheld attributes of goddesses
rather than offerings made by votaries, we need to assemble the evidence for what
these objects are. This evidence includes not only the few korai that preserve their
hands, but also a series of disembodied hands from kore statues in the Acropolis
Museum storerooms; these, though they were included by Langlotz in his catalog
of the Acropolis korai, have been completely overlooked in discussions of the korai
and their significance.°°
Table 5 incorporates the full range of the evidence available for objects held in the
hands of korai from the Acropolis. As the table shows, as many as halfof the extant

144
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

Table 5. Handheld Attributes of the Acropolis Korai

—
$ $ e
Marble Wreath
Acr. no. 593 (R)

Marble Pomegranate
Acr. no. 593 (L)
Acr. no. 677 (L)
Acr. no. 619 (L)

Other Marble Fruit (Apple?)

Acr. no. 680 (R)
Langlotz no. 223 (R)

Marble Dove ?
Acr. no. 683 (L)
Acr. no. 269 = Lyons kore (R)
Acr. no. 685 (L)
Langlotz no. 221 (L)

Unidentified Marble Attribute

Acr. no. 656 (R)
Langlotz no. 211 (R) — meat?
Langlotz no. 228 (L)

Missing Attribute (Metal?) Held in Pinched Fingertips

Acr. no. 268 (Langlotz no. 38) = Antenor’s kore (R) — or empty handed?
Acr. no. 615 (L) — or empty handed?
Langlotz no. 241 (one finger only)
Langlotz no. 242 (three fingers only)
Langlotz no. 210 (R)
Langlotz no. 225 (R)

Metal Cylinder
Acr. no. 679 = Peplos kore (R)
Langlotz no. 222 (L)
Langlotz no. 224 (L)
Langlotz no. 235 (L)

Unidentified Metal Attribute

Langlotz no. 215 (R) — branch?
Langlotz no. 226 (R)
Langlotz no. 227 (L)
Note: R= right hand; L = left hand (hand fragments are noted by Langlotz 1939
number only).

hands originally held objects made of metal. We tend to forget that Greek marble
sculpture ofthe Archaic and Classical periods — votive, funerary, and architectural —
was embellished with metal addit ions as a matte r of cours e. On the east frieze of the
Siphnian Trea sury at Delph i, the gods were origi nally chara cteri zed by hand held
attributes either added in bronze or rendered in paint against the relief background:
Zeus held a scept er and thund erbol t, Hera held a scept er, and Apol lo held a bow. "
In the Classical period, the East frieze of the Part heno n depic ts the pant heon in a

145
Divine IDENTITIES

44. Fragmentary right hand and lower arm of a kor e sta tue (Ac r. no. 356 7). The han d ori gin all y hel d
a branch or a similar object. Rep rod uce d fro m H. Sch rad er, ed. Die arc hai sch e Mar mor bil dwe rke der
Akropolis (Frankfurt 1939), Figure 144.

similar fas hio n: her e the fac t tha t mod ern sch ola rs hav e fou nd it dif fic ult to ide nti fy
some of the gods shown on the frieze reinforces the significance of the handheld
attributes (now completely lost) that were originally inserted into the gods’ hands in
metal or painted against the relief background.®* Unfortunately, none of the metal
objects held by the korai survive. The hands curled around metal cylinders held
upright suggest hybrids holding a spear or a bow, but metal branches like the ones
typically held by participants in sacrificial processions are also a possibility. The
best candidate for a branch is Langlotz no. 215 (Fig. 44), a right hand curling its
fingers around a lost, round metal object held flat in the palm rather than vertically.°*
Fruits and birds figure prominently in the repertoire of marble objects held
by the Acropolis korai; both are also well attested among korai from the Samian
Heraion. Not all of the fruits held by the Acropolis korai can be identified, but
when they can be they are pomegranates, as illustrated by the early kore Acr. no. 593
(Fig. 45), which holds a pomegranate up to its chest with the left hand and a marble
wreath in its right hand held down at its side. The two “Naxian” korai, Acr. nos.
619 (Fig. 41) and 677, hold pomegranates in the same position, as does the Berlin
kore, found in Attica and most likely a funerary rather than a votive statue. Though
birds represented in Greek sculpture and vase painting can be difficult to identify,
all of the birds held by korai from the Acropolis are recognizable as doves, and none
of the korai holds an owl, the bird most closely associated with Athena beginning in
the sixth century. Though doves were associated with the goddess Aphrodite, they
also appear in the hands of ordinary girls in funerary reliefs.°
What may come as a surprise is that flowers, the third handheld object cited as
a generic “offering” frequently held by kore statues, turn out to be absent from the
Acropolis.°° Unlike the funerary Phrasikleia kore from Attica, none of the Acropolis

146
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAlI

45. Kore with pomegranate and wreath (Acr.

no. 593). Alison Frantz Photographic Collec-
tion, American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, neg. AT 417.

korai appear to hold marble flowers in their hands. There is a possibility that the
missing objects held by some korai pinched between the thumb and the forefinger
were flowers in metal: this gesture is illustrated by a fragmentary right hand, Langlotz
no. 210 (Fig. 46), which has a tiny dowel hole for the insertion of alost metal object
in its fingertips. But the gesture ofthis hand and the others more closely resembles
that of holding a wreath or a ribbon pinched between the fingertips than it does
the gesture of“flowe r sniffers ” in Archaic vase paintin g, relief sculptu re, and small
bronzes, who hold a flower up to their faces.°”? Flowers are the most commo n
objects held in the hands of Cyprio t korai, and the source of inspira tion for them
may be Egyptian female figures of the Late Period, which hold lotus flowers up to
their chests.°* In retrospect, the Cyprio t korai and a series of Archais tic korai of
the Roman period that dep ict the div ine per son ifi cat ion Spe s (“ Ho pe ”) ho ld in g a

147
Divine IDENTITIES

LS : Muy:

46. Fragmentary right hand and lower arm of a kore statue (Act. no. 4308).
The thumb and forefinger pinch a small bronze object, now missing. Copy-
right Deutsches Archdologisches Institut-Athen, neg. nr. Akr. 1581.

flower have probably led to the overrestoration of flowers in the hands of Archaic
Greek korai.°? An example of the gesture of pinching a wreath between the thumb
and forefinger that closely resembles the Archaic kore hand Langlotz no. 210 is the
Severe style relief from Sounion showing a youth (athlete?) crowning himself with
a wreath originally added in metal.”° For this reason | prefer to reconstruct metal
wreaths (stephanoz) or fillets (taeniae) in the pinched fingertips of this group of korai
rather than individual metal flowers. Though we can only guess at their appearance,
these missing metal wreaths or fillets would be equally appropriate in the hands of
either mortal women or goddesses.”
As we can reconstruct it from the evidence available, the repertoire of objects the
extant Acropolis korai held in their hands really was generic and repetitive. With the
possible exception of the metal cylinders held by three fragmentary hands, there are
no objects that could have functioned as identifying attributes exclusive to Athena.
Conversely, some of the more intriguing objects held by votive korai dedicated in
other sanctuaries appear to be absent on the Acropolis, for example the bulls held
by some Cypriot korai and the mysterious, candy-cane-shaped staffs in marble or
metal held by East Greek and Attic korai, possibly including the (funerary?) kore
from Aghios loannis Rendis in Attica.”* Furthermore, in Athens it appears that there
was no neat distinction between the objects held by votive and funerary korai: both
the funerary Berlin kore and korai dedicated on the Acropolis held pomegranates,
suggesting that this object at least was multivalent, acquiring different meanings in
different contexts.”’
Even though all of the objects the Acropolis korai held in their hands could
represent the offerings of human votaries, the fact remains that none is incompatible
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

with the representation of a goddess. Not all of the handheld attributes of the gods
in Greek sculpture functioned as exclusive identifiers. Some uncanonical divine
attributes were of purely local significance and would have been associated with
different gods, or even with representations of human subjects, when taken out
of context. The most important example for our purposes is the pomegranate.
According to Harpokration (s.v. Niky ’A6nva&), drawing upon a lost Hellenistic
work describing the Acropolis monuments, the cult statue of Athena Nike held
a pomegranate in its right hand and a helmet in its left.74 The date and precise
appearance of this cult statue pose problems with no easy solution; it is possible
that, even if the Athena Nike cult statue in its original form dates to the mid-sixth
century or earlier, one or both of its handheld attributes were added later, long
after the marble korai holding pomegranates were dedicated on the Acropolis. Thus
I am not arguing that these korai copied the handheld attribute of the lost cult
statue, but rather that both the cult statue and the votive statues express the same
tendency toward the use of nonspecific divine attributes to represent Athena, which
coexisted on the Acropolis with specific, identifying attributes such as the helmet
and spear. Without literary testimony describing the attributes of the Athena Nike
cult statue, we would never associate the pomegranate with a representation of
Athena; as a handheld attribute, it normally belonged to Persephone, Aphrodite,
Hera, and deceased men and women.” Yet if the cult statue of Athena Nike really
did hold a pomegranate, this was an attribute associated with Athena within the
votive context of the Acropolis, and not necessarily anywhere else.

Pie MD BD sEORBARM*GES TURE

Even if the pomegranate did have special associations with Athena on the Acropolis,
most of the objects held by the Acropolis korai represent a generic repertoire in-
herited together with the other elements of the kore schema. Even the hypothetical
metal wreaths I would restore in the hands of some korai find a precedent in the
marble wreath held by pre-bulge kore Acr. no. 593. To argue that the Acropolis
korai represe nted Athena , we need to find some way to reconci le the contin uing
use of the generic kore schema in the Late Archaic bulge period with the con-
temporary iconography of Athena armed with helmet, spear, and shield. What in
fact sets both the hybrids and the generic korai of the bulge period apart from
their precursors in the Samian Heraio n and other sanctua ries is their use of the
extended forearm gesture; this constitutes a Late Archaic modific ation of the basic
kore schema, and a possibl e solutio n to the proble m of how the generic Acropol is
korai could have been recognized by contem porary viewers as represe ntation s of
Athena.

149
Divin_E IDENTITIES

The extended forearm gesture of the Ac ro po li s ko ra i ha s pr ev io us ly be en th ou gh t

to identify the korai as votaries maki ng pe rp et ua l of fe ri ng s to th e go ds . Sa lo mo n an d
Osborne go a good deal further by se ei ng th is ge st ur e as si gn if yi ng th e su bo rd in at e,
dependent status of women in Athenian so ci et y. Th e ex te nd ed fo re ar m ge st ur e
certainly does differen ti at e th e ko ra i fr om th e ca no ni ca l ko ur os sc he ma : on ly a
small number of kouroi were ev er eq ui pp ed wi th ex te nd ed fo re ar ms an d, as fa r as
we can tell, all of them are hybr id ko ur oi re pr es en ti ng Ap ol lo .’ ° At th e sa me ti me ,
the gesture consti tu te s an ic on og ra ph ic fe at ur e th at li nk s vo ti ve st at ue s wi th cu lt
st at ue s, no t on ly on th e Ac ro po li s bu t al so in ot he r Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s.
To begin with, it is worth questioning whether the gesture of extending one
or both forearms would have characterized generic korai as human votaries rather
than godd esse s hol din g an attr ibut e. Hum an offe ring bear ers occa sion ally app ear
in Archaic relief sculpture: two examples that come to mind, the reliefs on the
Harpy Tomb from Lycia and the so-called Lakonian hero reliefs, show offering
bearers approaching deities or heroes and holding objects just like the ones held
by freestanding kore statues — pomegranates, flowers, wreaths, and small animals.”
However, funerary korai from Attica hold the same sorts of objects up to their chests,
and within a funerary context these objects should almost certainly be interpreted
as attributes characterizing the deceased rather than offerings. Ornithe (Fig. 25)
and Philippe in the Samian Geneleos group, the only votive korai we can be ab-
solutely sure represented human worshippers rather than goddesses because they
have inscribed name labels and belong to a larger family group, both stand empty
handed, with both arms down at their sides; so does a third kore from the Samian
Heraion.”®
A small number of empty-handed korai from sanctuaries other than the
Acropolis make gestures that might be intended to characterize them as votaries. The
“Dame d’Auxerre” (Fig. 47), a small limestone statue in the late-seventh-century
Daedalic style, stands with her left arm at her side and her right hand over her chest
with palm flat.” One of a pair of nearly identical sixth-century korai from Chios
holds both palms flat over her chest between her breasts and shoulders; the other
kore held only her left forearm against her chest, and it is not possible to tell whether
she was originally empty handed or whether she held some missing object.*° This
gesture of placing one or both hands palm flat over the chest might in fact be the
Archaic precursor of the votary gesture par excellence seen in Classical votive reliefs,
namely raising the right hand with palm flat." No examples of korai making either
votary gesture have been found on the Acropolis. In votive reliefs, women some-
times kneel in prayer before the gods, but statues of kneeling women are extremely
rare in Greek sculpture, and they probably represent goddesses of childbirth rather
than votaries.*”

150
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS Koral

47. La Dame d’Auxerre, an Early Archaic limestone votive

statue in the Louvre (inv. 3098). Alison Frantz Photographic
Collection, American School of Classical Studies at Athens,
neg. EU 52.

In the absence of other votary gestures, would the gesture of holding an object
in the hand be read as a votary gesture when made by kore statues on the Acropolis?
In reality, we are talking about two different gestures, the extended forearm gesture
and the gesture of holding one forearm up to the chest. On the Acropolis, it can
easily be argued that the distinction between the two is chronological, as is the
distinction between korai that stand with both feet together and those that stand
with their left foot forward in a “walking” stance.* All of the pre-bulge korai from
the Acropolis, like most korai produced by East Greek and Cycladic workshops in
the sixth century, hold one forearm up to the chest; all of the bulge korai extend
one or both of their forearms, as do other late korai from Delos and Eleusis.*4
Funerary korai from Athens and Attica all hold their forearm up to the chest; this
fits the conventional dating of the series of Archaic Attic funerary monuments
before the bulge in kore dedications on the Acropolis.** It seems likely that both
DivineE IDENTITIES

48. Small kore with forearms

inserted separately (Acr. no.
614). Copyright Deutsches
Archaologisches Institut-
Athen, neg. nr. Hege 745.

gestures meant the same thing on the Acropolis, though of course we cannot assume
that the Acropolis korai represented the same subjects as korai dedicated in other
sanctuaries.
The extended forearm gesture is more emphatic than the gesture of holding one
forearm up to the chest, especially when the extended forearm was made separately
and inserted. This technique made it easier technically to produce a marble kore
statue with one or both forearms extended, but not every example of separately
inserted forearms can be explained on technical grounds alone. Acropolis no. 614,
one of the smallest korai from the Acropolis (Fig. 48), under 50 cm tall when
complete, has its forearms inserted separately, whereas paradoxically the extended
right forearm of the over-life-size Antenor’s kore (Fig. 11) was carved in one piece
with the statue.*° The extended forearm gesture was not exclusive to the freestanding
kore type, but also appears in architectural sculpture of the Late Archaic period. The
three female figures flanking Apollo's chariot in the east pediment of the Temple of
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

49. Cybele and attendants from Bégazkéy;

Ankara Museum. Reproduced from K.
Bittel, “Phrygisches Kultbild aus Bogaz-
ky,” AntP 2 (1963), pl. 1, by permission
of the Deutsches Archdologisches Institut,
Berlin.

Apollo at Delphi (Fig. 18), which so closely resemble Antenor’s kore that they may
have been made by the same sculptor, also stood with their right forearms extended.*”
Seated female figures, including at least one example from the Acropolis other than
the seated Athena Acr. no. 625, also exhibit the same gesture, and so do at least two
of the marble Nike statues.” In Archaistic sculpture, even kore figures depicted in
relief sometimes had their forearms inserted separately and projecting forward out
of the relief.°?
A convincing case can be made for the origins of both gestures, the earlier one
of holding one forearm up to the chest and the later extended forearm gesture, in
Phrygian and Late Hitt ite scul ptur e of the peri od bet wee n ca. 1,00 0 and ca. 500 B.C.
The gesture of rais ing one or both fore arms to the ches t with attr ibut es (rat her than
offerings) held in the hands was char acte rist ic of Phr ygi an repr esen tati ons of the
goddess Cybele. The ston e stat ue of Cyb ele from Bég azk éy (Fig . 49) hold s both
forearms up to her chest at diff eren t angl es: the left han d held a lost roun d obje ct

153
Divine IDENTITIES

50. Daedalic bronze statuette in “Hittite”

pose, in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore,
inv. 54.773. Photo: The Walters Art Museum,
Baltimore.

restored as a pomegranate, and the right may or may not have held another attribute.
Some scholars believe that her clothing was influenced by Samian korai such as
Cheramyes’ Hera in the Louvre and date the Bégazkéy Cybele to the second half of
the sixth century; but if the Bégazkéy Cybele really dates to the seventh century as
others have argued, then the influence probably moved in the opposite direction,
supporting the empirical observation that the gesture of raising the forearm up to
the chest was a key element of the East Greek kore schema from the beginning,
inherited from Phrygian sculpture.°°
The double extended forearm gesture has been called the “Hittite pose”: it
was used to depict both gods and rulers in Late Hittite sculpture. The earliest
preserved Greek example might be a seventh-century Daedalic bronze statuette of a
female figure now in the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore (Fig. 50), whose original
handheld attributes have been lost.?' The double extended forearm gesture became
common among bronze statuettes in the Late Archaic period. Earlier examples in

154
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KoRAI

large-scale Greek sculpture prove difficult to find, but the Naxian Apollo from
Delos, which held a bow in his left hand, also held its right arm free of the body and
possibly held figures of the Charites in his right hand, like the cult statue displayed
in the same sanctuary.

ARGHAI@G GUET STATUES WITH

EXTENDED FOREARMS
The gesture of extending one or both forearms, even if it did come to Greek
sculpture from Anatolia, did not necessarily mean the same things within a Greek
context. We still need to explain why the korai of the bulge period adopted the
extended forearm gesture and what that gesture meant to contemporary viewers.
As it turns out, there are reasons to believe that the extended forearm gesture was
already characteristic of cult statues in the Late Archaic period, just as it was an
important iconographic feature of Classical cult statues such as Pheidias’ Athena
Parthenos.
Because practically all Archaic cult statues have been lost, their appearance
can in most cases only be reconstructed from literary and epigraphical testimonia.
Archaeological testimonia, namely representations of statues on vases, coins, gems,
and votive reliefs, have to be approached with caution: unless they are labeled or
match the descriptions of distinctive cult statues in literature or inscriptions, we
cannot be sure that they represented a particular cult image or votive statue, or any
“real” statue at all. Most representations of divine statues on vases, and possibly
on coins as well, could represent “imaginary” statues of the gods independent of
any particular model but responding to the same conceptions of the gods and their
appearance as actual cult statues and votives.”
Despite problems of evidence, some cult statues with extended forearms and
handheld attributes have legitimate claims to date to the mid-sixth century or ear-
lier. The statues of Artemis of Ephesos and Hera in the Samian Heraion probably
derived their “Hittite pose” and the fillets tied to their arms directly from contact
with the Late Hittite centers of Anatolia; though the Samian Hera was outfitted
with jewelry and clothing listed in fourth-century inventories, there is no reli-
able evidence that either she or the Ephesian Artemis held any attributes in their
outstretched hands.” At least one of the gold and ivory statues destroyed in the
temple fire of 548 B.c. at Delphi and buried in a pit beneath the Sacred Way had an
extended right forearm. The three fragmentary figures, one male and two female,
could be cult statues representing Apollo, Artemis, and Leto.°4 The cult statue of
Apollo at Amyklai in Lakonia, which Pausanias (3.19.1—2) describes as a colossal
bronze pillar standing on an elaborate marble throne, wore a helmet and held a bow
in its left hand and a spear in its right. A date in the mid-sixth century, before the
fall of King Croesus of Lydia, is supported by Herodotus’ (1.69) story that Croesus

T55
Divine IDENTITIES

gave the Lakedaimonians gold for another cu lt st at ue th at , ac co rd in g to Pa us an ia s

(3.10.10), ended up being used for the Am yk la ia n Ap ol lo . Th is st at ue 's pe cu li ar co m-
bination of attributes recalls Near Ea st er n fi gu ri ne s of th e go d Re sh ef an d ma y ha ve
gone completely out of use in Gr ee k sc ul pt ur e by th e en d of th e Ar ch ai c pe ri od .”
Other cult statues with dual hand he ld at tr ib ut es , su ch as Ka na ch os ’ Ap ol lo Ph il es io s
from Didyma and the cult statue of De li an Ap ol lo ju st me nt io ne d, da te be fo re th e
Pe rs ia n Wa rs , bu t we ha ve no wa y of kn ow in g ho w lo ng be fo re .” °
Other cult statues may only have been equipped with extended forearms and
handheld attributes tow ard the end of the six th cen tur y, wh en the bul ge in Acr opo lis
statue dedications beg ins . The se inc lud e the woo den aga lma of Ath ena Pol ias , the
ori gin al cul t sta tue of Ath ena on the Acr opo lis , whi ch Pau san ias (1. 26. 7) saw in
the Erechtheion. Literary sources, including Pausanias, stress the character of the
statue as a “primitive, aniconic or quasi-iconic fetish of olive wood,” an object not
made by human hands (acheiropoietos) and so old it was thought to have fallen
from the sky.2”? However, these testimonia prove difficult to reconcile with others,
such as Plutarch’s story (Them. 10.4) that Themistokles searched the baggage of the
Athenians evacuating Attica ahead of the Persians in 480, looking for the statue's
golden gorgoneion. Inventories of the Erechtheion dating to the first half of the
fourth century list the kosmos of the Athena Polias statue, and the list includes not
only a stephane, earrings, necklaces, an aegis, and a gorgoneion, but also a golden
phiale (libation bowl) held in one hand and a golden owl that the statue most
likely held in its other hand.* Thus neither the Athena Polias, the oldest and most
venerable cult statue of Athena on the Acropolis, nor the Athena Nike cult statue
(with her pomegranate and helmet) appears to have been a straightforward armed
Athena.
J. Kroll has attempted to resolve the problem of when and how the Athena
Polias cult statue went from being a simple wooden plank to a fully characterized
representation ofAthena by reinterpreting a literary source that attributes an ancient
olive wood agalma of Athena to the sculptor Endoios as a reference to Endoios’
renovation of the Acropolis cult statue.?? Endoios’ precise date, and practically
everything else about him, is a problem; no statue signed by him survives, though
many scholars accept the battered seated Athena, Acr. no. 625 (Fig. 10), as the seated
Athena made by Endoios and dedicated by Kallias that Pausanias (1.26.5) mentions
in his account of the Acropolis. Though I have argued elsewhere for a date of ca. 530—
520 for a statue base from Athens signed by Endoios, his work could actually date
anywhere in the second hal
offthe sixth century — as early as the mid-sixth century
and as late as the beginning of the bulge in statue dedications on the Acropolis.'°°
It is not necessary to accept Kroll’s theory in all of its particulars, or even his
connection between Endoios and the Acropolis cult statue, to see the advantages of

156
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI

dating the kosmos and handheld attributes of the Athena Polias to the Late Archaic
period. Pausanias (7.5.4) attributes another cult statue of Athena with dual handheld
attributes to Endoios, the Athena Ergane at Erythrai that held either two distaffs
or a distaff in one hand and a spindle in the other. The anecdote about the Athena
Polias statue in Plutarch’s life of Themistokles dates its gorgoneion before 480; on
Athenian vases, the gorgoneion on Athena’s aegis appears only in the second half of
the sixth century, an iconographic detail that could conceivably have been inspired
directly by the addition of a gorgoneion aegis to the Acropolis cult statue." The
phiale the Athena Polias held in her hand first appears in small bronze statuettes and
vase representations of the gods in the last quarter of the sixth century; it begins to
appear frequently in large-scale sculpture only in the Early Classical period.’
The equipping of the wooden cult statue of Athena Polias on the Acropolis
with a phiale and an owl can be seen as part and parcel of a larger trend toward
greater iconographic complexity in Greek art of the Late Archaic period. One aspect
of what Ridgway has called the Late Archaic “International style” in sculpture
is the creation of figures in action poses such as the bronze Athena Promachos
statuettes; another is that the standard formula for representing the gods at rest
becomes the extended forearm gesture with attributes held in one or both hands.'%3
The gods were represented in the same fashion in vase painting by what Nikolaus
Himmelmann has called “Daseinsbilder” or “life-images,” emblematic vignettes
showing the gods isolated from a larger narrative context but recognizable by their
clothing or handheld attributes, principally the phiale.'°* As a divine attribute, the
phiale is generic rather than specific; any one ofthe gods, and not only Athena, could
be shown holding it.’°° The Panhellenic repertoire of individual gods’ identifying
attributes was also definitively codified at this time and appears in scenes of divine
assembly such as the east frieze of the Siphnian Treasury at Delphi.'°°
The representation ofthe gods holding distinctive, identifying attributes might
not be incompatible with the survival of traditional, generic objects in the hands
of the Acropolis korai. Surprisingly, there is no solid evidence that votive statues of
the gods in either the Archaic or the Classical period copied the appearance and
handhe ld attribu tes of the cult statues display ed in the same sanctua ry; instead,
cult statues copied other cult statues and votive statues copied other votives.'°7
Already in the Late Archaic bulge period when the korai with extended forearms
were dedicated on the Acropolis, statues of the gods were envisioned as stretching
out their hands. Repres entati ons of divine statues in an Archaic style with their
outstretched hands holding attributes appear on red figure vases from the late sixth
century through the fourth.’ Thoug h these represe ntation s have general ly been
assumed to reflect the appearance oflost Archaic cult images, they show statues of
Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrod ite, and Zeus standin g on tall column and pillar

157
Divine IDENTITIES

bases like the real ones used to display vo ti ve st at ue s on th e At he ni an Ac ro po li s

before the Persian sack of 480. Th e fr eq ue nt pl ac em en t of th e st at ue s ne ar al ta rs
also evokes the open-air se tt in g of vo ti ve s ra th er th an th at of te mp le -b ou nd cu lt
statues.°? This is not to sa y th at th e Ar ch ai c di vi ne st at ue s re pr es en te d in va se
painting were intended to reproduce pa rt ic ul ar vo ti ve st at ue s de di ca te d on th e
Acropolis or in other sanctuar ie s. In st ea d, th es e re pr es en ta ti on s sh ou ld be ta ke n as
evocations of what statues of th e go ds di sp la ye d in sa nc tu ar ie s we re su pp os ed to
look like, and they almost inva ri ab ly im ag in e th es e st at ue s st an di ng wi th on e or
both forearms exte nd ed . It ca n co ns eq ue nt ly be ar gu ed th at th e ex te nd ed fo re ar m
gesture itself func ti on ed as a di vi ne ra th er th an a hu ma n at tr ib ut e in fr ee st an di ng
sculpture, no matter what the statues actually held in their hands.

KOREAU EStAN G eR TUAW

DESAGRIFIVA
Literary and epigraphical sources of the fifth century B.c. connect the sculp-
tural gesture of extending one or both forearms with a surprising form of ritual
manipulation of divine statues. In the Birds (/L. 518-519), Aristophanes alludes to
the custom (omos) of putting some of the splanchna, the internal organs extracted
from sacrificial animals, “into the hand” of a divine statue.”° A second passage in
Aristophanes also refers to the outstretched hands of statues representing the gods.
In the Ecclesiazusae (ll. 777-783), agalmata are described as stretching out their
hands as if they intended only to take from their worshippers and never to give
back anything in return."' The term agalma in the Ecclesiazusae could technically
refer either to cult statues or to votive statues; when we consider that some votive
statues stood near altars, it seems likely that the Birds passage describes a practice of
putting sacrificial meat in the hands of votive statues as well as those of cult images
displayed in temples.”
A series ofinscribed sacred laws from Chios dating from the late fifth through
the second centuries B.c. mandate the assignment by priestly personnel of portions
from sacrifices “to the hands and to the knees.” The only plausible interpretation of
this clause is that some portions ofthe sp/anchna were to be placed in statues’ hands
and others on statues’ knees, much like the peplos placed by the Trojan women
on the knees of the seated cult image of Athena in the J/iad (6.302-304).™ Taken
together, the two Aristophanes passages and the sacred laws from Chios establish
two important points: that statues of the gods were envisioned as stretching out
their hands, and that sacrificers might incorporate aga/mata into sacrificial ritual by
putting portions of the sp/anchna in their outstretched hands as if they were living
participants in the sacrifice. As it turns out, the practice of putting meat in the
hands of divine statues has close parallels in Hittite sacrificial ritual; within a Greek
context, not only sacrificial meat but also votive offerings were on occasion placed
in the hands of statues of the gods."

158
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACRopoLis Koral

Such practices naturally raise the question of whether some statues of the gods
with extended forearms might have stood empty handed rather than holding at-
tributes. Attribute loss over the course of time is possible and would only have
encouraged the impression that the gods were reaching out to take the sacrifices
worshippers offered to them. However, there are also extant examples of divine
statues that seem to have been empty handed from the beginning. The archaizing
Piombino Apollo extends its right forearm and holds its hand palm upward in a
pose appropriate for a phiale; yet because there are no traces on the palm for the
attachment of a phiale or any other attribute, Ridgway has suggested that the statue
was actually empty handed."’ Though not a genuine Archaic statue but rather an
archaizing figure of the Roman period, the Piombino Apollo's empty right hand

51. Kore with left forearm outstretched (Acr.

no. 615). Alison Frantz Photographic Collection,
American School ofClassical Studies at Athens,
neg. AT 490.

159
DivINE IDENTITIES

52. Fragmentary right hand and lower arm of a kor e (Ac r. no. 386 ). The han d hol ds an uni den tif ied
object that looks like a pie ce of mea t or a live r. Rep rod uce d fro m H. Sch rad er, ed. Die arc hai sch e
Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis (Frankfurt 1939), Figure 142.

might hav e bee n int end ed to rep rod uce fai thf ull y the app ear anc e of “re al” Arc hai c
statues still standing at the time it was made.
Three hands belonging to Archaic kore statues from the Acropolis that I have not
yet discussed may be relevant here. Though the outstretched right hand associated
with Antenor’s kore might originally have pinched a lost wreath, ribbon, or flower
between its thumb (now detached) and its missing forefinger, it is also possible that
Antenor’s kore was empty handed. Another kore, Acr. no. 615 (Fig. 51), with its
outstretched left forearm and hand still attached, holds its hand with palm slightly
cupped and turned upward; though Langlotz thought that the missing thumb
and forefinger were pinched together to hold an attribute, from what remains the
hand could just as easily have been empty from the beginning."® The fragmentary
right hand Acr. no. 386 (Fig. 52) clasps an unidentified oblong or bean-shaped
(“bohnenahnliche”) marble object: Langlotz suggested that this might represent a
piece of meat or even a kidney, and it is difficult to come up with any other plausible
explanation for what it might be."” It seems to me at least possible that an Archaic
kore holding a piece of meat in her hand was understood as a goddess receiving an
offering rather than a votary giving one or a priestess holding a sacrifice."™
The ritual of putting sacrificial sp/anchna in the outstretched hands of divine
statues attested in the fifth century challenges interpretations of the extended fore-
arm gesture characteristic of the Acropolis korai of the bulge period as a votary
gesture signifying devotion and female subservience. In the case of divine statues,
the gesture was read later in the fifth century as signifying reciprocity and interac-
tion between gods and human votaries, and there is no particular reason to suppose

160
 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ACROPOLIS KorRAI

that its meaning in freestanding sculpture changed in 480. In Constantinople in

A.D. 1203, a mob dashed to pieces a colossal bronze statue of Athena because it
thought her outstretched right hand beckoned the armies of the Crusaders to attack
the city."? Even in modern literature about statues, interpretations of the extended
hand of a statue as reaching out to the viewer abound.!2°
The extended forearm gesture common to both Archaic cult statues and the
korai of the Late Archaic period represents something of a compromise between
the traditional, generic kore schema and the new possibilities for characterization
evident in Late Archaic bronze sculpture. For reasons unknown to us, Greek sculp-
tors of the Archaic period continued to use the same statue types in marble —
not only the kore, but also the kouros — until the “Greek Revolution” of ca. 480
caused them to abandon these types and to invent the Classical style. The gesture of
stretching out one or both hands toward the worshipper survived and thrived in the
fifth century; it is in fact the element of iconography that links the most renowned
Classical cult statues, Pheidias’ Athena Parthenos and Zeus Olympios, with their
Archaic predecessors such as the Athena Polias and the cult statue of Apollo on
Delos.™ The time has come to consider the iconography of Archaic marble kore
statues from the Acropolis in the same light.

161
 PACT tii

HUMAN IDENTITIES

I have no clear answer for why they dedicated a bronze

statue of Kylon despite his having plotted tyranny, but
I infer that it was for the following reasons: because
he was exceedingly good looking and not obscure with
respect to fame, having won an Olympic victory in the
double foot race and having married the daughter of
Theagenes, who was tyrant of Megara.
(Paus. 1.28.1)
| ea. ow hari
FIFTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT
mia) EoeOiNe HE ACRO POLIS

he Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 B.c. not only marks the transition
point between the Archaic and the Early Classical styles in Greek sculpture,
and the shift from marble to bronze as the preferred medium for large-scale
statues in Athens, but also inaugurates a change from the dedication of korai and
other female figures toward statues representing male subjects. Of course, this is
not to say that no male figures were dedicated on the Acropolis during the Archaic
period, or that the Athenians stopped dedicating statues representing female subjects
after 480. Archaic marble statues representing men were dedicated alongside the
korai, though in smaller numbers; and it is simply impossible to say how many
of the votive statues dedicated on the Acropolis between 480 and the end of the
fifth century were portraits (male or female) rather than representations of gods or
heroes.
Some of the most famous Athenas from the Acropolis are large-scale bronze
stat ues fro m the 50 year s foll owin g the Pers ian sack , amo ng the m Phei dias ’ colo s-
sal bronze Ath ena dedi cate d fro m the Pers ian spoi ls, the sam e scul ptor ’s Lem nia n
Athena, and Pyrrhos’ Athena Hygi eia. In addi tion , stat ues of Ath ena con tin ued to
be dedicated on the Acro poli s in the four th cent ury and later , as evid ence d by a
fine marble Athena (Fig. 53) disp laye d in the Acro poli s Mus eum ." Neve rthe less , for
the purposes of Parts II and III, I have fra med the dist inct ion bet wee n Arch aic and
Classical votive statues on the Acro poli s in term s of iden titi es and not in term s
of sculptural types because I believe that the shif t fro m pre dom ina ntl y fema le to
predominantly male statues in fact sign ifie s a broa der shif t in the subj ect matt er of
votive statues on the Acropolis from divi ne to hum an repr esen tati on. My expl ana-
tion of the Acro poli s evid ence is thus the exac t inve rse of the rule of thu mb pro pos ed
by Frank Brommer for identities in Gre ek scul ptur e — the rule that most Arch aic
statues represen ted hum an subj ects and most Hig h Clas sica l stat ues repr esen ted the
gods.”
This chapte r re sp on ds in di re ct ly to an ot he r ma jo r de ve lo pm en t as we ll . Th e
shifts from pr ep on de ra nt ly fe ma le to ma le su bj ec t ma tt er an d fr om ma rb le to br on ze
on the Acropolis to ok pl ac e co nc ur re nt ly wi th th e be gi nn in g of th e Cl as si ca l pe ri od

165
HuMAN IDENTITIES

53. Marb le At he na fr om the Ac ro po li s (Ac r. no. 133 6); He l-

lenistic or Roman version of a fifth-century type. Copy-
rig ht De ut sc he s Ar ch do lo gi sc he s In st it ut -A th en , neg . nr.
Akr. 2493.

in Greek sculpture. At the very beginning of the fourth century, the Late Classical
period in Greek sculpture, the Athenian demos honored Konon, the admiral who
saved Athens from defeat by the fleet of the Peloponnesian League at Knidos in 394,
with a bronze portrait statue in the Athenian agora (Dem. 20.68—70). Isocrates (9.57)
specifies that Konon’s portrait stood near the statue of Zeus Soter (“Savior”). After
375/4, Konon’s statue was joined by a statue of his son Timotheos, who followed up
on his father’s accomplishments with his own victory at sea. Konon’s portrait statue
inaugurated what would become the common Athenian practice of honoring first
victorious generals, and subsequently other benefactors of the city — Athenian and
non-Athenian alike — with bronze portrait statues erected in the agora, in the theater
of Dionysos, and on the Acropolis. These honorific portraits are well attested by the
evidence both of the Athenian orators of the fourth century and of inscribed statue
bases. At the same time, the Athenians began to populate their sanctuaries and public
meeting places with retrospective portraits of figures from the city’s glorious past.4

166
 FirTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

Though reasonably numerous in the fourth century B.c., official honorific portraits
were to become far more common in Athens in the Hellenistic period, when Athens
honored Alexander the Great's successors and their friends with a plethora of public
monuments.°
What makes the honorific portrait statues of the fourth century and later dif-
ferent from the votive statue dedications studied in this book is that they were
accompanied by inscribed name labels. This is the defining feature of what I call
honorific statues and what distinguishes them from traditional votive offerings:
honorific statues always represent human subjects, living or dead, and honorific in-
scriptions always include the name of the person represented, either as a name label
in the nominative case or in the accusative case, embedded within a longer dedi-
catory text using the X dedicated Y formula. What makes this distinction between
votive and honorific inscriptions for statues so important?
The honorific formula naming the subject that the statue represented created
entirely different expectations on the part of the reader of inscriptions than the
votive formula, which named only the statue’s dedicator and not its subject. Thus,
the introduction of the honorific formula signifies a movement away from what I
have called disjunctive representation. The reader of the fourth century and later
periods would look to the inscription on the base of a portrait statue to learn whom
it represented. Though it seems that not all portrait statues dedicated by private
individuals on the Acropolis after the advent of honorific portraits in Athens were
inscribed with honorific formulas naming the subject represented rather than tradi-
tional votive inscriptions, honorific inscriptions brought new clarity to the problem
of identifying the subjects offreestanding statues, which had been entirely lacking in
the sixth and fifth centuries. We are entitled to conclude that the perceived efficacy
of honorific statues depended upon being able to see the name of the honorand
inscribed on the base, whereas votive inscriptions always emphasize the name ofthe
dedicator.°
Pausanias, in the second century A.c., takes the dedication of portrait statues
in Greek sanctuaries for granted; when discussing the Athenian Acropolis, he will-
ingly subsumes human portraits and divine representations alike under the general
heading of anathe mata (5.21.1). Even though Pausani as does not make a distinc tion
between votive and honorif ic inscrip tions when he describ es the portrai t statues he
saw on the Acropolis, at the same time it is clear that he identif ied the subject s of
some ofthese statues by reading the inscrip tions on their bases. A good candida te for
a portrait statue inscribed with an honorif ic formula naming the subject represe nted
in Pausanias’ account of the Acropol is is the statue of Kylon (1.28.1) . | have quoted
his comments on the statue as the epigrap h to this chapter : because Pausani as was
thoroughly puzzled by why Kylon, the Olympi c victor who tried to become tyrant
of Athens in the late seventh cent ur y, wo ul d be re pr es en te d by a sta tue on th e

167
HuMAN IDENTITIES

Acropolis, it is highly likely that he on ly re co gn iz ed th e st at ue by re ad in g Ky lo n’ s

name inscribed on its base. Un fo rt un at el y fo r us, fr om Pa us an ia s’ ac co un t of th e
Acropolis alone, we cannot tell fo r ce rt ai n ho w ma ny mo re of th e po rt ra it st at ue s he
saw were honorifics of the fourth ce nt ur y an d lat er an d wh ic h we re vo ti ve po rt ra it s
of the fifth century inscribed with th e tr ad it io na l X de di ca te d fo rm ul a: thi s in cl ud es
statues of sixth- an d fi ft h- ce nt ur y su bj ec ts su ch as Per ikl es’ fa th er Xa nt hi pp os an d
the poet Anacreon of Te os , bo th of wh ic h mo de rn sc ho la rs ha ve so ug ht to da te to
the fifth century, be fo re th e in tr od uc ti on of ho no ri fi c in sc ri pt io ns on th e Ac ro po li s.
Now that the distinction between votive and honorific portraits has been made,
it is possible to see that this distinction is entirely independent of the stylistic distinc
tion between formally generic portrait statues and individualized, “physiognomic”
likenesses. The majority of previous scholarship on Greek portrait statues of the
Archaic and Classical periods has primarily focused upon the problem of the ori-
gins of physiognomic portraiture.” Yet from the point of view of the context within
which votive portraits were displayed, the invention of physiognomic portraits is
a red herring. First of all, the goal of mimesis — the accurate reproduction of the
appearance of the subject represented by a portrait statue — and the goal of commen-
surability between statue and subject predate by far the invention of portraits we
would recognize as physiognomic. Though the Archaic kouros and kore schemata
might seem to us to be antithetical to “true” portraiture, statue base inscriptions
show that the function of mimesis already existed in Archaic Greek sculpture, even
before the invention of the Early and High Classical styles of the fifth century, with
their tendencies toward anatomical accuracy and versimilitude. One of the earliest
preserved inscriptions belonging to an athletic victor statue, a bronze plaque from
South Italy honoring the (otherwise unknown) Olympic victor Kleombrotos son
of Dexilaos and dated to the first half ofthe sixth century, refers to the lost statue
as “equal in size and thickness” to Kleombrotos himself.* This memorable phrase
constitutes a boast about the impressive size of both Kleombrotos and his portrait
statue. The Kleombrotos inscription thus lays a claim to commensurability of statue
and subject already in the first half of the sixth century, when the only type of statue
that could have been used to represent Kleombrotos is a formally generic, schematic
kouros.
Physiognomic portraiture eventually developed in Athens within the same vo-
tive context within which generic human portrait statues had previously been em-
ployed; what changes is the style of portraits, the ability of sculptors to produce more
individualized likenesses, and the desire of patrons to have them, not necessarily in
that order. In contrast, the portraits ofthe deceased on Attic funerary monuments of
the Classical period remained resolutely generic and idealized.? Physiognomic port-
rait statues were probably popularized by a group of early-fourth-century Athenian

168
 FrrTH-CENTURY PoRTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

sculptors, including Demetrios of Alopeke, credited with the lost honorific portrait
of the priestess Lysimache on the Acropolis and a series of other bronze portraits
dedicated in the sanctuary by private patrons.'° In theory at least, the subjects of
physiognomic portraits (as opposed to formally generic, idealized ones) could have
been recognized by viewers without reading their inscribed name labels. The real
paradox on the Acropolis is that, on one hand, the honorific formula naming the
subjects represented by portraits seems to appear only after the introduction of phys-
lognomic portrait statues intended to reproduce the likenesses of their subjects. The
formally generic votive portrait statues of the sixth and fifth centuries, on the other
hand, would seem to cry out for inscribed name labels to aid in their identification
but lack them. This raises once again the question of how viewers did recognize the
subjects of votive statues; as in the case of the Archaic korai examined in Part I],
iconography seems to be part of the answer, but never the only answer.
The aims of this chapter have been kept deliberately modest. In keeping with
the method of this book, I attempt to identify as many fifth-century votive portraits
as possible on the Acropolis by using the primary evidence provided by inscribed
statue bases. This task is, by definition, a difficult one. No fifth-century statues
identifiable with certainty as portraits survive from the Acropolis. Though there
are between 80 and 100 inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis that could date
between ca. 480 and the end of the fifth century, most of them are fragmentary;
only about 30 bases provide any evidence at all, be it archaeological, epigraphical,
or prosopographical, to indicate the subjects represented by the statues they once
supported.
The blank slate of fifth-century votive portraiture in Athens has traditionally
been filled not by looking at inscribed statue bases, but rather by using the method
of Kopienkritik or Kopienforschung. Vhis method involves using literary descriptions
of lost Greek portrait statues to identify Roman marble portraits that might copy
(or, at the very least, resembl e) the lost bronze original s. Althou gh excessi ve re-
liance upon Kopienk ritik has been criticiz ed of late, the Roman copies identif ied
by this method continue to be cited as an indepe ndent source of evidenc e for the
identities, appearance, and dates of lost portrai t statues dedicat ed on the Acropol is
in the fifth century." In reality, this type of evidenc e is always contin gent upon
the often incomplete information provid ed by ancient literary sources. In additio n,
the association between Roman copies and the specific context s in which origina l
Greek portrait statues were displayed almost always remains hypothe tical, even if
the Roman copies are labeled with the names of the subject s they represe nt.
As it turns out, two distinct catego ri es of po rt ra it st at ue s ca n be id en ti fi ed
on the Ac ro po li s by us in g th e ev id en ce of in sc ri be d st at ue ba se s. Th e fir st ca te -
gory co ns is ts of th e po rt ra it st at ue s re pr es en ti ng th em se lv es de di ca te d by vi ct or s in

169
HuMAN IDENTITIES

athletic contests, and the Olympic games in pa rt ic ul ar . Th ou gh so me ma le de di ca -

tors of statues on the Acropolis in bo th th e si xt h an d th e fi ft h ce nt ur ie s ma y ha ve
represented themselves as votari es , in pr ac ti ce no ce rt ai n ex am pl es of se lf -
representation (i.e., dedicating a po rt ra it st at ue of on es el f) ot he r th an at hl et ic vi ct or
portraits can be identifi ed fr om th e ev id en ce st at ue ba se s an d ex ta nt sc ul pt ur es . Th e
resulting generalization that it wa s no t th e no rm to de di ca te po rt ra it st at ue s of
oneself on the fifth-ce nt ur y Ac ro po li s fi nd s so me su pp or t fr om th e fo ur th -c en tu ry
Atheni an pr ac ti ce of aw ar di ng ho no ri fi c po rt ra it s to wo rt hy su bj ec ts ch os en by th e
demos and other pu bl ic bo di es : th e ho no r of a po rt ra it st at ue be ca me me an in gf ul
in Athens in the fourth century precisely because few individuals were expected to
represent themselves.
In contrast, there are reasons to believe that the practice of dedicating portraits
of others, which is very well attested on the Acropolis in the fourth century, has
precedents in the fifth century and possibly even the sixth. Between ca. 480 and
400 B.C., a small group of inscribed statue bases from the Acropolis attests to this
second category of human representation. In at least three fifth-century examples
that I will discuss, sons appear to have dedicated votive portrait statues of their
fathers. If I have interpreted the archaeological and epigraphical evidence presented
by inscribed statue bases correctly, then the custom of private, familial commemora-
tion so popular on the Acropolis in the fourth century had fifth-century precedents
unattested by other sources such as Kopienkritik and Pausanias.

PORTRAITS OT ATI ETIGVIerOorRS

The best attested group offifth-century portrait statues on the Acropolis are athletic
victor portraits. Between ca. 480 and ca. 400 B.c., at least five victors in athletic
contests dedicated portraits of themselves in the sanctuary. The inscriptions on four
statue bases (DAA nos. 21, 76, 164, and 174) explicitly mention athletic contests
or victories in such contests, and multiple fifth-century examples from Olympia
show that dedicatory inscriptions that list victories normally accompanied statues
representing the victor rather than some other type of statue dedication.” A fifth
base from the Acropolis (DAA no. 120), the dedication of Epicharinos the son of
Oph|ol]o[nides] made by Kritios and Nesiotes, belongs to an athletic victor statue
described by Pausanias (1.23.11). We know from other sources that Kallias the son of
Hipponikos, the dedicator ofa lost bronze standing figure supported by DAA no. 111,
was a three-time Olympic victor, but because the base gives only the standard
dedicatory formula (“Kallias the son of Hipponikos dedicated”), we cannot be sure
that Kallias dedicated a portrait of himself rather than a statue representing some

170
 FirTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

other subject. It is thus impossible to say for certain from the evidence we have how
many of the remaining fifth-century Acropolis dedications might also have been
portraits of victors. There may have been many more.”
Victors did not always dedicate statues representing themselves, even after the
practice of doing so had become common. Pausanias (8.40.1) describes an Archaic
marble kouros statue that he believed represented Arrachion of Phigaleia, a victor in
the Olympiad of 564 B.c."* Yet the balance of the evidence, both literary and archae-
ological, suggests that portrait statues representing athletic victors were uncommon
in the Archaic period; we know that several of the statues of sixth-century victors
seen by Pausanias at Olympia were retrospective portraits of the fifth century.” It
is difficult to determine precisely when athletic victors began to dedicate their own
portraits on the Athenian Acropolis. The earliest (mid-sixth century) example of
a victor dedication found there, the joint dedication of Alkmeonides and another
man whose name has been lost (DAA no. 317), consisted of a bronze bowl or tripod
rather than a portrait statue or statue group. The earliest self-representation by a
victor on the Acropolis could have occurred within the context of the bronze four-
horse chariot group, DAA no. 171, which is usually dated to ca. 500-480, before the
Persian sack of the Acropolis, by analogy with the later, mid-fifth-century chariot
group dedicated by Pronapes (DAA no. 174), which included a statue of Pronapes
himself standing beside his victorious chariot."
Kallias son of Didymias, an Athenian pankratiast and periodonikes, or victor at
all four of the major Panhellenic festivals (Olympia, Delphi, Isthmia, and Nemea)
together with the Panathenaia, dedicated two different victor statues on the
Acropolis in addition to one at Olympia.” DAA no. 164 is the base for a bronze statue
and lists Kallias’ victories, and the fragmentary column base DAA no. 21 probably
supported an unusual example ofa marble victor statue commemorating a victory
by Kallias in a boys’ contest.’ Pausanias describes the statue of Epicharinos (DAA
no. 120) as representing him as a /oplitodromos or runner in armor. Epicharinos
did not record his victories, but the Aoplitodromos race is attested as an event at
Olympia in addition to the Panathenaia. Epicharinos should probably also be identi-
fied as an Olympic victor."? All of the other athletic victors known to have dedi-
cated portrait statues of themselves on the Acropolis between 480 and ca. 400 were
Olympic victors, including Phayllos of Croton (DAA no. 76), a non-Athenian who
may have chosen to dedicate a statue on the Acropolis in part to commemorat e his
participation in the battle of Salamis.*°
Among the victors who dedicate d la rg e- sc al e po rt ra it sta tue s of th em se lv es
on the Acropolis after 480, only the hopl it od ro mo s Ep ic ha ri no s (D AA no. 120 ),
whose st at ue wa s ma de by Kr it io s an d Ne si ot es , re pr es en te d hi ms el f in act ion .
His statue can be reconstructed from a co mb in at io n of th e ev id en ce of th e do we l

7
HuMaAN IDENTITIES

54. Late Archaic bronze

statuette of a hoplitodromos
(Archaologisches Institut,
Tiibingen). The pose ap-
pears to be identical to that
of the lost bronze victor
portrait of Epicharinos
signed by Kritios and
Nesiotes (DAA no. 120).
Copyright Foto Marburg/
Art Resource, NY, archive
no. 310010/B.

holes on the top of the base, a slightly earlier (Late Archaic) bronze statuette of a
hoplitodromos in Tiibingen (Fig. 54), and a series offifth-century coins from Kyzikos
representing statues by Kritios and Nesiotes: he stood with feet close together and
his left foot slightly advanced, with a shield over his left arm and a helmet on his
head.” Three Late Archaic (and therefore pre-480) bronze statuettes representing
athletes in action were found on the Acropolis and were most likely intended to be
small-scale portraits of victors: one is a discus thrower (Fig. 55), the second could
represent a discus thrower, a runner in the starting pose, or possibly a wrestler,
and the third is a head with its neck bent at a sharp angle belonging to an athlete
engaged in an unknown contest. None of these statuettes can be matched with a
preserved base.”
Epicharinos’ lost portrait statue and the three Late Archaic athlete statuettes
from the Acropolis raise some interesting questions. Kritios and Nesiotes also made
the bronze portrait statues of the Tyrannicides (Harmodios and Aristogeiton), which
in 477/6 B.c. replaced the original statue group by Antenor carried offby the Persian

17
 FrrtTH-CENTuRY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

55. Bronze discus thrower statuette from the Acropolis; NM 6615.

Photo by H. G. Niemeyer. Copyright Deutsches Archaologisches
Institut-Rom, inst. neg. 65.2452.

invaders in 480 . The dat e of Ant eno r’s gro up, and nea rly eve ryt hin g else abo ut it,
continues to be debated. Sho uld we ass ume tha t Ant eno r’s Tyr ann ici des wer e mar ble
kouroi set up immediately aft er the exp uls ion of the tyr ant Hip pia s and the ens uin g
democratic reforms by Kleisthenes in 508 /7? *3 Or sho uld we dat e Ant eno r's sta tue s
as late as the 480s and reconstruct the m as bro nze s in act ion pos es clo sel y imi tat ed
by Kritios and Nesiotes’ replacement gro up? ” | pre fer an ear ly dat e to a late r one
for Antenor’s Tyrannicides, but no matter whi ch dat e we cho ose , and no mat ter
wha t the ori gin al sta tue s loo ked like , we can be sur e tha t the rep lac eme nts mad e by
Kritios and Nes iot es wer e lar ge- sca le bro nze act ion fig ure s cor res pon din g in pos e
and gen era l app ear anc e to the sur viv ing Ro ma n mar ble ver sio ns of the Tyr ann ici des
group (Fig. 56) . Wer e the act ive pos es of Kri tio s and Nes iot es’ por tra its of Har mod ios
and Aristogeiton mod ele d aft er ath let ic vic tor sta tue s? And wer e por tra its of ath let ic
victors already bei ng ded ica ted on the Acr opo lis whe n Ant eno r mad e the ori gin al
Tyrannicides group?
HuMAN IDENTITIES

56. Tyrannicides group (Harmodios and Aristogeiton); Roman marble copies from
Tivoli. Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples, Italy. Copyright Alinari/Art Resource,
NY.

Antenor’s Tyrannicides are the earliest known Athenian examples of freestand-

ing statues erected outside either a votive or a funerary context, signaling the
introduction ofstatues to a third context, the Athenian agora. The Late Archaic
bronze statuettes from the Acropolis depicting athletes in action poses suggest that,
at least by the time of Kritios and Nesiotes’ replacement group of 477/6, such
poses were associated with the commemoration of athletic victory. Whether or not
Antenor’s Late Archaic Tyrannicides were also action figures, Kritios and Nesiotes’
portraits of Harmodios and Aristogeiton can be seen as adopting the imagery of
athletic victory for the purpose of commemorating the political struggle against
tyranny in Athens. There was already an important precedent on the Acropolis for

174
 FirTH-CENTUuRY PorRTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

such an analogy. The very first votive monument dedicated on the Acropolis by
the Athenians after Kleisthenes’ reforms also uses agonistic imagery to represent
an event of political importance for the newly established, democratic regime: this
is the bronze four-horse chariot group commemorating the Athenian victory over
the Boiotians and Chalcidians in 507/6 B.c. (DAA no. 168). Though the victory
was a military one, Herodotus (5.68) describes the victory monument wholly in
terms of its political significance, citing it as proof of the strength the Athenians
acquired as a consequence of replacing tyranny with the ideology of isonomia (equal-
ity before the law). Because the only surviving trace of this monument is a small
fragment of its inscribed base, it is easy to overlook the fact that the Athenians
used a four-horse chariot, a statue type of purely athletic significance, to repre-
sent their military victory.** The Boiotians and Chalcidians group of 507/6 is thus
an important precedent for the equation between victory in an athletic contest
and victory in the political struggle against tyranny made by Kritios and Nesiotes’
‘Tyrannicides group. The portraits of Harmodios and Aristogeiton may have been
inspired by private portraits commemorating athletic victors, but conversely the
Athenians’ extraordinary official commemoration of the Tyrannicides may have in-
spired the dedication of votive portrait statues representing athletic victors on the
Acropolis.*7

SEVER EPRESEN TATION

Victory in an athletic contest, and in particular victory in the Olympic games, is

one of only a small number of occasions for self-representation securely attested
in mainland Greek sanctuaries before the end of the fifth century. From at least
480 B.c. onward, the right of athletic victors to dedicate statues representing them-
selves in Greek sanctuaries was universally acknowledged, even if in actuality the
and left it to others — his family or his home
victor did not exercise that right himself
city — to set up his portrait.”® Another was representing oneselfas a votary, a practice
that, as eviden ced by Archaic exampl es such as the Genele os group in the Samian
Heraion, seems to have been more commo n in East Greek sanctua ries than it was on
the Athenian Acropol is, where male figures were far less commo n than female korai
and where bases for statue groups are lacking . Given the stress | have placed in Part |
of this book upon the specific occasio ns and mechan isms (tithe, first-fru its, and
vows) that generated statue dedicat ions on the Acropol is, the distinc tion betwee n
self-representation and representing others throug h votive portrai t statues become s
an important one: dedicating a votive statue represe nting oneself might have been
less common than dedicating a portrait of someon e else, because there were fewer
occasions th ou gh t to ju st if y se lf -r ep re se nt at io n.

Ly
HuMAN IDENTITIES

The fourth-century Athenian practice of aw ar di ng ho no ri fi c po rt ra it st at ue s to

worthy individuals approved by th e de mo s in fa ct im pl ie s th at se lf -r ep re se nt at io n
through portrait statues was not co mm on in At he ns , ev en in th e fo ur th ce nt ur y.
Demosthenes (20.70) tells us ou tr ig ht th at no po rt ra it st at ue s we re set up at pu bl ic
expense in Athens betwee n th e Ty ra nn ic id es gr ou p an d th e ho no ri fi c st at ue aw ar de d
to Konon in 393 B.c., and no ep ig ra ph ic al ev id en ce ha s be en fo un d ei th er in th e
agora or on the Acropolis to cont ra di ct hi s cl ai m; ev en in fo ur th -c en tu ry At he ns , th e
honor of an of fi ci al po rt ra it st at ue wa s un co mm on . In th e si xt h an d fi ft h ce nt ur ie s
in Athens , st at ue s re pr es en ti ng th e go ds we re us ed to co mm em or at e hu ma n ac hi ev e-
ments, not portra it s of hu ma n su bj ec ts . De mo st he ne s (2 0. 11 2) ex pl ic it ly co nt ra st s
the fourth-cen tu ry cu st om of ho no ri fi c po rt ra it st at ue s wi th fi ft h- ce nt ur y ho no rs
such as the Eion herms: “at Athens in the time of our forefathers certain men who
had done the city much good were not thought worthy of any such thing, but were
satisfied when they got an epigram on the Herms.”*? Demosthenes pursues the same
theme further in another speech (23.196—198), when he compares the treatment of
Miltiades and Themistokles in the fifth century with the bronze statues awarded to
their fourth-century successors:

Take first Themistokles, who won the naval victory at Salamis, and
Miltiades who commanded at Marathon, and many others, whose achieve-
ments were not on a level with those of generals today. Our ancestors
did not set up these men in bronze, nor did they carry their regard for
them to extremes. So they were not grateful to those who had served
them well? Yes, men of Athens, they were very grateful; they showed their
gratitude in a manner that was equally creditable to themselves and the
recipients... . Being raised to the primacy of a brave and noble people is
a far greater distinction than any effigy of bronze. ... No man would say
that the battle of Salamis belonged to Themistokles, but to the Athenians;
or that the victory at Marathon belonged to Miltiades, but to the city. But
now, men of Athens, it is commonly said that Corcyra was captured by
Timotheos, that the Spartan battalion was cut to pieces by Iphicrates, that
the naval victory off Naxos was won by Chabrias. It really looks as though
you disclaimed any merit for those feats of arms by the extravagant favors
that you lavish on each of the commanders.*°

The privilege of honorific statues in the fourth century and later periods acquired
added meaning if the honorands would not otherwise have set up statues represent-
ing themselves in Athens. In practice, many of the honorands awarded honorific
statues by the Athenians were expected to pay for the statues themselves, a fact that
only reinforces the significance of awarding the right to be represented by a statue
 FirtH-CENTuRY PorTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

in the first place: even in the fourth century when honorific portrait statues were
taken for granted, the Athenians seem not to have expected (or wanted) honorands
to set up statues of themselves without first being granted the official privilege of
doing so.
The background behind the obsession of fourth-century Athenian orators with
honors is the emphasis in the fifth-century Athenian democratic culture upon
restraint. Miltiades, for example, was represented by a portrait statue in the fifth
century, but only at Delphi where the Athenians combined his portrait with stat-
ues of gods and heroes, a type of statue group that became the norm in the fifth
century at Delphi and Olympia but that, as far as we can tell, was avoided entirely
on the Athenian Acropolis.** Demosthenes’ implication that Persian War generals
such as Themistokles and Miltiades asked the Athenian demos for honorific por-
trait statues but did not get them is an anachronism encouraged by the fact that
Athenian strategoi of the fourth century did request honors. On the balance of
the evidence available, it seems that the Athenians consciously chose not to follow
up on the example of the Tyrannicides with more official portraits until approx-
imately 100 years later.** In such a climate of restraint, we should expect private
portraits on the Acropolis to have been dedicated for reasons connected with tra-
ditional dedicatory mechanisms rather than for purely political reasons connected
with self-aggrandizement.
The privilege of setting up portrait statues of themselves that athletic victors
enjoyed beginning as early as the sixth century is not easily separable from other
honors awarded to them and from their unique status in Greek society. By the late
fifth century, the practice of awarding victors in the major athletic festivals free
meals (sitesis) in the Prytaneion was already well established in Athens, a privilege
they shared with the descendants of Harmodios and Aristogeiton.* Fifth-century
examples of the heroization of Olympic victors after their deaths abound and, in
the case of the fifth-century victor Theagenes of Thasos, an Olympic victor was
worshipped as a god. In the quotation used as an epigraph to Part III of this
book, Pausanias mentions a statue of Kylon’on the Acropolis, the very site where
Kylon had tried to establish a tyranny in the seventh century but ended up being
killed in violation of sacred law (Hdt. 5.71). Though Kylon’s portrait statue was
almost certainly a retrospective one set up at some point after the Persian sack of
480 — after all, Pausanias saw it still standing in the second century .c. — it is
impossible to determine its date or exact purpose, and no other source mentions it.
This portrait statue of Kylon on the Acropolis might in fact represent an attempt
to expiate the pollution caused by his death, but it seems significant that Pausanias
considered Kylon’s Olympic victory sufficient explanation in itself. The belief that
victors in athletic contests — and Olympionikai (Olympic victors) in particular —
deserved portrait statues and had the righ t to de di ca te th em th em se lv es wa s in

177
HuMAN IDENTITIES

actuality embedded within a larger ne xu s of re li gi ou s be li ef s ab ou t vi ct or s an d

their status, which is impossible to explai n pu re ly in te rm s of ad mi ra ti on fo r th ei r
achievement.?°
Leslie Kurke has collected te st im on ia to th e “t al is ma ni c po we r” at tr ib ut ed to
athletic victors by their home cities an d oc ca si on al ly th ro ug ho ut th e Gr ee k wo rl d. *”
In this realm, victors and the ir po rt ra it sta tue s we re in di ss ol ub ly li nk ed . In Pi nd ar 's
victory odes, not only th e vic tor ’s po rt ra it sta tue bu t th e vi ct or hi ms el f is li ke ne d
to kosmos (decoration or ad or nm en t) for his ho me ci ty .* An ot he r ma jo r th em e in
Pindaric po et ry is th at vi ct or y is go d gi ve n. Th is wa s no t si mp ly an em pt y pl at it ud e:
the specia l sta tus of vic tor s in th e ma jo r co nt es ts in th e ey es of ot he r Gr ee ks ul ti ma te ly
de ri ve d fr om the ir ch oi ce by th e go ds . It fo ll ow s th at gi vi ng th e go ds a pe rm an en t
representation of the body of an athletic victor completes the transaction begun by
the gods’ gift of victory; if the victor himself was unable to dedicate his own portrait
statue, his descendants or the people of his home city might present the statue as a
reciprocal votive gift on his behalf.
A survey of literary references to portrait statues dedicated in sanctuaries from
the fifth century onward turns up several examples of nonathletic self-representations
susceptible to the same religious interpretation just proposed for athletic victor
portraits. Statues of priests, priestesses, and other sacred personnel are obvious
examples of the principle of giving the gods permanent replicas of their own chosen
servants. Though usually represented by others, priests and priestesses sometimes
dedicated their own portraits in Greek sanctuaries, though the practice of dedicating
sacerdotal portraits seems not to have begun on the Acropolis until the early in the
fourth century, when Lysimache, the priestess of Athena Polias, and her handmaid
(diakonos) Syeris were memorialized with honorific portrait statues in bronze.*?
The clearest illustrations of the principle of divine choice are extraordinary
examples of portraits dedicated as a direct result of a divine epiphany or an orac-
ular utterance. Perhaps the ultimate examples are Kleobis and Biton, Olympic
victors memorialized with a pair of portrait statues at Delphi. Herodotus’ (1.31)
version of their story makes it clear both that their premature death in service to
the goddess Hera resulted from divine choice, and that their statues were ordered
directly by Apollo through the Delphic oracle. Even if the pair of Archaic kouroi
found at Delphi and traditionally identified as Kleobis and Biton represent the
Dioskouroi instead, as has been argued by P. Faure, their portraits still must date
before Herodotus’ Histories.4° The case of Aristeas of Proconnesos in the fifth cen-
tury is also intriguing. Herodotus (4.1315) reports that Aristeas, in life possessed by
Apollo (poiBdéAautrtos), appeared after his own death in an epiphany and ordered
that a statue ofhimselfbeset up at Metapontum. His order was confirmed by Apollo
through the Delphic oracle, and Herodotus adds that his statue stood beside one of
Apollo in his own time. On the Athenian Acropolis in the first halfof the fourth
 FrrTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

century, aman named Lysimachos, son of Lysitheides of the deme Agryle, dedicated
a portrait statue of himself to Athena in return for having been “saved from great
dangers” (JG II? 4323 and CEG 2 no. 762), an example in which the mechanism
of divine choice (Lysimachos credits Athena with saving him from death) justifies
giving the gods a portrait of oneself rather than a votive statue representing the
recipient deity or some other subject.
Not all of the possible examples of self-representation in fifth-century Athens
attested by literary sources can be readily explained in religious terms, yet at the
same time it is not safe to assume that fifth-century portrait statues in Athens were
self-representations, or that they were motivated by occasions other than athletic
victory, unless our sources explicitly state that they were. The late-fourth-century
Athenian reformer Lycurgus (1.117) tells us that a bronze portrait statue (ezkon) of
Hipparchos son of Charmos, a relative of the tyrant Peisistratos, on the Acropolis
was melted down by the Athenians to make a bronze stele listing the names of
criminals and traitors.4? Because Hipparchos was ostracized in 488/7 (Arist. Ath.
Pol. 22.4), we must imagine that Hipparchos’ portrait statue dates before the
Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480. But should we assume that Hipparchos dedi-
cated his own portrait? According to Diogenes Laertius (1.7.3), in the sixth century
Periander of Corinth represented himself with a golden statue, and the fifth cen-
tury Deinomenid tyrants in Sicily are reputed to have set up portrait statues of
themselves in the cities they ruled in addition to bronze four-horse chariot groups
commemorating their numerous victories at Olympia and Delphi.** Yet, because
no literary source or preserved statue base suggests otherwise, Hipparchos’ portrait
statue on the Acropolis might have been an athletic victor statue rather than a self-
representation com mem ora tin g the Peis istr atid tyra nny, Hip par cho s’ arch onsh ip,
or some othe r occa sion .* Afte r all, even Peis istr atos sons Hip pia s and Hip par cho s
commemorated themselves with altars and herms, and never (as far as we know)
with portrait statues.*°
What of the small portrait sta tue (e /k on io n) of Th em is to kl es tha t st oo d in th e
temple of Artemis Aristobo ul e in At he ns in th e ti me of Pl ut ar ch (7 he m. 22 .2 -3 )?
This is the temple that Themistokles dedica te d on his ow n ini tia tiv e an d at his ow n
pe rs on al ex pe ns e, fo ll ow in g th e At he ni an na va l vi ct or y at Sa la mi s in 48 0. Mo de rn
scholars ha ve so ug ht to id en ti fy a Ro ma n ma rb le he rm fr om Os ti a in sc ri be d wi th
th e na me of Th em is to kl es (Fi g. 57 ) as a co py ofth is pa rt ic ul ar por tra it, an d to da te
th e or ig in al to Th em is to kl es ’ li fe ti me on th e bas is of th e Ro ma n he rm ’s sty le. 47
Yet Plutarch do es no t say tha t Th em is to kl es de di ca te d his ow n po rt ra it sta tue .
Pausania s (1. 1.2 ) tel ls us tha t Th em is to kl es ’ son s, in ad di ti on to the ir sta tue of Ar te mi s
Leukophr ye ne (1. 26. 4), als o de di ca te d on th e Ac ro po li s a vo ti ve pa in ti ng “in wh ic h
Themistokles is de pi ct ed .” Be ca us e th e so ns of Th em is to kl es re tu rn ed to At he ns
only after his death in th e 45 0s , th e pa in te d po rt ra it di sp la ye d in th e P a r t h e n o n

I79
HuMAN IDENTITIES

57- Roman marble herm

of Themistokles from
Ostia (Archaeological Mu-
seum, Ostia). Photo by
Koppermann. Copyright
Deutsches Archdologisches
Institut-Rom, inst. neg.
66.2287.

in Plutarch’s time must be posthumous, and it is possible that Themistokles’ sons

also dedicated a retrospective, posthumous portrait statue of him in the temple of
Artemis Aristoboule. In contrast, the rebuilding of Themistokles’ temple of Artemis
in the second half of the fourth century provides a more plausible occasion for the
dedication of his portrait there, in which case the Ostia herm derives from some
other original.4® Themistokles’ dedication of his own portrait in his own temple
soon after 480 is by no means the most likely solution to the problem of the Ostia
herm.

ARG ELALGsPS) Rile

Avis
R iie sn aials BS
Ou AGRA BOs

Categories of portrait statues other than athletic victor dedications prove difficult to
identify on the Acropolis. Until the honorific formula (X dedicated Y) came into use
there in the fourth century, portraits continued to be inscribed with the traditional
votive formula (X dedicated), which disguises the identity of the statue's subject.

180
 FrrTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

The term ezkon (gixdov), referring to a portrait statue, first appears on the base for a
lost victor statue dedicated by the boxer Euthymos of Locri at Olympia; he won his
third Olympic victory in 472 and probably dedicated his portrait at Olympia not
long after. The inscription reads: “‘I, Euthymos the Locrian son of Astykles, won
three times at Olympia, and set up this ezkon for mortals to marvel at.’ Euthymos
the Locrian from Zephyrion dedicated. Pythagoras the Samian made it.”4? In the
second half of the fifth century, Herodotus regularly distinguishes between ezkones
(human portrait statues) and agalmata (statues representing the gods); ezkon does
not appear at all in statue base inscriptions on the Acropolis until the fourth
century.°° In the fifth century at Olympia, athletic victor statues were also inscribed
with formulas urging the viewer to “stand and look” at the monument in order to
see in it the good qualities of the individual represented, a formula found in Athens
only on funerary monuments.” Speaking statue inscriptions like the ones inscribed
on the Geneleos group and other East Greek votive statues of the Archaic period
also reappear in the fifth century at Olympia.* The inscription on Euthymos of
Locri’s portrait illustrates both of these features, which are entirely lacking on the
Acropolis until honorific portrait statues began to be dedicated there in the fourth
century.”
Even before 480, male figures were being dedicated on the Acropolis, though
in smaller numbers than the fema le kora i. Des pit e the pro ble m of iden tifi cati on,
it remains poss ible that som e (if not all) of thes e Arch aic mar ble stat ues are in
fact portraits representing hum an subj ects rath er than repr esen tati ons of god s or
heroes. In addition to the Moscho pho ros men tio ned in Cha pte r 5, as man y as 11
marble kouroi were dedi cate d on the Acro poli s, 6 of the m atte sted onl y by stat ue
bases. Among the Archaic mar ble scul ptur es fou nd on the Acro poli s, ther e are also
between 9 and 1 statues of hors es with ride rs, 3 unde r-li fe-s ize mar ble “scr ibes ”
holding writing tablets on their laps, and 1 dra ped kour os, a type of stat ue fou nd
almost exclusively in East Greek sanctuaries.
If in fact some of these Archaic male fi gu re s in ma rb le ar e to be id en ti fi ed as
portrait s, w h o m di d th ey re pr es en t? Th e im pu ls e ha s be en to in te rp re t th e ma jo ri ty
as self-repre se nt at io ns , an d th e mi d- si xt h- ce nt ur y Mo sc ho ph or os , a st at ue of ama n
carryi ng a bu ll ca lf on hi s sh ou ld er s, mi gh t in de ed re pr es en t its de di ca to r Rh om bo s
as a votary. Neverthe le ss , ov er al l, th e ma le fi gu re s de di ca te d on th e Ac ro po li s sh ow
no clear sign of ha vi ng be en in sp ir ed by th e Ar ch ai c po rt ra it st at ue s de di ca te d in
contemporary East Greek sa nc tu ar ie s. Th e Ar ch ai c Ac ro po li s ha s pr od uc ed no se at ed
male figures comparable wi th th e se lf -r ep re se nt at io ns de di ca te d by th e Br an ch id ai
at Didyma; there are no ob vi ou s se lf -r ep re se nt at io ns de di ca te d by ci vi c of fi ci al s
analogous to the seated st at ue of hi ms el f th at Ch ar es of Te ic hi ou ss a de di ca te d at
Didyma (Fig. 7). There ar e al so no re cl in in g ma le fi gu re s to co mp ar e wi th th e st at ue
d e d i c a t o r , — a r c h e s , in t h e G e n e l e o s g r o u p f r o m t h e S a m i a n H e r a i o n (F ig . 8) ,
of t h e

181
HuMAN IDENTITIES

and indeed no identifiable family groups at all , ma le or fe ma le , wi th or wi th ou t

inscribed name labels. Neither can th e pr ac ti ce of de di ca ti ng a st at ue of on es el f in
the guise of a votary easily be invo ke d to ex pl ai n th e ic on og ra ph y of mo st of th e
male figures dedicated on the Archaic Acropolis.
What distinguishes the Acropolis fr om ot he r Ar ch ai c Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s su ch as
the Samian Heraion, the sa nc tu ar y of Ap ol lo at Di dy ma , an d th e Pt oé n in Bo io ti a
is the dedi ca ti on of eq ue st ri an sta tue s an d scr ibe s in ad di ti on to ko ur oi or dr ap ed
kouroi. As a statue type, Archai c ma rb le rid ers ha ve a ve ry li mi te d ge og ra ph ic al
distribution, being co nf in ed to At he ns , th e Cy cl ad es , an d* a si ng le ex am pl e fr om
Amphipol is in Th ra ce at te st ed on ly by a sta tue ba se ; th e th re e sc ri be sta tue s de di ca te d
on the Acropolis appear to be unique.** Thus it is tempting to argue that the
Athenians developed these unusual male statue types in marble for the purpose of
representing human rather than divine or heroic subjects; by way of analogy, the
self-representations dedicated by male votaries in Cypriot sanctuaries in the Archaic
period were iconographically rich figures rather than canonical, nude kouroi.

TELE SERIBES DAT UE ING ReaIN'O} (629,50 Nim 4 oN a

Other than the Moschophoros and the plinths for two kouroi attached to bases
with extremely fragmentary inscriptions (DAA no. 62 and /GI’ 804a), only one
Archaic male figure from the Acropolis can be matched with an inscribed statue
base. This is Acr. no. 629 (Fig. 58), the largest of the three marble scribes, a work
dated stylistically to the Late Archaic bulge period of ca. 510-480 B.c. This statue
is well under life-size; like the other two Late Archaic marble scribe statues found
on the Acropolis (Acr. nos. 144 and 146), it depicts a seated male figure holding a
writing tablet (now lost) on his lap, much like the scribal portrait statues used to
represent high civic and religious officials in Egyptian art. Raubitschek made the
association between this statue and DAA no. 6 (Fig. 59), a fine Ionic column base
dated to the same period and inscribed with a dedication by Alkimachos son of
Chairion. Though the connection between statue and base has recently been called
into question by Ismene Trianti, I still believe that Raubitschek was correct and
that Alkimachos dedicated the marble scribe Acr. no. 629.55 Here I will proceed
on the assumption that this statue and base do belong together, leaving technical
arguments in favor of the match for Appendix 3.
The identification of the scribe Acr. no. 629 as a portrait is a fortuitous accident,
relying not only upon the statue's association with the inscribed base DAA no. 6,
but also upon two other monuments connected with the dedicator Alkimachos’
family: an altar dedicated on the Acropolis by his father Chairion son of Kleidikos,
and Chairion’s inscribed gravestone found in Eretria. Chairion and Alkimachos are
rare examples of a father and son both known to have made dedications on the
Acropolis; the fact that the name Chairion is unusual supports the identification
 ’

FirtH-CentTury Portrait STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

58. Archaic marble scribe

(Acr. no. 629), showing the
join with plaster cast of the
Fauvel head (Louvre iny.
2718) and another head frag-
ment (Acr. no. 306). Photo:
author.

of the man named on all three monuments as the same individual. Chairion’s
dedication (DAA no. 330) is not a statue but an altar commemorating his service
as a tamias or treasurer of Athena; judging by the lettering style of its inscription,
it should date somewhere before the middle of the sixth century. As I noted in
Chapter 4, Chairion’s servi ce as tamia s at this early date make s it certa in that he and
his family were pent ekos iome dimn oi, memb ers of the highe st prope rty class in Solon ’s
syst em of four class es based upon wealt h. As it turns out, an inscr ibed, disk -sha ped
gravestone found in Eretria on Euboia (/GP 1516) records the name of the deceased
as “Chairion the Athe nian , of the Eupat rids. ” The term “Eup atri d” is some time s
used to refer to the elite families of pre-K leist henic Athen s; but this term could
also have been used during the Peisi strat id tyran ny to refer to memb ers of the old
Attic aristocracy who opposed Peisistrat os and his sons . Thus we canno t be sure
in which sense the designation “Eup atri d” was inte nded on Chair ion’s grave stone ;
HuMAN IDENTITIES

59. Dedication of Al ki ma ch os (D AA no. 6) an d scr ibe Acr . no. 62 9,

after Raubitsche k 19 39 -1 94 0, Fi gu re 4. Re pr od uc ed wi th the pe rm is -
sion of the British School at Athens.

8
nm
Pad
mm
=
o

AOTIIIO
AAA

the fact that he died abroad lends some weight to the hypothesis that Chairion went
into exile during the tyranny and died before he could return to Athens.
Because the dedicatory inscription on DAA no. 6 uses the votive, disjunctive
X dedicated formula, we cannot be absolutely sure that the statue it supported was
a portrait. Yet it is difficult to accept the scribe statue Acr. no. 629 as anything
other than a human representation, and the dedicatory inscription itself is unusual
in several respects. As restored by Raubitschek and P. A. Hansen (CEG no. 195), it
consists of one regular hexameter verse followed by a second one augmented by two
extra metrical feet. It reads as follows: “Alkimachos dedicated me, this agal/ma, to the
daughter of Zeus/as a vow; he boasts to be the son ofagood father, Chairion.”*7 Here
the standard elements — the dedicator’s name, the verb ofdedication, a description of
the offering as an aga/ma in the sense of pleasing gift, and the naming ofthe recipient
 FrrTH-CENTURY PoRTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

deity Athena as daughter of Zeus —all appear in the first hexameter verse. The second,
metrically irregular verse deals mainly with Alkimachos’ father Chairion. The status
of this dedication as a vow has been given atypical emphasis by the use of the noun
euchole (“a vow”) rather than the usual verbal participle. The inscription does not
specify whether the vow in question was Alkimachos’ own, or whether he assumed
a vow made by his father upon his father’s death. The parentage of Alkimachos has
also been emphasized: he “boasts” that he is the son of Chairion, here called esthlos,
an adjective fraught with both aristocratic and moral overtones.
Given the identification of Chairion as a tamias or treasurer of Athena, it is
tempting to identify the scribe statue Acr. no. 629 as a representation of Chairion
rather than Alkimachos himself. The charactetization of the statue as a scribe holding
a writing tablet and a stylus fits the role of the Acropolis tamiaz; Alkimachos himself
does not allude to having held this or any other office in his dedicatory inscription.”
This does not mean that the two smaller marble scribes found on the Acropolis also
represented the same subject. Without knowing the context in which they were
displayed, we can only speculate that they too were intended as portraits of public
officials. Chairion’s service as a sacred official on the Acropolis may in itself have
provided a sufficient motive to justify dedicating his portrait there a full century
before the earliest honorific portrait statue representing a priestess of Athena Polias.
But if Chairion was indeed an aristocrat opposed to Peisistratos and his sons who
died abroad, Alkimachos would have had additional motives for commemorating
his father with a votive portrait statue. Indeed, even if the inscribed base DAA
no. 6 supported a marble horse and rider as Trianti suggests, rather than the scribe
Acr. no. 629, the statue could still be a portrait representing Alkimachos’ father
Chairion.

REINS CRIBE DRIFT H=CEN TURY

RG RiieReasies LADLE S

Whether or not my int erp ret ati on of the Arc hai c ma rb le scr ibe , Acr . no. 629 , as a
portrait of the dedicator’s fat her is cor rec t, a se co nd cat ego ry of pos t-4 80 vot ive por -
trait statues that can be identified fr om the evi den ce ofst at ue bas es fur the r att est s to
the practice of sons dedicating por tra its th
of ei r fat her s on the Acr opo lis . Th e sta tue s
in question, all made of bron ze an d all los t, wer e rei nsc rib ed as hon ori fic por tra its of
Romans between the early first century B.c . an d the end of the fir st cen tur y A.c . A
si
total of x sta tue bas es fr om the Acr opo lis (D AA nos . 112 , 121 , 123 , 140 , 146 , and 177 )
feature an original, fifth-century votive ins cri pti on usi ng the X ded ica ted for mul a
together with an honorific inscription ad de d lat er to the sam e bas e, a ph en om en on
called “met ag ra ph y” or re in sc ri pt io n. ®° Be ca us e in ea ch of th es e ca se s we ca n be

185
HuMAN IDENTITIES

(KEKAI HY 1OSEMOALRE
PONONMA PEOSENELOXOSMEAALETED!
LOXSEMIESAPELEST-EADASES TOT PRARs

A I M V I E S OT E S : E P O I e E S A L
PETE OSIK
T1Bo RRTIA I C A rI M o z —

—_——_=

_ “ABS EAS ION

ALETHTE NEKA
_——

60. Inscribed base for dedication of Hegelochos (DAA no. 121, Acr. no. 13206), with honorific in-
scription added below the original dedication and signature of Kritios and Nesiotes. Reproduced from
A. Rumpf, “Zu den Tyrannenmérdern,” in E. Homann-Wedeking and B. Segall, eds. Festschrift Eugen
von Mercklin (Waldsassen, Bavaria 1964), Figure sd.

sure from the preserved dowel holes on the tops ofthe bases that the original bronze
statues were not replaced with new ones, we can be sure that the original,
fifth-century bronze votive statues were reused as honorific portraits of Roman
subjects simply by reinscribing them with the honorific formula, X dedicated Y.
The best preserved of these six fifth-century examples of reinscription from the
Acropolis is DAA no. 121 (Fig. 60), a dedication by Hegelochos son of Ekphantos
signed by the early Classical sculptors Kritios and Nesiotes. An honorific inscrip-
tion of the Roman period appears directly below the original, fifth-century votive
dedication. The reinscription reads “The Boule and the Demos [dedicated] Leukios
Kasios, on account ofhis virtue.” Because the name of Leukios Kasios (who should
probably be identified as Lucius Cassius Longinus, either the Roman consul of
11 A.D. or the homonymous consul of 30 A.D.) appears in the accusative case, it is
clear that the Athenian Boule and Demos rededicated this monument as a portrait
statue representing him.®' Because only a single pair of dowel holes for the feet of a
bronze statue were cut into the top surface of the base, Kritios and Nesiotes’ original
votive statue must have been reused as Lucius Cassius’ portrait.
As Horst Blanck has argued, the primary motive behind the reinscription of
older votive statues as honorific portraits in Roman Athens was probably economic:
the Athenians could save themselves a major expense by reusing old large-scale
bronze statues rather than manufacturing new ones, and obtain the same results.
But, as Raubitschek pointed out, economics cannot be the only explanation behind
the examples of reused statue bases found on the Acropolis. The fact that two of

186
 FretH-CENnTuRY Portrait STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

the extant bases with reinscriptions (DAA nos. 121 and 123) were signed by Kritios
and Nesiotes suggests that the Athenians purposely chose statues made by famous
fifth-century sculptors for reuse.® Yet reinscription, in which the original statue
was left intact, is not the only type of reuse practiced on the Acropolis. At least five
other votive statue bases of the fifth century (DAA nos. 135, 137, 167, 175, and 305)
were flipped upside down and reused to support new bronze portrait statues in the
Roman period.“
A fifth-century votive statue such as the one supported by DAA no. 121 could
have been reused as an honorific portrait both to save money and to honor the
recipient Lucius Cassius Longinus with a rare bronze original made by Kritios and
Nesiotes. However, the most important aspect of DAA no. 121 for our purposes, and
one that has usually been overlooked, is that the fundamental criterion governing the
choice of fifth-century statues to reinscribe as honorific portraits was their subject
matter. Only statues recognized by the Athenians in the Roman period as human
portraits were suitable candidates for reuse as portraits of consuls and other Roman
worthies; the Greeks seem only to have reinscribed statues of heroes and gods as
portraits in the case of the emperor and other members of the imperial family.°° Thus
we can identify DAA no. 121 and the five other fifth-century examples of reinscription
and reuse as portraits of male subjects precisely because they were reinscribed and
reused as portraits. But whom did these votive portrait statues represent at the time
of their dedicat ion? The fifth-c entury votive inscrip tions reveal only the names of
their dedicators and sculptors, and not the statues’ subjects. Because the statues
supported by DAA no. 121 and the other five reinscr ibed statue bases have been lost,
the only archaeological evidenc e that can be used to reconst ruct their appear ance ts
that provided by the dowel holes on the tops of the bases.
As it turns out, the ded ica tor y tex t ins cri bed on DA A no. 121 is par tic ula rly
complex and includes unusua l det ail s abo ut its ded ica tor He ge lo ch os , wh ic h ma y
help us to decipher the subject and int ent of his sta tue ded ica tio n. Th e ins cri pti on
reads: “Hegelochos, father and son of Ek ph an to s, wh o liv es in thi s cit y, ha vi ng a
share of great hospitality and every vir tue , ded ica ted me her e to At he na Par the nos
as a memorial (mnema) of the toils of Ares. Kri tio s an d Nes iot es ma de it. ” Th e
de di ca to ry tex t is met ric al, con sis tin g of two ele gia c cou ple ts, an d the na me of the
dedicator He ge lo ch os has aty pic all y bee n po st po ne d unt il the be gi nn in g of th e thi rd
inscribed lin e for the sak e of the met er. He ge lo ch os cal ls him sel f “fa the r an d son
of Ekph an to s, ” the sa me fo rm ul a use d by the At he ni an wo ma n Xe no kr at ei a on
her fourth-century vot ive rel ief ded ica ted to the riv er Ke ph is os and oth er go ds in
thanksgiving for her son ’s edu cat ion : the re she ide nti fie s her sel f as “d au gh te r an d
mother of Xeniades.”
Upon a closer re ad in g, fu rt he r bi og ra ph ic al de ta il s ab ou t H e g e l o c h o s em er ge .
Hegelochos’ reference to th e ho sp it al it y (p hi lo xe ni a) he e n j o y e d in A t h e n s in di ca te s
HuMAN IDENTITIES

61. Inscribed base for the

dedication of Hegelochos
(DAA no. 121, Acr. no.
13206), with dowel holes
for a bronze statue. Photo:
author.

that either he (or his father Ekphantos) came to Athens from abroad, making
this a rare example of a statue dedication on the Acropolis made by a non-
Athenian. The mixture of Athenian and Ionian spelling conventions and dialec-
tical forms in the inscription together with evidence for an Athenian proxenos on
Thasos named Ekphantos suggest that Hegelochos’ family came to Athens from
Thasos.°° Because the statue was signed by Kritios and Nesiotes, and because both
statue and base survived intact until the first century A.c., when they were rein-
scribed as an honorific portrait, DAA no. 121 was most likely dedicated soon after
480. Thus Hegelochos’ reference to his dedication as a “memorial of the toils of
Ares” could connect it directly with either his (or his father’s, or even his son’s)
participation in the Persian Wars of 480—479.°7
At first glance, the two widely separated dowel holes on top of DAA no. 121
(Fig. 61) make it appear as if the base supported a large-scale bronze figure of Athena
in the Promachos pose, but the reinscription of this dedication makes it certain that

188
 FrrTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

the statue must have represented a male figure suitable for reuse as a portrait.
We know that equestrian statues were dedicated in Greek sanctuaries as honorific
portraits of Roman subjects, and that bronze equestrian figures of the fourth cen-
tury and later often had only three or two of their hoofs attached to the base.
Yet the fact that the two dowel holes on DAA no. 121 are aligned one directly be-
hind the other prevents us from reconstructing Kritios and Nesiotes’ lost statue as a
horse and rider.
The only solution consistent with the dowel holes on top of DAA no. 121, the
dedication’s reuse as a portrait, and the conventions of Early Classical sculpture is to
reconstruct Hegelochos’ dedication as a striding male warrior in an attacking pose
with a shield over his left arm and a spear held in his right, a pose identical to that of
the Athena Promachos statuettes dedicated on the Acropolis in the Archaic period.”
The resulting figure would have looked very much like the colossal bronze warrior
shown in the final stages of its manufacture on the Berlin Foundry cup, a vase dated
slightly earlier (ca. 490-480) than Kritios and Nesiotes’ statue (Fig. 62). The size

62. Berlin Foundry cup

warrior (detail). Antiken-
sammlung, Staatliche Mu-
seen zu Berlin Preussischer
Kulturbesizt inv. F2294.
Photo: Ingrid Geske.

189
HuMAN IDENTITIES

of the striding, attacking warrior de pi ct ed on th e Be rl in Fo un dr y cu p su gg es ts th at

this imaginary statue was intended to re pr es en t a he ro or a go d ra th er th an a hu ma n
subject. Yet the statue dedi ca te d by He ge lo ch os wa s ap pr ox im at el y lif e-s ize , an d
it was understood by the At he ni an s wh o re in sc ri be d it in th e fir st ce nt ur y A.C .
as a portrait. Hegelochos’ statue de di ca ti on se rv ed as a “m em or ia l of th e toi ls of
Ares”; if the lost statue represen te d a wa rr io r, as I be li ev e it di d on th e bas is of its
dowel holes, then Hegelochos co ul d co nc ei va bl y ha ve de di ca te d a po rt ra it ei th er
of himself, or of his fa th er Ek ph an to s, or of his so n Ek ph an to s to co mm em or at e
their role in the Pers ia n Wa rs of 48 0- 47 9. Be ca us e He ge lo ch os ’ st at ue wa s ma de by
Kr it io s an d Ne si ot es , its act ive po se ma y ev en ha ve be en in sp ir ed by th e po rt ra it s of
th e Ty ra nn ic id es Ha rm od io s an d Ar is to ge it on ma de by th e sa me sc ul pt or s in 47 7/ 6
B.c .: bo th are ex am pl es of wh at E. B. Ha rr is on ha s te rm ed th e “B ol d sty le” in Ea rl y
Classical sculpture.”°
Some support for interpreting the lost bronze statue dedicated on the Acropolis
by Hegelochos asa portrait of his father Ekphantos comes from DAA no. 112, another
well-preserved example of a fifth-century votive statue reinscribed as an honorific
portrait of a Roman subject, in this case a consul of a.p. 1.” This base, like DAA
no. 121, also appears to have supported a life-size bronze figure in an active, striding
pose, though a less extreme one. Because the lettering of the dedicatory inscription
is very similar to what we see on DAA no. 121 and the other Acropolis statue bases
signed by Kritios and Nesiotes, DAA no. 112 should probably also date soon after 480.
Unlike Hegelochos’ dedication, the lost statue supported by DAA no. m2 cannot
easily be interpreted as a representation ofits own dedicator, because it was dedicated
jointly by two brothers, Thrasyllos and Gnathios, the sons of Mneson, of the deme
Leukonoion. They can be identified by their names as aristocrats belonging to a
family whose later members held the office oftreasurer (tamias) on the Acropolis and
performed civic liturgies.’* Even though no further information about the motives
behind Thrasyllos and Gnathios’ dedication can be extracted from the dedicatory
inscription, the dedication of DAA no. 112 by brothers who mention their father’s
name combined with the reuse of the statue as an honorific portrait suggest that the
statue was originally intended to represent Mneson, the dedicators’ father. Judging
by the preserved dowel holes on top ofthe base, he too was depicted in the guise of
an attacking warrior.”
The four remaining fifth-century statue bases from the Acropolis reinscribed as
honorific portraits of Roman subjects are every bit as interesting as DAA nos. 121
and 112, but less informative as to the identities of their dedicators and the sub-
jects their missing statues represented. One base (DAA no. 177; the name of the
dedicator has been lost, but he was the son of Chairis of the deme Cholargos)
seems from its size and shape to have supported either a horse and rider or a statue
group of some unknown type. A second base (DAA no. 140, dedicated by a son

190
 FrrTH-CENTuRY PorTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

of —ippos of the deme Lamptrai) preserves several dowel holes that appear at first
to belong to a bronze horse and rider, but upon a closer inspection look more like
the foot holes for a group of two striding, attacking warriors facing one another.
If this reconstruction is correct, then only one of the two warriors was reinscribed
as an honorific portrait in the Roman period: the reinscription was deliberately
placed off center, beneath the dowel holes on the right end of the base.74 If the
original figures were two warriors, it is thus possible that only one was still intact
at the time the base was reinscribed. The final two examples of reinscription com-
bined with reuse (DAA nos. 123 and 146), including another base signed by Kritios
and Nesiotes (DAA no. 123), are regrettably too fragmentary to reconstruct or to
interpret.

Rab
SENeLPN GeO T HERS

The motive I have proposed to explain the dedication of DAA nos. 121 and 112,
two early Classical male figures transformed into honorific portraits in the Roman
period, agrees with my explanation of the Late Archaic marble scribe, Acr. no. 629: in
all three cases, I have suggested that sons were dedicating portraits of their fathers on
the Acropolis. As a dedicatory mechanism, the practice of representing others with
votive portraits is distinct from the practice of representing oneself, the latter best
attested on the Acropolis by the portraits of athletic victors discussed earlier in this
chapter. Although we tend to assume that the Archaic male figures in marble from
the Acropolis were self-representations, some of them might in fact be portraits
representing subjects other than the dedicator himself. However, because so few
sixth- and fifth-century bases for portrait statues can be identified, we have no way
of knowing how common it was to dedicate portraits of others on the Acropolis
before 400 B.C.
We do know, howeve r, tha t the gre at maj ori ty of the pri vat e por tra it sta tue s
dedicated on the Acr opo lis fro m the ear ly fou rth cen tur y onw ard wer e rep res ent a-
tions of their dedicators’ family mem ber s — fat her s, mot her s, bro the rs, and sist ers —
inscribed with honorific for mul as cle arl y ide nti fyi ng the sub jec ts the y rep res ent ed.
The inscriptions on the bas es for som e of the se late r Acr opo lis por tra its cle arl y
state the motives behind their dedica tio n. Dec eas ed sub jec ts wer e mem ori ali zed by
giving the gods permanent replacements the
of ir bod ies , as ill ust rat ed by Pol yst rat os’
dedication of a portrait of his deceased bro the r Pol yll os in the fou rth cen tur y
(IG I? 3838 and CEG 2 no. 780): “Polyllos son of Pol yll ide s of the dem e Pai ani a.
Polystratos dedicated this portrait (e/ kon ) of his bro the r as an imm ort al rem em-
brance (mnemo syn e) of a mor tal bod y.” ”* Liv ing por tra it sub jec ts wer e pla ced und er
the protection of th e go ds , as in th e ca se o f ama n wh os e na me ha s be en lo st (/ G II ’

191
HuMAN IDENTITIES

4321 and CEG 2 no. 761): th e ba se fo r his po rt ra it st at ue in cl ud es a pr ay er as ki ng

Athena to “preserve his wealth, and grant to hi m an d his fa mi ly to co mp le te th ei r
lives in agreeable health.”7°
The motives behind the de di ca ti on of po rt ra it s on th e Ac ro po li s mi gh t ha ve
remained consistent from the fif th (p os si bl y ev en th e six th) ce nt ur y th ro ug h th e
fourth, even though vo ti ve po rt ra it sta tue s be fo re th e fo ur th ce nt ur y we re in sc ri be d
with the relativel un y in fo rm at iv e X de di ca te d fo rm ul a. If we ac ce pt DA A nos . 6, 121 ,
and 112 as portrait of s fa th er s de di ca te d by the ir son s, th er e is no in he re nt re as on wh y
th e su bj ec ts of th es e po rt ra it s co ul d no t ha ve be en sti ll li vi ng at th e ti me th ei r so ns
de di ca te d the ir po rt ra it s on th e Ac ro po li s. In fo ur th -c en tu ry At he ns , th e di st in ct io n
between dead and living portrait subjects seems to have been unimportant.” Al-
though modern scholars often claim that the portrait statue of Konon set up in the
agora soon after 394 represents a milestone because Konon, unlike Harmodios and
Aristogeiton, was still alive at the time his portrait were made, neither Demosthenes
nor any other ancient source that mentions Athenian honorific portraits makes this
distinction between living and dead portrait subjects. The Athenian state set up an
honorific portrait of Demosthenes himself only after his death.7*
Despite the paucity of direct evidence for the subjects of sixth- and fifth-century
votive portrait statues in Athens and the motives behind their dedication, represent-
ing one’s father could well have been the principal occasion for dedicating portraits
of others on the Acropolis before the fourth century. Because they were not inscribed
with name labels, these portraits would have been recognized as such only by their
iconography and by the votive context within which they were displayed. Portrait
statues were dedicated for different reasons, and viewed within different votive con-
texts, in different Greek sanctuaries. In the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma and the
Samian Heraion in the Archaic period, self-representation by priestly, aristocratic
families appears to have been the norm, as illustrated by the Samian Geneleos group.
Comparable Archaic family groups are absent on the Athenian Acropolis.”? In the
fifth century, statue groups combining representations of gods and heroes with hu-
man portraits were dedicated by private individuals at Olympia and by Greek states
at Delphi.*° Though the Athenians themselves dedicated such a group at Delphi to
commemorate their victory at Marathon and included in ita posthumous portrait of
Miltiades, no bases for comparable statue groups have been found on the Acropolis
or elsewhere in Athens.*' The fourth century saw an explosion in the popularity of
portraiture in Athens, marked by both the introduction of honorific portrait statues
to the Athenian agora and an expansion in the types of portraits dedicated by private
citizens on the Acropolis, which came to include individual representations of both
male and female family members as well as family groups displayed on the same
base.*?

192
 FIrTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

63. Roman marble bust of

Perikles; British Museum
inv. 549. Copyright The
British Museum.

KRESILAS PORTRAIT OF PERIKVES AND DAANO*® 131B

The mechanism of sons representing their fathers proposed herein as an ex-

planation for three Acropo lis ded ica tio ns att est ed by pre ser ved sta tue bas es (DA A
nos. 6, 121, and 112) might also explain wha t is arg uab ly the mos t fam ous fif th- cen tur y
portrait statue dedicated on the Acropo lis , nam ely Kre sil as’ por tra it of Per ikl es. As it
happens, the case of Perikles’ portrait on the Acr opo lis per fec tly illu stra tes the cha in
of inferences involved when Kopien kri tik is the pri mar y met hod use d to ide nti fy
lost Greek portrait statues. Pausanias (1.25.1 and 1.28 .2) twi ce men tio ns a por tra it

statue of Per ikl es he saw on the Acr opo lis , but he doe s not nam e its scu lpt or or

describe its app ear anc e. The eld er Pli ny (H N 34. 74) says that the fam ous fift h-
century scu lpt or Kre sil as of Kyd oni a mad e a por tra it sta tue of Per ikl es, but doe s not
say whe re this sta tue sto od. Two Ro ma n mar ble bus ts, one in the Bri tis h Mu se um

(Fig. 63) and th e ot he r in th e Va ti ca n, be ar in sc ri pt io ns la be li ng th em as po rt ra it s of

193
HuMAN IDENTITIES

Perikles; although the two busts look al ik e an d th e st yl e of bo th is re co gn iz ab ly Hi gh

Classical, we have no way of kn ow in g fo r ce rt ai n wh et he r th ey we re tr ul y in sp ir ed
by a common fifth-centur y or ig in al an d, if th ey we re , wh er e th at or ig in al st oo d.
Nevertheless, the fifth-centur y st yl e of th e Ro ma n bu st s ha s be en us ed to ar gu e
that they copy Kresilas’ portrait , wh ic h is th en as su me d to be bo th th e po rt ra it of
Perikles seen by Pausanias on th e Ac ro po li s an d th e po rt ra it by Kr es il as me nt io ne d
by Pliny.*3
A fragmentary inscri bed sta tue bas e fro m the Acr opo lis has bee n cit ed as fur the r
proof that Perikles’ por tra it on the Acr opo lis was mad e by Kre sil as. Thi s bas e (D AA
no. 131 b and JG P 884 ) fea tur es the ver y end of Kre sil as’ sig nat ure tog eth er wit h the
rem ain s of a nam e end ing in —ik les in the gen iti ve cas e tha t can con vin cin gly be
restored to read “Perikleous” (“of Perikles,” spelled [Meo] 1«Aégos in the Attic alphabet).
DAA no. 131b preserves one cutting, taken by Richter and others to be a spear hole,
but that might also be part of a dowel hole for the statue’s left foot, evidence that
the lost statue was made of bronze.*+ We know that Kresilas of Kydonia worked
on the Acropolis not only from this base but also from his signatures on two other
votive statue bases, DAA nos. 132 and 133. These signatures combined with literary
references of Kresilas place his career in the second half of the fifth century, more or
less overlapping with the public career of Perikles, who died of the plague in 429 B.c.
Even if we accept that the Roman marble busts of Perikles in the British Museum
and the Vatican accurately reflect a fifth-century bronze original made by Kresilas,
and that DAA no. 131b belongs to that original, the surviving part of the inscription
on DAA no. 131b generates added complications. Though some scholars have been
willing to accept the genitive “Perikleous” (“of Perikles”) as a name label identifying
the subject represented by Kresilas’ statue, in the fourth century when name labels
came into use in Athens, they invariably named the subject either in the nominative
(“Perikles”) or the accusative (X dedicated Perikles), not in the genitive case. In
keeping with the votive X dedicated formula used on the Athenian Acropolis in the
sixth and fifth centuries, Perikles cannot be the dedicator of the statue, whose name
would appear in the nominative, but must instead be the name of the dedicator’s
father (X son of Perikles dedicated).85 Thus, as Raubitschek recognized, if DAA
no. 131b really is the base for Kresilas’ portrait of Perikles, the inescapable conclusion
is that the portrait was dedicated by one of Perikles’ three sons.°°
Because we have no way of determining the length and exact formula of the
fragmentary dedicatory inscription on DAA no. 131b, the name ofany one of Perikles’
sons can be restored as the dedicator.’’ The fact that both Perikles and his two
legitimate sons, Xanthippos and Paralos, died in the Athenian plague of 430/29 B.c.
leaves open the possibility that either Xanthippos or Paralos dedicated a portrait of
his father on the Acropolis while Perikles was still alive. Nevertheless, a posthumous
portrait dedicated after Perikles’ death by his illegitimate son Perikles, executed after

194
 FrrTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

the battle of Arginusae in 406, cannot be ruled out. Whichever of Perikles’ sons
may have dedicated his portrait on the Acropolis, and whatever the precise motive
behind the dedication was, the inscribed base DAA no. 131b belongs to a private
votive dedication, not an official honorific portrait of Perikles as strategos sanctioned
by the Athenian state and comparable with the portrait statue erected in honor of
Konon in 393.
Pausanias mentions a total of 12 portrait statues of sixth- and fifth-century sub-
jects in his account of the Acropolis, including the portraits of Perikles, his father
Xanthippos, and the Late Archaic poet Anacreon of Teos. Other than Perikles’ por-
trait, only one of these — a posthumous portrait statue of Dieitrephes, the Athenian
strategos of 411/0 B.c. — can be associated with any preserved statue base, and in
that case, the connection between the statue described by Pausanias (1.23.3) and the
inscribed base usually matched with it (DAA no. 132) presents a difficult chronolog-
ical problem.** Inferences that Perikles himself dedicated the Acropolis portrait of
his father Xanthippos seen by Pausanias, that Perikles grouped Xanthippos portrait
with one of Anacreon, and that the portraits of Xanthippos and Perikles were in-
tentionally separated from one another are speculations without any support from
preserved statue bases.*? Given the well-attested fourth-century practice of erect-
ing retrospective honorific portraits of fifth-century subjects, it seems likely that
most portraits of famous sixth- and fifth-c entury subject s in Athens mentio ned by
Pausanias and other sources date to the fourth century or later, unless the evidenc e of
inscribed statue bases tells us otherwi se.?° Perikles ’ portrai t statue on the Acropol is
could, in fact, be an anomal y in the fifth century , an exampl e ofa private, votive com-
memoration of a father by his son tha t ha pp en s als o to rep res ent a fa mo us sub jec t.” "

WARRIORS AND STRATEGOI ON

UL ELE wAGRO POLIS

Perikles’ portrait statue on the Acropolis ha s be en se en as th e ea rl ie st At he ni an

exampl e ofa st ra te go s po rt ra it , a fi ft h- ce nt ur y pr ec ur so r to th e ho no ri fi c po rt ra it s of
Konon and ot he r di st in gu is he d At he ni an ge ne ra ls er ec te d by th e de mo s in th e ag or a
in the fo ur th ce nt ur y. ” Po rt ra it st at ue s s
of t r a t e gse
o em
i to ha ve be co me pa rt ic ul ar ly
popular in Athens, as ev id en ce d by Ly cu rg us ’ (1 2. 51 ) bo as t th at th e At he ni an ag or a

was filled with po rt ra it s of ge ne ra ls ra th er th an th e at hl et ic vi ct or po rt ra it s on vi ew in

the agoras of other Gr ee k ci ti es . Ju dg in g by th e ap pe ar an ce of th e tw o Ro ma n ma rb le
herms labeled as port ra it s of Pe ri kl es to ge th er wi th se ve ra l si mi la r bu t an on ym ou s
Roman marble heads, th es e st ra te go s po rt ra it s re pr es en te d th ei r su bj ec ts we ar in g
helmets of the Corinthian ty pe th at we re pu sh ed ba ck to re ve al th e we ar er 's fa ce .
Nothing can be said fo r ce rt ai n a b o u t th e b o d i e s o f th e or ig in al po rt ra it st at ue s,

195
HuMAN IDENTITIES

except that they stood at rest and noti n th e ac ti ve , at ta ck in g po se I ha ve re co ns tr uc te d

in the case of two early Clas si ca l de di ca ti on s (D AA no s. 12 1 an d 11 2) .” ?
Though honorific portrait sta tue s be ga n to be er ec te d in th e At he ni an ag or a on ly
in the early fourth century, it is po ss ib le th at Per ikl es’ po rt ra it on th e Ac ro po li s wa s
not in fact the only fifth-centur y str ate gos po rt ra it in At he ns . Th e or at or An do ki de s
(1.38) refers to a bronze str ate gos on a ste le (h er e al mo st ce rt ai nl y a st at ue ba se in
the form of a colu mn or pil lar ), wh ic h st oo d in his ti me so me wh er e be tw ee n th e
orchestra of the Thea te r of Di on ys os an d th e pr ec in ct of Di on ys os , bo th lo ca te d on
the South slope of th e Ac ro po li s. An do ki de s me nt io ns thi s lo st st at ue in a sp ee ch
de li ve re d in 39 9 B.c ., in wh ic h he de sc ri be s ev en ts on th e eve of th e de pa rt ur e of
the Sicilian expedition in 415. Because Andokides refers to the statue in question as
a strategos, he must have believed it to be a portrait, and a misunderstanding of the
statue's subject by a contemporary observer such as Andokides seems unlikely.** If
we accept Demosthenes’ (20.70) testimony that the Athenian demos did not honor
individuals with officially sanctioned portrait statues between the Tyrannicides
group and Konon’s honorific portrait of 393 B.c. (five years after Andokides’ speech),
then the bronze strategos on the South slope of the Acropolis must have been a pri-
vate votive dedication like Perikles’ strategos portrait on the Acropolis. A highly
fragmentary Acropolis inventory of the late fourth century listing bronze statues
destined to be melted down includes, in addition to a statue of a hoplitodromos
probably representing an athletic victor, at least three other male figures with hel-
mets or shields.9* Some, if not all, of the bronze statues of male subjects listed in
this inventory were portraits, and some might date to the fifth century.
My reconstruction of Hegelochos’ (DAA no. 121) and Thrasyllos and Gnathios
(DAA no. 112) lost statue dedications as armed, striding, attacking male warriors
comparable with the one represented on the Berlin Foundry cup argues for a previ-
ously unrecognized and chronologically earlier variation on the theme ofthe strategos
type in Greek portraiture.°° Another possible example of what I am inclined to call
a “warrior” rather than a strategos portrait from the Acropolis is a Late Archaic,
life-size bronze head (NM 6446), one of only two large-scale male figures in bronze
from the fifth century to survive (Fig. 64).°” The elongated shape and unworked
surface of the top of the head demonstrate that it was originally equipped with a
helmet, now lost, which was pushed back to reveal the face; the forward inclination
of the neck points to an active, attacking pose rather than a pose standing at rest.
Though this warrior head provides potentially valuable archaeological evidence for
the dedication of warrior portraits on the Acropolis as early as the Late Archaic
period, in reality we cannot be sure that the head belongs to a portrait rather than a
representation of ahero; and even if it does belong to a portrait, it could represent
not a warrior, but rather a victor in the /oplitodromos contest like Epicharinos
(DAA no. 120).

196
 FIrTH-CENTURY PORTRAIT STATUES ON THE ACROPOLIS

64. Bronze head of warrior from

the Acropolis (NM 6446). Copyright
Deutsches Archaologisches Institut-Athen,
neg. nr. NM 3374.

Pausanias (1.27.5) saw on the Acropoli s a gr ou p of tw o la rg e du el in g wa rr io rs ,

whom he interpreted as a representation ofth e le ge nd ar y At he ni an ki ng Er ec ht he us
fighti ng ei th er th e Th ra ci an ki ng Eu mo lp os or Eu mo lp os ’ so n Im ma ra do s. A
fifth-centur y mo nu me nt at Ol ym pi a si gn ed by Ly ki os so n of My ro n an d de di -
cated by th e pe op le of Ap ol lo ni a (P au s. 5. 22 .2 ) in co rp or at ed fo ur pa ir s of du el in g
Greek and Trojan he ro es . Th e wa rr io r de pi ct ed on th e Be rl in Fo un dr y cu p is co lo ss al
in scale, and for th at re as on mo re li ke ly to be a st at ue o f a he ro th an a po rt ra it . In
the case of the pairs of du el in g wa rr io rs on th e Ac ro po li s an d at Ol ym pi a, it se em s
unlikely that Pausanias mi si de nt if ie d po rt ra it s as re pr es en ta ti on s of he ro es ; af te r
all, at Olympia, Paus an ia s (5 .2 7. 1- 2) al so de sc ri be s a se ri es oft h r e e fi gh ti ng wa rr io r

groups he identifies as portrait s o f th e fi ft h- ce nt ur y m e r c e n a r y g e n e r a l P h o r m i s o f

Mainalos engaged in comb a t w i t h a se ri es o f e n e m i e s . ? ® T h e s a m e st at ue ty pe — th e

striding, attacking warrior — wa s b e i n g u s e d in th e fi ft h c e n t u r y to re pr es en t b o t h

heroes and human subjects a n d , w i t h o u t a n y in di ca ti on s of v o t i v e c o n t e x t p r o v i d e d

197
HuMAN IDENTITIES

by inscribed statue bases, it is si mp ly im po ss ib le to tel l wh et he r La te Ar ch ai c an d

Early Classical warrior figures in br on ze an d ma rb le de di ca te d in Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s
were inte nd ed to re pr es en t hu ma n su bj ec ts , he ro es , or ev en go ds .”
In the end, fifth- cen tur y war rio r sta tue s ded ica ted on the At he ni an Ac ro po li s
raise the same question as the Ar ch ai c ma rb le kor ai: ho w did anc ien t vie wer s rec o-
gnize the subjects they rep res ent ed? On the Acr opo lis , por tra it sta tue s wer e not
identified by ins cri bed na me lab els unt il the fou rth cen tur y, but por tra its rep re-
senting ma le sub jec ts oth er tha n the ded ica tor se em to hav e be en ded ica ted the re
already in the fif th cen tur y, an d pos sib ly als o in the six th: Ev en if we con sid er
Perikles’ por tra it to be a lik ene ss tha t wo ul d hav e be en re co gn iz ed wi th ou t rea din g
the inscription on its base naming Perikles’ son as the dedicator, the lost warrior
portraits dedicated by Hegelochos and the brothers Thrasyllos and Gnathios more
likely than not were generic, idealized figures indistinguishable from contemporary
representations of heroes. The subjects of these portraits were not famous person-
alities; nor were their dedicators. Monuments such as these reveal the true nature
of votive portrait statues: they, like votive statues representing the gods, acquired
much of their meaning from the context in which they were dedicated and viewed.
Portraits were not the inevitable outcome of the practice of dedicating votive
statues to the gods in Greek sanctuaries such as the Athenian Acropolis, but they do
illustrate better than any other type of votive statue the potential of votive offerings
to serve as memorials (7nemata) of human subjects, both living and dead. Unlike
votive statues representing gods and heroes, portraits commemorated not only their
dedicators, but also the subjects they represented. Some individuals, in particular
victors in the Olympic games, were entitled to commemorate themselves; in other
cases, the dedicators of votive portraits transformed the subjects of these portraits
into pleasing gifts for the gods. The private individuals other than athletes who
dedicated portrait statues on the Acropolis after 480 may not have been following
the precedent set in East Greek sanctuaries by portraits such as the Geneleos group.
Instead, the votive portrait statues of the fifth-century Acropolis may well have
been inspired by the Tyrannicides group in the Athenian agora. These portraits
were dedicated at a time when funerary monuments in Athens and Attica no longer
featured portraits, either freestanding statues or relief stelai. Athenian aristocrats
such as Alkimachos (DAA no. 6) and the brothers Thrasyllos and Gnathios (DAA
no. 112), together with the metic Hegelochos (DAA no. 121), took the initiative to
preserve the memory of themselves and their families for posterity within the context
ofadurable religious tradition stretching into the fourth century and beyond.
CONCLUSION

ll votive statues accompanied by inscribed statue bases functioned simul-

taneously as pleasing gifts to the gods and as memorials of the giver; in
keeping with the actual terms used by votive inscriptions, these two func-
tions can be called the agalma function and the mnema function. Any votive gift
intended to please the recipient deity was considered to be an agalma, no matter
whether it was a costly, life-size bronze statue or a lowly, mass-produced terra-cotta
figurine. Statues representing any subject could serve as agalmata if dedicated to the
gods in a sanctuary, though the term aga/ma later (and possibly as early as the late
fifth century) came to be used primarily to denote votive statues representing divine
subjects, in opposition to human portrait statues. Votive statues served as mnemata
of their dedicators whenever they were inscribed with the dedicator’s name. Thus
votive inscriptions can be said to have represented the dedicator for posterity, no
matter what subject (human, divine, or otherwise) the votive statues themselves
happened to represent. An alternative way of describing the combination of agalma
and mnema functions would be to note that votive statues dedicated in Greek sanc-
tuaries had two distinct audiences: the recipient deity, and visitors to the sanctuary
who viewed the statue and read its inscription.
Previous scholarship on the votive statues from the Athenian Acropolis has at
one and the sam e time stre ssed thei r func tion as mne mat a and fou nd that func tion
to be problematic. Votive statues, particularly the larger and more expensive ones,
provided an opp ort uni ty for aris tocr ats to disp lay thei r soci al and eco nom ic priv ileg e
openly. This type of indi vidu al disp lay has been seen as a form of sel f-p rom oti on
that is scarcely compatible with the reli giou s func tion of voti ve offe ring s. It has
been suggested that tyra nts, incl udin g Peis istr atos and his sons in sixt h-ce ntur y
Athens, discouraged or even prohibited insc ribe d stat ue dedi cati ons in sanc tuar ies.
A concomitant theory explains the appa rent incr ease in voti ve stat ue dedi cati ons on
the Athenian Acropolis after ca. 510 B.c., and the pres ence ther e of dedi cati ons by
craftsmen and other nonaristocrats, as a dire ct resu lt of the refo rms of Klei sthe nes
in 508/7 B.c. The votive statues dedi cate d on the Acro poli s, like othe r arch aeol ogic al
artefacts such as Athenian black and red figu re va se s, de se rv e to be co ns id er ed wi th in

199
HuMAN IDENTITIES

the larger contexts of Athenian po li ti cs an d so ci et y. At th e sa me ti me , th ou gh ,

attempts to correlate patter ns in vo ti ve st at ue de di ca ti on s on th e Ac ro po li s wi th
the major events in Athenian his tor y, an d to as cr ib e th ei r de di ca ti on to mo ti ve s
connected with their dedicators’ pol iti cal or soc ial sta tus , ris k di st or ti ng th e ev id en ce
provided by inscribed sta tue bas es. Th e im pr ec is e ch ro no lo gi es of bo th th e ex ta nt
marble statues and the ba se s fr om th e Ac ro po li s ma ke it do ub tf ul th at we ca n da te
individual dedications cl os el y en ou gh to es ta bl is h a ca us e- an d- ef fe ct re la ti on sh ip
between ev en ts su ch as Kl ei st he ne s’ re fo rm s an d vo ti ve st at ue de di ca ti on s on th e
Acropoli s. Al th ou gh pr os op og ra ph ic so ur ce s ca n he lp us to id en ti fy so me of th e
dedicato rs of sta tue s on th e Ac ro po li s in th e si xt h an d fif th ce nt ur ie s, it is im po ss ib le
to de te rm in e wh et he r mo st of th em we re ari sto cra ts, ma nu al la bo re rs , or so me th in g
in between.
Dedicating a statue on the Acropolis, no matter how expensive, was never
merely meant to impress one’s fellow citizens. The pious motives stressed by votive
inscriptions are not in fact incompatible with the political and social realities of
Archaic and Classical Athens. Statues, like less expensive and monumental forms
of votive offerings, were fundamentally occasion oriented. Though some occasions
thought to justify dedicating a statue were aristocratic in ethos, for example winning
first prize at the Olympic games, others were not, and we should not treat the votive
statues of the sixth and fifth centuries primarily as spontaneous expressions of wealth
and status.
One function perfomed by votive statues on the Athenian Acropolis requires
little justification. Though the relative merits of Archaic and Classical divine images
were debated by ancient commentators and continue to occupy modern scholarship
on Greek sculpture, divine representation remained a major function for freestand-
ing sculpture from the Archaic through the Classical periods. There is no good
reason to suppose that cult statues, the divine images typically placed on axis at the
far end of the cella of a Greek temple, were the only divine images displayed in
Greek sanctuaries; Pausanias’ bias toward mentioning and describing cult statues
contributed to his relative neglect of their votive counterparts. The efficacy of vo-
tive religion depended upon giving the gods what they wanted, and the gods liked
to receive images of themselves as gifts. Within a votive context, ancient viewers
expected to see divine imagery combined with inscribed texts concerning the dedi-
cator, a source ofconfusion for modern viewers less accustomed to such disjunctive
forms of representation.
None ofthe over 50 Archaic kore statues from the Athenian Acropolis, the most
common type ofvotive statue in marble dedicated there during the Archaic period,
was inscribed with the name of the subject it represented. Neither were other votive
statues dedicated on the Acropolis over the course of the sixth and fifth centuries.
Thus viewing Greek sculpture in its votive context on the Acropolis presents a major

200
 CONCLUSION

problem. Whom did votive statues represent, and how did viewers identify their
subjects? Most of the statues dedicated on the Acropolis in the fifth century were
made of bronze and have been irretrievably lost, yet even the extant Archaic marble
statues do not clearly and unambiguously reveal their identities to us. If we cannot
identify them, how did ancient visitors to the sanctuary do so? How much of the
meaning of votive statues resided in the iconography of the statues themselves, and
how much resided in the context within which they were viewed?
In the case of the Archaic korai dedicated on the Acropolis, by far the most
popular solution to the problem of their identity has been to say that they represented
no one in particular. Because the evidence of statue bases shows that all of the
female korai were dedicated by men, they cannot represent their dedicators. Bronze
statuettes of Athena that were being dedicated on the Acropolis at the same time as
most of the korai show her armed with helmet, spear, shield, and aegis, and for this
reason the korai have not been identified as representations of the goddess to whom
they were dedicated. Instead, the Acropolis korai appear to us to be iconographically
generic, anonymous female votaries meant to embody the idea of worship rather
than to represent any specific, recognizable subject, either human or divine. The
category of generic representation proposed as an explanation for the korai has
been seen as both exclusive to the kore statue type and limited to the Archaic
period.
Because the korai were never intended to be viewed in isolation outside their
original votive context, I believe that we need to recontextualize the problem of the
iconography of the korai and their meaning on the Athenian Acropolis. The evidence
of inscribed statue bases and preserved bronze statuettes indicates that, during the
Late Archaic period when most of the korai were dedicated, the striding, attacking
Athenas of the so-called Promachos type were the most common type of votive
statue in bronze on the Acropolis. Both korai and Athena Promachos statuettes
were displayed in the open air of the sanctua ry on top of statue bases inscrib ed
with the names of their dedicat ors. Given the popular ity of represe ntation s of the
recipient deity Athena in bronze in both the Archaic and Classic al periods , the
supposed anonymity of the Archaic marble korai become s more difficul t to justify.
Why did worshippers dedicat e votive statues and statuett es in bronze represe nting
specific subjects together with votive statues in marble that did not? By identif ying
the Acropolis korai as representations of Athena, I am arguing for a greater degree of
continuity in the subject matter of votive statues dedicat ed on the Acropol is before
and after 480, despite the evident stylistic breaks betwee n marble and bronze, Archaic
and Classical.
Anothe r eq ua ll y we ll -a tt es te d fu nc ti on fo r vo ti ve st at ue s wa s to re pr es en t
huma n su bj ec ts . Vo ti ve po rt ra it st at ue s go ba ck to th e Ar ch ai c pe ri od an d pl ay ed an
important role on th e Ac ro po li s an d in ot he r Gr ee k sa nc tu ar ie s af te r 48 0. Fr om th e
HuMAN IDENTITIES

point of view of the context within wh ic h po rt ra it s we re di sp la ye d on th e Ac ro po li s

and in other mainland Greek sanctuaries, th e be gi nn in g of th e fo ur th ce nt ur y ma rk s
an important shift: from this po in t on wa rd , po rt ra it st at ue s we re in sc ri be d wi th wh at
I call an honorific formula nami ng th e su bj ec t re pr es en te d. Fi ft h- ce nt ur y At he ni an
portrait statues were votive portrait s, in sc ri be d wi th th e na me s of th ei r de di ca to rs
but not with the names of th ei r su bj ec ts . In bo th th e fi ft h an d th e fo ur th ce nt ur ie s,
portrait statues were no rm al ly ma de of br on ze , an d ve ry fe w po ss ib le ex am pl es
survive. De sp it e th e la ck of pr es er ve d Gr ee k po rt ra it s, sc ho la rl y at te nt io n ha s fo -
cused prim ar il y on th ei r ap pe ar an ce , an d sp ec if ic al ly on th e pr ob le m of wh en an d
why Gree k sc ul pt or s fir st be ga n to cr ea te “t ru e” ph ys io gn om ic li ke ne ss es of th ei r
subjects. The method most co mm on ly us ed to di sc us s th e st yl e of fi ft h- ce nt ur y
Athenian portraits is Kopienkritik or Kopienforschung, in which lost Greek originals
are identified and characterized by using the evidence of Roman marble copies.
One unintended result of the reliance upon Kopienkritik is the prevailing as-
sumption that fifth-century votive portraits on the Acropolis, like the honorific por-
trait statues of the fourth century, represented generals and other famous subjects,
and that the motives behind their dedication were primarily political. Pausanias’
account of the Acropolis tends to reinforce this assumption, because he chooses to
mention only portrait statues whose subject or style interested him and he skips
over others (“the less distinguished portraits”) that might have represented subjects
unfamiliar to his audience (1.23.5).
Despite the difficulties inherent in identifying bases for fifth-century portrait
statues that were not inscribed with their subjects’ names, two distinct groups of
votive portrait statues on the Acropolis emerge. The first are the representations
of themselves dedicated by victors in Panhellenic athletic contests (specifically the
Olympic games), a category of portraiture attested throughout the Greek world
in this period. The second category of portraiture attested on the fifth-century
Acropolis is more surprising and potentially controversial. A small group of portrait
statues can be identified as such because they were reused and reinscribed in the
Roman period as honorific portraits of Roman subjects: in each of these cases,
a new, honorific inscription naming the subject represented was appended to the
original fifth-century dedicatory text, and the presence of only one set of dowel
holes shows that the original statue was not replaced.
These fifth-century portraits from the Acropolis seem, on the basis of unusual
features oftheir dedicatory inscriptions, to have represented their dedicators’ fathers
rather than the dedicators themselves. Portrait statues may seem at first to have func-
tioned exclusively as public memorials (7nemata) for the subjects they represented,
but, when they were dedicated in sanctuaries such as the Athenian Acropolis, por-
traits were also intended to serve as agalmata, gifts pleasing to the gods. Though
famous generals such as Perikles might well have been represented by portrait statues

202
 CONCLUSION

on the Acropolis before the end of the fifth century, the portrait statues attested
by the evidence of inscribed statue bases are more in keeping with the tradition
of familial representation by votive statues illustrated in the Archaic period by the
Geneleos group from the Samian Heraion. Representing the family as a motive for
dedicating portrait statues fits in well with what we see on the Acropolis in the
fourth century, when the majority of the privately dedicated portrait statues set up
there represented family members of the dedicator. Thus the picture of fifth-century
Athenian portraiture presented by the evidence of inscribed statue bases stresses once
again the primacy of context for unlocking the identities and significance of votive
statues.
 =
7 7
Es ' — 5) - Ew
a a yo ; 7 re 4

7 ais iw : o _ Aes wah a a

_ wey ~ er 4 in < _ > . ee
o ol roms eee ore nas vores matey cil:

it Cae DS enum foot : . “9: 9 Cidmaireie fue Aa

site an e : ; : ag hans we
—

a y x oake
a . —

nn
PPENDIX 1

PAUSANIAS ON THE ATHENIAN

(NSCARON ONES 14 |PI DN abet OMS 33)

Chapter and section references correspond with the English nensi@don bys G:
Frazer.

VORIVE STATUES REPRESENTING GODS

22.8 Hermes called Propylaios
22.8 Charites; attributed to sculptor Socrates son of Sophroniskos
5c? Aphrodite; dedication attributed to Kallias, and attributed to sculptor
Kalamis
23.5 Hygieia
23-5 Athena Hygieia
24.3 [Hermes]
24.3 Ge, praying to Zeus for rain
24.4 Zeus; work of sculptor Leochares
24.8 Apollo called Parnopios; attributed to Pheidias
26.4 Artemis with epithet Leukop hr ye ne ; de di ca te d by so ns of Th em is to kl es
26.5 Seated Athena; in sc ri pt io n say s tha t Kal lia s de di ca te d an d En do io s
made it
271 Wooden Hermes; dedica ti on at tr ib ut ed to Ke kr op s, in Po li as te mp le
27.7 Archaia agalmata of At he na ; bl ac ke ne d by 48 0 fir e
28.2 Bronze Athena; by sculptor Ph ei di as ; At he ni an ti th e fr om Ma ra th on
spoils
28.2 Athena called Lemnian after de di ca to rs ; b y sc ul pt or Ph ei di as
2AOr! Hekate Epipyr gi di a; b y sc ul pt or A l k a m e n e s
4.36.4 Nike; dedicated by Athenians as me mo ri al of Sp ha kt er ia (4 25 B. C. )

CULIVSTIATUES
23.9 Artemis Bra u r o n i a , te ch ne of Pr ax it el es
24.3 [Athena Ergane]
24.4 Zeus called Polieus
CONCLUSION

24.5-7 Athena Parthenos

26-7 Wooden Athena Polias

MYTHOLOGICAL GROUPS, HEROES, ANIMALS,

AND MISCELLANEOUS
23.1-2 Lioness (memorial of Leaina)
23.8 Boy holding perirrhanterion; by sculptor Lykios
23.8 Perseus and Medusa; by sculptor Myron
23.10 Trojan horse
24.1 Athena, striking Marsyas
2A 2 Theseus and the Minotaur
pee: Phrixos, carried on the back of the ram
24.2 Herakles, fighting serpents
24.2 Athena, rising from Zeus’ head
242 Bull, dedicated by the Areopagus Council
24.3 Prokne and Itys; dedicated by Alkamenes
24.3 Athena, displaying olive, and Poseidon, displaying wave
25.1 Ino daughter of Inachos and Kallisto daughter of Lykaon; by sculptor
Deinomenes
2522. Attalos’ dedications: giants, Amazons, Persians, and Gauls
OES Two bronze warriors; called Erechtheus and Eumolpos
DF Boar hunt
7) Kyknos, fighting Herakles
27.8 Theseus and the rock
27:50 Theseus and the bull; dedicated by the Marathonians
28.2 Chariot; Boiotians and Chalcidians monument
1.5.4 Pandion

PORTRAIT STAT UESY INCLUDING ATHLUETIGVIGIORS

22.4 Horsemen [original horse and groom dedicated by Athenian cavalry
and hipparchs]
23.2-4 Dieitrephes
23.5 (eikones skipped)
23.11 Epicharinos, practicing the hoplitodromos race; by sculptor Kritios
ea Oinobios
23 12) Hermolykos the pankratiast
rw Phormion
24.3 Man wearing a helmet; by sculptor Kleoitas
2.4.3 Timotheos, son of Konon

206
 PAUSANIAS ON THE ATHENIAN ACROPOLIS (1;22,4=1.28.3)

24.3 Konon
24.7. Hadrian (only ezkon in Parthenon)
24.7. Iphikrates, at Parthenon entrance
25.1 Xanthippos
25.1 Anacreon of Teos
25.2 Olympiodoros
27.5 [Lysimache, priestess of Athena Polias]
27.5 Syeris; inscription calls her handmaid of Lysimache
27.6 Theainetos the soothsayer and Tolmides, on the same base
28.1 Kylon
28.2 Perikles son of Xanthippos (also mentioned at 25.1)
 APPENDI:

SCULPTORS’ SIGNATURES ON
Tite A G R N O 2 @
E l i s e D E D ] GAsELGiNS

Asterisks mark sculptors known from literary sources.

NAME OF SCULPTOR SIGNATURES (DAANO.)

*Antenor son of Eumares 197
*Apollodoros 146
*Archermos of Chios 3
*Bion son of Diodoros of Miletos ae¥
Diopeithes of Athens 106 and 279
Eleutheros 49b
*Endoios 7
*Euenor of Ephesos 12, 22, and 23; Acr. no. 13782
Euphron of Paros 298 and 304
Euthykles 58
“Gorgias 5, 65, 77> 78, and 147
*Hegias 94
Hermippos 81
*Kalamis 136
*Kalon of Aigina 85
*Kresilas of Kydonia 131b, 132, and 133
*Kritios 120, I21, 122, 123, 160, and 161
Leobios Pyretiades 88
*Lykios son of Myron of Eleutherai 135 and 138
*Mikon son of Phanomachos 139
*Nesiotes 84, 120, 121, 122, 123, 160, and 161
*Onatas of Aigina 236
Philergos 7
Philon son of Emporion 37, 381
*Pollias 149, 220, and 307
*Pyrrhos of Athens 166

208
 SCULPTORS’ SIGNATURES ON THE ACROPOLIS DEDICATIONS

Pythis 10, 90
*Strongylion 176
Thebades son of Kyrnos 290
Xenaios son of Arthmonides — 80
[Proth? or Euth?]ymos 278
—s of Chios Acr. no. 13639

209
APPENDIX 3

ACROPOLIS STATUES MATCHED

WITH INSCRIBED BASES

DAANO. DEDICATOR STATUE TYPE SCULPTOR

6 Alkimachos son of Chairion scribe
8 [Lys?]eas and Aris[tion] kore
10 Epiteles kore/Athena Pythis
B Kallimachos of Aphidna Nike
22: Angelitos Athena Euenor
45 Eupr- kore
48 Aischines kore
49 Simon the fuller kore Eleutheros
50 —s kore
56 Euthydikos son of Thaliarchos kore
59 Rhombos son of Palos Moschophoros
62 —108 kouros
197 Nearchos kerameus kore Antenor
290 Lyson kore Thebades
292 Lysias and Euarchis 2 korai
IGP 804a kouros

DAA NO.6 AND ACR. NO. 629 (MARBLE SCRIBE)

Raubitschek associated the inscribed column and Ionic capital DAA no. 6
with Acr. no. 629, the under-life-size seated figure of a scribe as shown in
Figure 59 (Raubitschek 1939-1940, 17-18, and Schuchhardt 1939, 207-209,
no. 309). I. Trianti has recently discovered joins between the head fragment Acr.
no. 306 (Schuchhardt 1939, 217, no. 326), the so-called Fauvel head (Louvre 2718),
and the scribe statue Acr. no. 629 (Trianti 1994 and 1998), as shown in Figure 58.
At the same time, Trianti has objected to Raubitschek’s join between DAA
no. 6 and Acr. no. 629 on the following grounds:

1. Raubitschek dated the inscribed base DAA no. 6 to ca. 527-514 B.C., but the
scribe statue Acr. no. 629 should be dated stylistically to ca. 510-500 B.c.

210
 Acropo_is Statues MATCHED WITH INSCRIBED BASES

2. Although the two parts of DAA no. 6 (column and Ionic capital) were both
found in the February 1886 Perserschutt deposit, the scribe statue Acr.
no. 629 was found elsewhere, near the southeast corner of the Acropolis.
3. The plinth cavity on top of DAA no. 6 is larger than necessary for the plinth
of the scribe statue Acr. no. 629.
4. The base DAA no. 6 is made of Parian marble, whereas the scribe statue Acr.
no. 629 is made of poorer quality Hymettian.

Each of these objections can be answered in its turn. Raubitschek’s date for
DAA no. 6 was based solely upon the hypothesis that Chairion died in exile before
the death of Peisistratos in 527 B.c., and that his son Alkimachos returned to Athens
and made his dedication before a second wave of aristocratic exiles in the aftermath
of the Peisistratid victory at the battle of Leipsydrion in 514. Even if we accept
the connection between Chairion’s death in exile and Alkimachos’ dedication of a
portrait of his father on the Acropolis, as I believe we should, there is no reason
why Alkimachos could not have made his dedication between ca. 510 and 480. The
inscription on the base is emphatically old style, but so is the Kallimachos dedication
of ca. 490-480 (DAA no. 13). Compare /G P 618 (ca. 520-5102) and Shapiro's (2001,
94) proposed date of ca. 520—sto for Acr. no. 629.
The objection that the base DAA no. 6 and the statue Acr. no. 629 were found
in different places and at different times in the Acropolis excavations is not enough
to draw the conclusion that they do not belong together. The same is true of
Kallimachos’ Nike and its base (DAA no. 13). Most of Antenor’s kore (Acr. no. 681)
and base DAA no. 197 were found in the February 1886 deposit, but the feet and
plinth were found elsewhere on the Acropolis.
Because both the plinth cavity on top of DAA no. 6 and the plinth of the
scribe Acr. no. 629 are broken and restored at the front — the scribe’s feet are
entirely restored, as we can see in Raubitschek’s drawing made before the restoration
(Fig. 59) — we cannot be sure of their precise original dimensions. For that reason,
the objecti on that the plinth cavity is too long for the statue is a matter open to
interpretation. Even the discre pancy of approx imatel y 7 cm betwee n the length
of the plinth cavity and the length of the plinth that Trianti posits is not out of
bounds when we consider that this means that approx imatel y 3.5 cm were left for
lead soldering at the both the front and the back of the plinth. The space around
the kore feet and plinth Acr. no. 419 joined with the uninscr ibed pillar base Acr.
no. 13293 is comparably large, and in this case the join betwee n the two is certain
because the original lead soldering survive s (Raubi tschek 1939-19 40, 27 and Figs.
24 and 25, and Kissas 2000, no. B1o4). Convers ely, the plinth cavity on top of DAA
no. 6 seems not long and narrow enough for a small marble horse, the alterna tive
to the scribe Ac r. no . 62 9 pr op os ed by Tr ia nt i.
HuMAN IDENTITIES

Trianti herself has suggested that th e fe et an d pl in th of a Hy me tt ia n ma rb le

kore (Acr. no. 464) matched with the Pentel ic ma rb le pi ll ar ba se DA A no . 29 0 co ul d
come from the same sculptural wo rk sh op as th e sc ri be Ac r. no . 62 9. In th is ca se ,
there is no doubt of the join betw ee n st at ue an d ba se be ca us e th e br ea ka ge of th e
pillar capi ta l li ne s up ex ac tl y wi th th at of th e ko re ’s pl in th (R au bi ts ch ek 19 39 -1 94 0,
20-22 and Kissas 2000, no . B7 9 an d Fi g. 16 1) . Ki ss as (2 00 0, 29 8, no . 42 9) ci te s
further examples of Arch ai c st at ue s an d ba se s ma de of di ff er en t ma rb le s fr om th e
Acropolis.
There are oth er puz zli ng thi ngs abo ut the scr ibe Acr . no: 629 bey ond the use of
relatively poor-quality marble. Part of the upper left arm of the scribe was attached
separately, apparently as the result of either a miscalculation or a mistake in carving.
In addition, the top of the head (Acr. no. 306) was carved separately and attached
at the time of manufacture, as evidenced by the treatment of both of the head
fragments joined to the statue by Trianti. Given the scribe’s small size, one wonders
why the sculptor chose to carve it from a block of Hymettian marble that proved
to be not quite big enough; then again, this statue should probably be seen as an
experiment with a new and unprecedented Archaic statue type. The two smaller
scribes from the Acropolis (Acr. nos. 144 and 146) are also made of Hymettian
marble and may well have been made by the same sculptor as Trianti suggests.
The scribe Acr. no. 629 originally held a writing tablet balanced on his left thigh
(as shown by the dowel holes and roughened surface for the attachment of the lost
tablet), and his right hand held a metal stylus in its fist. The neck and shoulders are
hunched; Trianti’s reconstruction of the statue with the Fauvel head in the Louvre
reveals that the head was bent downward and slightly to the viewer's right to allow
the figure to look at his tablet. Because the base DAA no. 6 is an Ionic column and
capital that elevated the figure high above the ground, the gaze of the statue was
also directed downward at the viewer.
The two-line dedicatory inscription of DAA no. 6 was carved vertically and
retrograde (each line reading from right to left instead of from left to right) down
two flutes of the column. The position of the Ionic capital, with one of its volutes
hanging over the top ofthe inscription, is fixed by the join between the rectangular
tenon at the top of the column with a rectangular mortise in the bottom of the
capital. The inscription was not centered under the volute, but instead displaced
toward the viewer's right (as is shown clearly by Fig. 58). What this means is that
the ideal viewpoint for the newly reconstructed scribe statue, Acr. no. 629, lines up
with the inscription on the column: while reading the inscription, the viewer would
be standing to the right ofafrontal view, where he or she would see the statue’s face
most clearly. The pronounced asymmetry ofthe scribe Acr. no. 629 remarked upon
by Trianti thus finds some justification if this statue belongs with DAA no. 6.

212
 Acropouis StTaTUES MATCHED WITH INSCRIBED BASES

DAA NO. 197 AND ANTENOR’S KORE (ACR. NO. 681)

The over-life-size kore, Acr. no. 681 (Langlotz 1939, 80-85, no. 38), and the type
A pillar capital, DAA no. 197, were discovered together with 13 other korai and at
least 3 other bases in the February 1886 Perserschutt deposit. The plinth and feet,
heavily damaged, were found separately.
The match between statue, base, and plinth was first suggested by F. Studniczka
(1887b, 135-137 and Fig. 13). Studniczka’s reconstruction was challenged immediately
by E. A. Gardner, in “Archaeology in Greece, 1888-89,” JHS 10 (1889): 278-280,
who noticed that when the plinth of the kore Acr. no. 681 is set into the plinth
cavity so that a hole cut in the bottom of the plinth lines up with the narrowest part
of the channel for lead within the plinth cavity, there is no longer enough room to
restore the toes of the statue’s left foot. Gardner also objected to the fit between the
foot plinth and the plinth cavity: even if the plinth were set farther back than where
Studnizcka placed it to allow more room for the toes, the feet seemed to Gardner
to be too large for the plinth cavity on top of DAA no. 197.
Gardner's first point was answered by R. Heberdey, in “Zur Statue des Antenor,”
AM 1s (1890): 126-132, who explained the hole cut into the bottom of the plinth of
Acr. no. 681. A channel was cut all the way through the pillar capital DAA no. 197
to receive lead soldering. The plinth would then have been set into the plinth cavity
after the lead had been poured through the channel, whereupon more lead was
poured around the edges of the plinth to hold it in place. Heberdey demonstrated
that, if ashort metal rod were inserted into the hole in the bottom of the plinth,
the rod could have been fitted into the pour channel before the lead soldering had
solidified, thereby increasing the stability of the join between the plinth and the
capital. Heberdey’s explanation allows room for the kore’s toes to be restored.
Kissas (2000, no. B45) classifies the join between the plinth and DAA no. 197
as uncertain. Payne (Payne and Mackworth-Young 1950, 31-32, no. 2) inexplicably
thought that the plinth was too small for the plinth cavity. The restoration of the
plinth currently on view in the Acropolis Museum is deceptive, in that it makes it
difficult to see just how much has been restored. Even if we reject the connection
with the kore Acr. no. 681, the plinth cavity is so large that the base must have
supported another over-life-size kore, and only two others of comparable size have
been found on the Acropolis (Acr. nos. 594 and 1360). The truly unusual feature of
the pillar capital DAA no. 197 is how little space was left around the plinth cavity
for the statue, a possible indication that the craftsman who made the base had to
enlarge the plinth cavity after the base had already been made when he realized just
how big the statue’s plinth was going to be. Any seeming incongruity between the
scale of the kore Acr. no. 681 and the base DAA no. 197 could thus be the result of
a miscalculation.
HuMAN IDENTITIES
SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCES
DAA no. 8 and kore: Langlotz 1939, 183-184,
no. 297; Raubitschek 1939-1940, 174; Kissas
2000, no. B176.
DAA no. 10 and kore/Athena, Acr. no. 136:
Langlotz 1939, no. 271; Raubitschek 1939—
1940, 22~24; Brouskari 1974, 102; Kissas
2000, no. B177. Compare Payne (Payne and
Mackworth-Young 1950, pls. 43-44, Figs. 1-
4), who associated the nonjoining leg frag-
ment Acr. no. 453 with the feet, a join now
ruled out.
DAA no. 13 and marble Nike, Acr. no. 690: A. E.
Raubitschek, “Iwo monuments erected af-
ter the victory of Marathon,” AJA 44 (1940):
53-59; M. Korres, “Recent discoveries on
the Acropolis,” in Acropolis Restoration, The
CCAM Interventions (London 1994), 174-
179; Kissas 2000, no. Bis4.
DAA no. 22 and Angelitos’ Athena (Acr.
no. 140): Langlotz 1939, 48-49, no. 5;
Raubitschek 1939-1940, 31-36; Kissas 2000,
no. B172.
DAA no. 45 and kore foot plinth, Acr. no.
425: Langlotz 1939, 177, no. 275; Raub-
itschek 1939-1940, 28; Kissas 2000, no.
Brgo.
DAA no. 48 and kore foot plinth, Acr. no. 456:
Raubitschek 1939-1940, 27; Kissas 2000,
no. B157.
DAA no. 49 and kore foot plinth, Acr. no. 429:
Raubitschek 1939-1940, 25—26; Kissas 2000,
no. B16o.
214
DAA no. 50 and kore foot plinth, Acr. no. 4843:
Raubitschek 1939-1940, 26-27; Kissas 2000,
no. Bis8.
DAA no. 56 and Euthydikos’ kore (Acr. no. 686):
Langlotz 1939, 77-80, no. 37; Kissas 2000,
no. B163.
DAA no. 59 and Moschophoros (Act. no. 624):
Schuchhardt 1939, 278-281, no. 409; Kissas
2000, no. B4.
DAA no. 62 and kouros foot plinth, Acr.
no. 596: Richter 1970, 120, no. 137; Kissas
2000, no. Bs.
DAA no. 290 and kore foot plinth, Acr. no.
464: Raubitschek 1939-1940, 20-22; Kissas
2000, no. B79. The nonjoining torso and
head (Acr. no. 612) Raubitschek associated
with the feet may or may not belong.
DAA no. 292 and the “Red Shoes” kore (Act.
no. 683): Langlotz 1939, 52-53, no. 9;
Raubitschek 1939-1940, 24—25; Kissas 2000,
no. B81. The join between the kore Acr. no.
683 and the right-hand socket is confirmed
by the preserved lead soldering, which fits
the plinth and cutting exactly.
IGI?> 804a and kouros foot plinth: A fragmen-
tary poros foot plinth still attached to its
base was discovered south of the Parthenon
in 1974. The discovery is mentioned briefly
by G. Dontas in ADel/t 29 (1974): 27 and in
SEG XXIX.44. The only information avail-
able about the feet is that they seem to be-
long to a kouros.

Abbreviations follow the format prescribed in American Journal ofArchaeology 104 (2000) 10-24. Where
no abbreviation is listed there or where greater clarity is desired, the full title is given.
CHAPTERS Ls LAL WES AS /GIF ES LOR
THES GODS
1 Van Straten (1992, 248) specifically empha-
sizes the prefix avo- as a reference to the ten-
dency to place votives in positions lifted off
the ground, whether on statue bases or hang-
ing from temple walls. Lazzarini (1989-1990,
845-46) stresses the distinction between “hori-
zontal” human gift exchange and the vertical
links between humans and the gods.
For evidence of the earliest votive offerings at
Olympia and Delphi, see Morgan 1990, 30-47
(Olympia) and 137-46 (Delphi).
ww On the origins of both anathemataand temple
buildings, see Snodgrass 1980, 52-65.
For Geometric period bronze tripods on the
Acropolis, see E. Touloupa, “Early bronze
sheets with figured scenes from the Acro-
polis,” in Buitron-Oliver 1991, 236-44, and
K. T. Glowacki, “The Acropolis of Athens
before 566 B.c.,” in Hartswick and Sturgeon
1998, 79-88. Ten uninscribed triangular poros
limestone supports for bronze tripods, seven
of which were found built into the post-480
Acropolis fortifications, might belong to these
tripods; see G. P. Stevens, “The Poros tripods
of the Acropolis of Athens,” in Studies Pre-
sented to David Moore Robinson on his Seventi-
eth Birthday, \ (St. Louis 1951), 331-35.
5 For the Olympia tripod series, see Morgan
1990, 43-47. For dedications of tripods and
bronze bowls during the first half of the
sixth century at the Samian Heraion, see
Kienast 1992, 193-98 and P. Brize, “Archaische
Bronzevotive aus dem Heraion von Samos,”
ScAnt 3—4 (1989-1990) 319-20.
6 Lazzarini 1989-1990, 849-50.
7 Pulleyn 1997, 40-41 and 59-63.
8 Burkert 1985, 68-69.
NOTES
9 These are DAA nos. 6, 44, 48, 133, 147, 148,
; Aly PO), Pits, DIG WON, NBIOn, Mplie,OgViky De ldp, 2/7ie
248, 278, and 283.
10 These totals do not include exempli gratia
restorations by Raubitschek in DAA or exam-
ples in which only the ending -nv, which could
belong either to aparchen or dekaten in the ac-
cusative, has been preserved (e.g., DAA nos.
98, 211, 256, and 347).
_ The 20 complete statue base inscriptions with-
out reference to a vow, aparche, or dekate are
the following: DAA nos. 3, 24, 40, 42, 43, 53,
56, 71, 81, 84, ITO—I12, 121, 176, 178, 220, 258,
294, and 311. The 37 completely preserved ded-
icatory inscriptions include those in which a
small number ofletters is needed to complete
a text that can be restored with certainty: these
are DAA nos. 3, 6, 10, 24, 25, 28, 33, 40—44,
48, 53, 56, 71, 81, 84, 88, 94, IIO—112, 114, 121,
132, 176, 178, I91, 220, 233, 236, 246, 258, 292,
294, and 311.
Compare DAA, 429-31.
3 For a concise description of the aparche in the
tribute lists, see WZ no. 39. For a general treat-
ment of aparche in epigraphy and literature,
see Lazzarini 1976, 87—90.
See W. K. Pritchett, Ancient Greek Military
Practices, Part I (University of California Pub-
lications in Classical Studies 7) (Berkeley/Los
Angeles 1971), 54-55 and 93-100; Lazzarini
1976, 90-93; and Burkert 1985, 69-70.
Pausanias 1.28.2 calls Pheidias’ colossal bronze
Athena statue on the Acropolis a dedica-
tion made from the dekate of the Marathon
spoils.
15 See Hdt. 9.81; Paus. 10.13.9; LSAG” 104, no. 153
ML no. 27.
16 Exceptions: Lazzarini 1976, nos. 643 and
692, and Lazzarini 1989-1990, 847-48. The
215
NorTeEs To PaGEs 7-12
words aparche (12 examples) and dekate
(10 examples) were also inscribed on some
of the small bronze statuettes and vessels
found on the Acropolis (Jnscriptiones Graecae
B nos. 526—583ff), some of which were perhaps
attached to stone bases and displayed in
the open air rather than stored on temple
shelves. Aparche continued to be inscribed
on Acropolis statue dedications in the fourth
century.
uy Holl oway (199 2) char acte rize s the apar che as a
type of dedication not made by aristocrats, but
he leaves Hermolykos off his list of Acropolis
dedicators of aparchat. The 34 statue dedica-
tions in which some form of the term aparche
was inscribed are the following: DAA nos. 10,
28, 29, 4I, 50, 52, 69, 91, 94, 114, 117, 128, 132,
Ti L7G WOO; OP, US), DIO, 2, WG, Mit, 27e
229, 232, 240, 242, 245, 278, 284 (dedication
called argmata or apargmata), 290-292, and
IG P 830bis.
18 These are the following: DAA nos. 25, 33, 44,
48, 49, 105, 107, 123, 133, 140, 147, 148, 180, 184,
186, 188, 191, 200, 224, 231, 233, 234, 238, 246,
283, 292, 307, 313, and 314. Other types ofded-
ications were also inscribed as dekatatz: DAA
nos. 360, 365, 373, and 380 (marble basins);
DAA nos. 70 (the Acropolis Potter relief), 299
(votive relief dedicated by Lysippo), 298 (a pil-
lar support for a lost marble relief dedicated
by Mikythe), and 320 (base for a lost bronze
tripod). DAA no. 376 is a fragmentary dedi-
catory inscription not certainly belonging to
a statue, relief, or bronze tripod base.
Compare DAA no. 229, an aparche dedi-
cated by [Nau]lochos after a catch, and Paus.
10.9.3—4.
20 Compare Lazzarini (1976, 89), who maintains
that the two terms had become interchange-
able and essentially generic by the end of the
sixth century.
ph = Lazzarini 1976, 95-98 and 1989-1990, 849;
and A. A. Donohue, Xoana and the Origins
ofGreek Sculpture (APA Classical Studies 15)
(Atlanta 1988), 25-27. Homeric uses of agal-
mata to mean votive gifts: Odyssey 3.273-74,
3.438, 8.509, and 12.347.
22 Votive statues as KOouOos: van Straten 1992,
268-69. Compare Isaeus 5.42: Dikaiogenes
ancestors “adorned the sanctuary [the Acrop-
olis] with bronze and marble agalmata.”
23 Rou se 190 2, 327-28.
216
24 Statue base inscriptions with agalma: DAA
nos. 6, 40, 48, 64, 148, 155, 195, 197, 234, and
290, and JG II? nos. 4318 (= CEG2z no. 759)
and 4319 (= CEG2 no. 760).
25 Par ker 199 6, 71.
26 Burkert (1985, 92—95) concentrates on phys-
ical remains of sacrifice. For dedications of
found objects in the Samian Heraion, see
H. Kyrieleis, “Offerings of ‘the common man’
in the Heraion at Samos,” in Hagg, Marinatos,
and Nordquist 1988, 215-21. C. G. Simon,
in The Archaic Votive Offerings and Cults of
Tonia (Diss. University of California, Berkeley
1986), 368-72, acknowledges the difficulty of
dealing with votive statues statistically.
27 A. M. Snodgras s, “The economi cs of dedica-
tion at Greek sanctuaries,” ScAnt 3-4 (1989—
1990) 287-94. Compare Rouse'’s (1902, 352—
57) distinction between “material” offerings
given for their intrinsic value and “ideal” of-
ferings (including statues) given for their sym-
bolism.
28 E. Walter-Karydi, “Die Entstehung der
griechischen Statuenbasis,” AntK 23 (1980)
Bie
29 For early inscriptions on anathemata, see B. B.
Powell, Homer and the Origins ofthe Greek Al-
phabet (Cambridge 1991), 145-46 and 167-71.
30 For Archaic statues with body inscriptions,
see Jacob-Felsch 1969, 21-22, no. 75; Freyer-
Schauenburg 1974, 71-72; and Ridgway 1993,
101-02 and 430-32. At Olympia, fifth-century
and later statue bases were inscribed on the
top of the base, with the inscription running
around the statue’s feet; see, e.g., Ebert 1972,
65, no. 14.
ww— As noted by L. H. Jeffery (LSAG* 73) and
Ridgway (1993, 70 and no. 3.24). The excep-
tions to the rule are the Sounion kouroi, at
least one of which was inscribed with a ded-
ication on the left thigh; one of the Archaic
kouroi from the Ptodn in Boeotia is similarly
inscribed.
wwN For further plans and descriptions of these cut-
tings, see Stevens 1936; G. P. Stevens, “Archi-
tectural studies concerning the Acropolis of
Athens,” Hesperia 15 (1946) 73-106; Stevens
1946; I. T. Hill, The Ancient City ofAthens,
Its Topography and Monuments (London 1953),
179-89; J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of.An-
cient Athens (New York 1971), Figure 169 (area
between Propylaia and Artemis Brauronia

sanctuary); and Hurwit 1999, 51 and Fig: 37;
189-90 and Figs. 163 and 169. M. Korres
(2000, 301) has recently established that Kalli-
machos’ Nike (DAA no. 13) and the four-horse
chariot group dedicated by Pronapes (DAA
no. 174) both stood near the northeast corner
of the Parthenon. M. Lee, in “The findspots
of the korai from the Acropolis at Athens,”
AJA 100 (1996) 395, reports preliminary con-
clusions regarding the original location of
kore statues from their findspots north of the
Erechtheion.
3 we See esp. B. S. Ridgway, “The setting of Greek
sculpture,” Hesperia 40 (1971) 336-56; Barber
1990; and Kissas 2000, 31-36.
34 See , e.g. , Sokolowski 1969, no. 65 (Andania)
and Sokolowski 1955, no. 74 (Loryma); for
discussion, see van Straten 1992, 271-72 and
285-86.
35 Com par e Niemeyer 1964, 14-15; C. W.
Clairmont, “Gravestone and epigram,” AA
(1974) 222; R. M. Ammermann, “ZTYAI-
TAI in Magna Graecia: a coroplastic contribu-
tion to the history of columnar statue bases,”
RdA 11 (1987) 25-33; and Kissas 2000, 34 and
no. 199. DAA no. 40, a fully preserved column
base without capital for a small bronze
Athena statuette, stands 1.175m_ tall (Kissas
2000, no. B186). Compare column base DAA
no. 10, incomplete but preserved to a height
of 1.863 m (Kissas 2000, no. B177). DAA
no. 258, a small pillar base for a bronze or mar-
ble statuette, stood a little over 1.20 m tall; see
O. Broneer, “Excavations on the North Slope
of the Acropolis in Athens, 1931-1932,” Hespe-
rid 2 (1933) 372-73, no. 1 and Figure 48, and
Kissas 2000, no. Bios.
36 Ionic column bases inscribed under the
narrow end of the capital: Kissas 2000,
23-25. Bases for equestrian statues inscribed
on the narrow end and lined up: Siedentopf
1968, 34—51. It seems unsafe, pace E. Walter-
Karydi, Die Aginetische Bildhauerschule, Werke
und schrifiliche Quellen (Alt-Agina 11.2)
(Munich 1987), 22, to assume that all bases for
quadrupeds inscribed on the narrow end rep-
resented horses with riders rather than rider-
less horses, bulls, or cows. The colossal bronze
Trojan horse, DAA no. 176, was inscribed
on its narrow end; the “Persian rider,” Acr.
no. 606, is more carefully worked on its right
side than its left, indi cati ng that it migh t
NorTes To PaGEs 12-14
have been meant to be viewed from the
right side rather than the front (Eaverly 1995,
100-06, no. 9). Not all dedications of
quadruped statues on the Acropolis were in-
scribed on the narrow end: cf. DAA nos. 210
(statue dedicated by Tychandros), 211, and 196.
37 Ko re Ac r. no. 675: Richter 1968, no. 123,
Figs. 394-97. Kore Acr. no. 696: Langlotz
1939, no. 20, Figs. 22-25 and pl. 29. North
Slope rider: Eaverly 1995, 95-96, no. 7; cf.
Télle-Kastenbein 1992, 138, who interprets the
unworked back of Acr. no. 675 as a sign of
inferior quality.
Direction of reading for vertical inscriptions:
FE Cairns, “A herm from Histiaia with an
agonistic epigram of the fifth century B.c.,”
Phoenix 37 (1983) 16-37. Raubitschek (DAA
444), following A. Wilhelm, Beitrdge zur
griechischen Inschrifienkunde (Vienna 1909),
30-33, suggested that retrograde inscriptions
on Acropolis statue bases (DAA nos. 1, 4, 5,
6, 31, 59, 201, 223, 261, and 290) might also
be a response to their placement along path-
ways, as seems to be the case for the retrograde
inscriptions on the Geneleos group from the
Samian Heraion.
wy For indoor votive statues, see, e.g., Kissas
2000, no. Bar (temple of Apollo Zoster in
Attica), and Brulotte 1994, 345-49 (temple of
Artemis at Brauron) and 241-53 (temple of
Artemis Orthia at Messene).
40 Eckstein (1969, 85-89) believes that the stat-
ues displayed inside the temple of Hera were
moved there in the first century B.c.; for stat-
ues inside the temple of Zeus, see Eckstein
1969, 67—70 and 124, no. I.
4= Kissas 2000, 36. Cuttings for bronze statues on
the stylobate of the temple of Hera at Olympia
might be early (Eckstein 1969, 94-96 and
pl. 4), but those on the stylobate of the temple
of Zeus could date as late as the third century
A.c. (Eckstein 1969, 82-84 and pl. 3).
& N See, e.g., Eckstein 1969, 52-53 (Olympia
and Delphi); FE Chamoux, “La _ génisse
d’Herculanum, un aspect de la sculpture ant-
maliére chez les Grecs,” MonPiot 72 (1991)
29; and possibly the Marathonian bull ded-
ication on the Acropolis (Paus. 1.27.9—10 and
Shapiro 1988). The four bronze cows dedicated
to Demeter Chthonia at Hermione (bases
published by Jameson 1953, 148-54, nos. 1-4)
might have been pointed toward an altar like
NorTes TO PAGES 14-22
those in an epigram by Propertius (Overbeck
1868, no. 592).
43 For rep res ent ati ons of sta tue s in vas e pai nt-
ings, see most recently de Cesare 1997. Alroth
(1992) and Romano (1980, 7-9) use them as
evidence for cult statues.
44 Pausanias (1.23.8) mentions statues by Lykios
and his father Myron together, a possible ex-
ample of grouping according to sculptors’
signatures.
45 M. Rom ano , in “L epig rafe aten iese a Phay llos
UG PL, 2, 823),” ZPE 123 (1998) 105-16, calls at-
tention to this group, but his addition of DAA
no. 76 to the group and his interpretation of
it as an honorific portrait are speculative.
Ridgway 1998; cf. T. Hélscher, “Die Aufstel-
lung des Perikles-Bildnisses und ihre Bedeu-
tung,” in Fittschen 1988, 377-91, who specu-
lates that Perikles’ and Xanthippos’ Acropolis
portraits were intentionally separated.
47 One fifth-century example of a portrait
grouped intentionally with a statue of a god
is the statue of Aristeas of Proconnesos next
to an Apollo in the agora of Metapontum
(Hdt. 4.15).
4 co Wycherley 1957, no. 711.
49 Wycherley 1957, no. 29.
50 Wycherley 1957, no. 712.
> Prohibitions
oad against setting up statues near the
Tyrannicides: Wycherley 1957, nos. 278 and
279. Antigonos and Demetrios: Wycherley
1957, no. 264. Brutus and Cassius: Wycherley
1957, no. 262.
§2 See Paus. 10.9.1-10.4; J. Pouilloux and G.
Roux, Enigmes a Delphes (Paris 1963), 16—36
and 55—6o; T. Hélscher, “Die Nike der Messe-
nier und Naupaktier in Olympia: Kunst und
Geschichte im spiiten 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.,”
Jal 89 (1974) 77-84; Barber 1990, 250-51;
Stewart 1990, 89-92; J.-K Bommelaer, Guide
de Delphes, le site (Paris 1991), 103-17 and
pl. 5; loakimidou 1997, 226-42 and 281-341;
Habicht 1998, xv and 71-77; and Jacquemin
1999, 258-59.
5 aw See Raubitschek 1968, 21. For a similar argu-
ment, see S. Goldhill and R. Osborne, “In-
troduction: programmatics and polemics,” in
Goldhill and Osborne 1994, 4.
54 In general, seeJ.M. Hurwit, “The words in the
image: orality, literacy, and early Greek art,”
Wo and
rIma
dge 6 (1990) 180. Disjunctive rep-
resentation in Mesopotamian votive figurines:
218
Postgate 1994; on the stele of the Akkadian
king Naram-Sin: I. J. Winter, “After the battle
is over: the stele of the vultures and the be-
ginning of historical narrative in the art of the
Ancient Near East,” in H. L. Kessler and M. S.
Simpson, eds. Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity
and the Middle Ages (Studies in the History of
Art 16) (Washington 1986) 11-32.
5 s P.O . Har per , J. Aru z, and F. Tal lon , eds . The
Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Trea-
sures in the Louvre (New York 1992) 132-35,
no. 83.
56 For further examples, see Schweitzer 1963, 123—
27 and Burzachechi 1962, 47-54.
57 Inscription: Lazzarini 1976, no. 952 and
Burzachechi 1962, 15-17; statue (BM no.
B278): Tuchelt 1970, no. K47.
58 Dedicatory inscription on the Geneleos
group: Lazzarini 1976, no. 166.
59 The inscription reportedly read “Hermesianax
dedicated us, he the son of Ainideos (?), to
Apollo” (Lazzarini 1976, no. 168, where the
statue is erroneously called female; LSAG*
332, no. 24; and Tuchelt 1970, 82 and 119-20,
no. Kso).
For the term, see Burzachechi 1962.
_ For this statistic, see Lazzarini 1976.
née For lists of exceptions, see J.-M. Moret, “Un
ancétre du phylactére: le pilier inscrit des vases
italiotes,” RA (1979) 16, no. 46. To these may
be added Lazzarini 1976, no. 893; an early fifth-
century base from Neandria called an Apollo
(Hermary 1994, 23-24); and the inscription
on a statue of Pan dedicated by Miltiades, if
it is authentic (Page 1981, 194-95). Herms in-
scribed with references to Hermes in the nom-
inative or accusative case: Lazzarini 1976, nos.
871, 872, 874, and 875.
6 aw Mummius was criticized for removing a
statue of Poseidon from Isthmia and reded-
icating it as a representation of Zeus at
Olympia by Favorinus (Dio Chrysostom
37.42); according to the same source, he also
mistook a statue of Philip Il of Macedon from
Thespiae for Zeus. For discussion, see Kinney
1997, 136-37.
CHAPTER 2: VOTIVE STATUE
I NSCRIPTIONS
1 For text and commentary, see I. C. Cunning-
ham, Herodas, Miniambi (Oxford 1971).
2 See Day 1994, 39-43.

3 Fo r thi s aspect of votive offerings, see esp.
Parke 1984 and Kyrieleis 1996, 27-29. On
Herodotus, see H. I. Flower, “Herodotus
and Delphic traditions about Croesus,” in
Flower and Toher 1991, 66-70; and J. Gould,
“Give and take in Herodotus,” in Myth, Rit-
ual, Memory, and Exchange. Essays in Greek
Literature and Culture (Oxford 2001), 283-303;
on Pausanias, see Elsner 1996.
aN See, e.g., Il. 7.75-90 and Od. 11.75—78 (tomb
of Elpenor); for further examples, see J. Ober,
“Greek horoi: artefactual texts and the contin-
gency of meaning,” in Small 1995, 96. For the
use of Homeric-style columns as tomb mark-
ers, both inscribed and uninscribed, see P. A.
Hansen, “An Olympic victor by the name of
‘-kles,’ an Archaic Attic funerary inscription,”
Kadmos 13 (1974) 156-63; E. P. McGowan,
“Tomb marker and turning post: funerary
columns in the Archaic period,” AJA 99 (1995)
615-32 and Kissas 2000, 21-23.
For mnemata as reminders, whether inscribed
or not, see C. W. Hedrick, Jr., “Thucydides
and the beginnings of archaeology,” in Small
1995, 55-61. For the theme of monuments’
inadequacy to preserve memory, see the ex-
amples discussed by Mossman 1991, 101—-
02.
See Stoddart and Whitley 1988,.764-65. A
more detailed case for ancient reading of vo-
tive inscriptions will be made by J. Day in a
forthcoming book.
Compare Stoddart and Whitley (1988, 764),
whose figures only go down through 480 B.c.
and are too low, a fact that actually strength-
ens their point that the Athenians relied much
more heavily upon written texts than other
Greek poleis.
co Stoddart and Whitley 1988, 765-66.
Rosalind Thomas, “Literacy and the city state
in Archaic and Classical Greece,” in A. K.
Bo wm an an d G. Wo ol f, eds . Li te ra cy an d
Power in the An ci en t Wo rl d (C am br id ge 19 94 ),
40-43.
See A. P. Matthaiou, “Néos Af8os tou pvn-
yefou pe Ta et iy pa up at a yi a To us TT ep -
aikous troAguous,” Horos 6 (1988) 118-22.
H= For su bs eq ue nt fi ft h- ce nt ur y ca su al ty li st s,
see IG P no s. 11 42 —1 19 3b is . Fo r sp ec ul at io n
on the appe ar an ce of fi ft h- ce nt ur y At he ni an
monuments fo r th e wa r de ad (p ol ya nd ri a) , se e
R. Stup pe ri ch , “T he ic on og ra ph y of At he ni an
Nores To PaGEs 23-26
state burials in the Classical period,” in
Coulson 1994, 93-103.
12 For statues, see Kinney 1997; for inscriptions
of the Roman period, see H. I. Flower, “Re-
thinking ‘Damnatio Memoriae’: the case of
Cn. Calpurnius Piso Pater in AD 20,” CA 17
(1998) 155-85.
B Damnatio memoriae in Archaic Athens:
Keesling 1999, 512-18. For restrictions on
name display in Sparta, see Plut. Lycurgus 27.2
and J. W. Day, “Rituals in stone: early Greek
grave epigrams and monuments,” /HS 109
(1989) 17.
14 Thucydides 1.132.2 and Page 1981, 216-17; the
erased epigram includes the formula mnema.
For the inscription of the names of the Greek
cities who fought the Persians on the Ser-
pent Column, see MZ no. 27. For a more
general discussion of offending dedicatory in-
scriptions, see Steiner 1994, 78-80. For further
examples of the inappropriate reinscription
of preexisting dedications, see Demosthenes
22.72-73; Cicero Atticus V1.1.26; and Bowie
1996, 223-25.
Compare L. Mummius’ dedications in Greek
sanctuaries, most of which consist of new ded-
icatory inscriptions added to preexisting vo-
tive monuments: some scholars have argued
that these rededications contributed toward
a favorable Greek view of Mummius; see M.
Guarducci, “Le offerte dei conquistadori ro-
mani ai santuari della Grecia,” RendPontAcc
13 (1937) 54-58; H. Philipp and W. Koenigs,
“Zu den Basen des L. Mummius in Olympia,”
AM 97 (1979) 193-216; Ridgway 1984, 17; and
Kinney 1997, 136-37.
For the Eion herms, see Harrison 1965, 110—
17; C. W. Clairmont, Patrios Nomos (Oxford
1983), 149-54; and Osborne 1985, 58—64. For
the epigrams, see Page 1981, 255-59.
Kimon and the other generals’ demand for
honors would be normal in the fourth century,
but seems anachronistic in the 470s (Gauthier
1985, 120-24).
Compare Pausanias (10.15.4—5), who saw the
damage and repeats the same story but
doubts its veracity. For discussions of this
and other omens involving votive statues,
see Parke 1984, 215 and Mossman 1991, 112—
14.
19 See esp. Osborne 1985. Some of the Athe-
nian herms were public dedications by the
219
Nores TO PAGES 26-33
demos, such as the three set up to commemo-
rate Kimon’s victory at Eion; others were ded-
icated by subsets of the demos (e.g., tribes, as
in Andocides 1.62) and by private individuals.
20 Pausanias as historian: Habicht 1998, 95-
116 and Bowie 1996. Pausanias as pilgrim:
J. Elsner, Art and the Roman Viewer. The Trans-
formation ofArt from the Pagan World to Chris-
tianity (Cambridge 1995), 125-55. Pausanias
as travel writer: J. Elsner, “From the pyra-
mids to Pausanias and Piglet. Monuments,
travel and writing,” in Goldhill and Osborne
1994, 224-54. Pausanias as historian of art:
R. E. Wycherley, “Pausanias and Praxiteles,” in
Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and
Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson
(Hesperia Supplement 20) (Princeton 1982),
182-91; Arafat 1992; and U. Kreilinger, “Te
&€iodAoywotata to TMavoaviou, die Kunst-
auswahlkriterien des Pausanias,” Hermes 125
(1997) 470-491. Pausanias as ethnographer:
S. E. Alcock, “Landscapes of memory and the
authority of Pausanias,” in Pausanias historien
(Entretiens Fondation Hardt XLI) (Geneva
1996), 241-76. Pausanias as reader of inscrip-
tions: Habicht 1984; Habicht 1998, xv and 64—
94; and H. Whittaker, “Pausanias and his use
ofinscriptions,” SymbOslo 66 (1991) 171-86.
2I Statements of themes: Paus. 10.9.1 and Arafat
1992, 389.
22 But cf. Ridgway’s (1984, 50-59) doubts, largely
justified, about associations based only upon
Kopienkritik.
23 Pausanias 1.26.4: KaOtevev éotiv “ASnvas
Syadya, éttfypauua eyov, as KaAAfas ptv
avadetn, troijoeie SE “Evdoios. The word-
ing may very closely echo that of the inscrip-
tion; cf. the fragmentary sculptor’s signature
on DAA no. 291, which reads Etrénoe dt... . ”
For Acr. no. 625, see Viviers 1992, 62—67, 162—
69, and Figs. 38-39.
24 See esp. Plut. de Pyth. or. 395A.
25 In his second book on Olympia, Pausanias
(6.20.14) quotes the inscription on another
statue in Athens signed by Kleoitas.
26 Habicht (1984, 55-56) cites at least 32 matches
between extant inscribed bases and the 203
victor statues Pausanias mentions at Olympia.
An illustration of the difference in formula
between the Olympia inscriptions and ath-
letic victor statues dedicated on the Acropolis
are two statues dedicated by the same victor,
PPX®)
Kallias son of Di dy mi as . D A A no . 16 4 re ad s
“Kallias D[idymiou] dedicated,” followed by
a list of his victories; his base at Olympia
U G PB 14 73 ) re ad s: “K al li as Di dy mi ou
Athenaios, pankration.” Day (1994, 63-71)
and Steiner (1994, 93-94) see echoes of official
victory proclamations in the Olympia statue
base inscriptions.
27 Pa us an ia s me nt io n of a sta tue rep res ent ing
Lysimache herself seems to have slipped out
of his text in a lacuna.
28 For further discussion and illustration of the
Attic alphabet and its characteristic features,
see Lang 1990, 10-18.
29 For stud ies tou chi ng upo n the aest heti cs of
sixth- and fifth-century Athenian inscrip-
tions, see P. Jacobsthal, “Zur Kunstgeschichte
der griechischen Inschriften,” in XAprtes.
Friedrich Leo zum sechzigsten Geburtstag darge-
bracht (Berlin 1911), 453-65; R. Harder,
“Rottenschrift,” in W. Marg, ed. Kleine
Schriften (Munich 1960), 98-124; K. Herbert,
“The inscription as an art form in the mixed
genre of the grave stele: an example in New
York,” in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on
his Eightieth Birthday (Durham, N. C., 1984),
143-48; and Immerwahr 1990.
30 The only two examples of another formula for
the sculptor’s signature from the Acropolis
are DAA no. 244 ([€pydoa]to?) and DAA
no. 133 (€pydéooato). The only sculptors
on the Acropolis who signed their works
jointly are Kritios and Nesiotes, whose six
preserved signatures all use the dual form
étroinodtnv. DAA no. 7 was signed individ-
ually by two different sculptors, Endoios and
Philergos.
31 Compare texts of as few as two words that were
inscribed one word per line: DAA nos. 43, 84,
132, 287, and 294.
Centered vertical inscriptions: DAA nos. 181,
184, 190, 220, 221, 226, 238, 240, 266, and 307.
Vertical inscriptions shifted to the viewer's left:
DAA nos. 191, 232, 236, 258, 261, 267, 269,
and 284. Vertical inscriptions shifted to the
viewer's right: DAA nos. 180, 227-229, 231,
233, 234, 241, 244-246, 248, 252, 256, 257, 259,
260, 262, 275, and 277.
33 Co mpare multiple-line inscriptions in which
the inscribed lines were equalized in length:
DAA nos. 43, 53, 71 (with word division), 135,
140, 147, 150, 162, 168, 190, 201, and 246.

34: De di ca tor’s name as the first word of the text
(metrical inscriptions marked by an asterisk):
DAA nos. 97'55"6, Fy 105 1114; 822, *255 30533,
41-43, "44, 46-48, 49, “54, 55-59, "64, 65, *66,
69, 71, 77, 80, 81, 84, 86, 90, 93, 94, 102, 109—
114, 118-120, 124, 131a, 132, 136, 137, 159, 160,
164, 166, 169, 175, 176, *178, 186, 188, 193, 197
(only the sculptor’s signature is metrical), 209,
DIF aFPAO 225 12392233; 236, 238, 246) 252,258,
259, 279, *283, 287, 291, 292, 294, 304, 307,
308, and 311. Dedicator’s name not the first
word of the inscribed text: *24, *28, 29, *40,
“53, “67; “76, *79, *107; “121, °*1335 135, *148,
LOZ LOS, fle 1735) 174 TOL ISAN GIy 210s
p2i0sw 2217 2274622855 229,07 2345:and) “290:
On DAA nos. 184 and 191, both multiple-line
vertical inscriptions, the dedicator’s name was
isolated from the rest of the inscribed text by
being carved on its own, separate line.
3 One of the Acropol is sculptor s, Philon son of
~s
Emporion, signed both a column base for a
statue (DAA no. 37) and the base for a perir-
rhanterion (DAA no. 381). Signatures with
troigw but no name: DAA nos. 9, 12, 31, 52,
55b, 66, 117, 171, 186, 221, 239, 257, 291, and 320
(base fora bronze tripod or bowl); DAA nos. 4,
32, 51, and 150 may be statue dedications made
by the sculptors themselves. Likely signatures
despite absence of verb troigw: DAA nos. 80
(Xenaios son of Arthmonides), 84 (Nesiotes),
go (Pythis), and 130. I consider the follow-
ing examples too speculative to include in my
totals: DAA nos. 19, 70 (the Acropolis Potter
relief), 107, 108, 125, 128, 189, 212, 222, 226,
244, 268, 276, and JG I? 655.
36 This is DAA no. 135, inscribed stoichedon. For
DAA no. 290, another possible example, I pre-
fer the reading of JG P’ 647.
37 For cat ego rie s and statistics, see Keesling
forthcoming.
3 Th
co e dif fic ult y of con sul tin g typ ica l te mp le in-
ventories as records has been stressed by T:
Linders, “Inscriptions and orality,” SymbOslo
67 (1992) 27-40, but cf. D. Harris, “Freedom
of in fo rm at io n an d acc oun tab ili ty: the inv en-
tory lists of the Parthenon,” in Osborne and
Hornblower 1994, 213-25.
39 For the rol e of pu nc tu at io n, see L. Thr eat te,
The Gr am ma r At
of ti c Ins cri pti ons I. Ph on ol og y
(Berlin 198 0), 76 -8 4 an d Kee sli ng fo rt hc om -
ing; cf. Thomas 1992, 88; J. Svenbro, Phrasik-
leia, An An th ro po lo gy of Re ad in g in Anc ien t
NorTes TO PAGEs 33-38
Greece, trans. J. Lloyd (Ithaca 1993), 165-68;
and P. Saenger, Space between Words, The
Origins of Silent Reading (Palo Alto 1997),
9-11.
40 Compare C. W. Hedrick Jr., “Writing,
reading, and democracy,” in Osborne and
Hornblower 1994, 161—6s.
CHAPTER 3: NOTHING TO DO WITH
DEMOCRACY? VOTIVE STATUES AND
ATHENIAN HISTORY
I For the historiography of such correlations,
see Vickers 1985, 2-3; A. M. Snodgrass, An
Archaeology of Greece, The Present State and
Future Scope of a Discipline (Berkeley/Los
Angeles 1987), 36-66; E. D. Francis, Image and
Idea in Fifth Century Greece: Art and Litera-
ture after the Persian Wars (London/New York
1990), 8-20; and M. Vickers, “Interactions
between Greeks and Persians,” in H. Sancisi-
Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, eds. Achaemenid
History IV, Centre and Periphery (Leiden 1990),
253-54. For an early justification of historical
correlations, see Dinsmoor 1942.
Ss) See esp. Boardman 1972; J. Boardman,
“Herakles, Peisistratos and the unconvinced,”
JHS 109 (1989) 158-59; Shapiro 1989; and
Angiolillo 1997. For a skeptical view, see
Cook 1987.
Ww See Coulson 1994; Boedeker and Raaflaub
1998; and Morris and Raaflaub 1997.
A. M. Snodgrass, “Archaeology,” in M.
Crawford, ed. Sources for Ancient History
(Cambridge 1983), 142 and 145-46.
For the term “Great Tradition,” see C.
Al
Renfrew, “The Great Tradition versus the
Great Divide,” AJA 84 (1980) 287-298.
Fora concise, pragmatic description ofrelative
chronologies and the use of fixed points, see
Biers 1992, 57-60 and 82-86. For a defense
of relative chronologies for Archaic sculp-
ture, see Payne and Mackworth-Young 1950,
XI-Xil.
One example of an obsolete fixed point
is the funerary stele of a boy and girl
in the Metropolitan Museum (the so-called
Megakles or Brother and Sister stele). Richter’s
association between the stele’s destruction and
a dismantling of Alkmeonid grave monu-
ments after the battle of Pallene in the 540s
relies upon the restoration of the deceased’s
name as Melgakles] (Richter 1961, 27-29,
Nores TO PaGEs 38-41
no. 37). Dinsmoor (1942, 187) lowered the
destruction date to 508/7 and associated it
with Thucydides’ (1.126.12) account of the
casting out of Alkmeonid families from Attica
at that time. The idea that the stele was bro-
ken in antiquity derives from the supposed
reuse of some of its fragments to line later cist
graves, but the weathering of other fragments
indicates that they were left above ground;
see G. M. A. Richter, “The story of the
‘Megakles’ stele in New York,” in Mélanges
Mansel, 1 (Ankara 1974), 1-5. Because the
name of Melgakles] is only one of several pos-
sible restorations of the fragmentary inscrip-
tion on the stele’s base, its association with
the Alkmeonid family (the association used
by Richter and Dinsmoor to date its destruc-
tion) is purely hypothetical. For other possi-
ble restorations of the text, see CEG no. 25;
for a critique of the stele’s use as a fixed point,
see Harrison 1965, 6-7. The date of the Athe-
nian Treasury at Delphi has also moved down-
ward over the years, from ca. 508 or soon af-
ter, e.g., Dinsmoor 1942, 187-89 and Harrison
1965, 9-10, to after 490, e.g., Gauer 1968b, 51—
64 and P. Amandry, “Le ‘socle marathonien’
et le trésor des Athéniens,” BCH 122 (1998)
75-90.
co Langlotz 1939, nos. 1-297; cf. Langlotz 1920.
Other chronologies: Payne and Mackworth-
Young 1950; Harrison 1965; J. Kleine, Un-
tersuchungen zur Chronologie der attischen
Kunst von Peisistratos bis Themistokles (IstMitt
Beiheft 8) (Tiibingen 1973); and Tolle-
Kastenbein 1992.
Langlotz 1939, 9.
10 DAA 456. Chronological chart: Langlotz 1939,
41-42. Compare Parker 1996, 71-72: Langlotz
historical correlation “is incoherent: major
dedications virtually only begin under the
tyranny, and the sharp rise in numbers occurs
before 510 even though the Peisistratids had as
much reason to live on the Acropolis as their
father.”
I= For example, Kolb (1977, 104) and F. Frost, in
“Toward a history of Peisistratid Athens,” in
J. W. Eadie and J. Ober, eds. The Craft ofthe
Ancient Historian, Essays in Honor of Chester
G. Starr (Lanham, Md., 1985), 61 and 66.
Payne and Mackworth-Young (1950, 38—40)
saw a decline in the practice of dedicating korai
in the early fifth century but did not attribute
222
any gap in th e se qu en ce to th e th ir d qu ar te r
of th e si xt h. W. Zs ch ie ts ch ma nn , “P ei si st ra to s
un d di e Ak ro po li s, ” Kl io 27 (1 93 4) 20 9- 17 ,
correlated the beginning of the kore series with
Peisistratos’ architectural “Neugestaltung” of
the Acropolis.
2 See Rhodes 1981, 193 and T. J. Cadoux,
“The Athenian archons from Kreon to Hyp-
sichides,” JHS 68 (1948) 83-86 and 106-09.
I Ww Rhodes 1981, 194. In general, see A. Andrewes,
“The tyranny of Pisistratus,” in Cambridge
Ancient History* 111.3 (1982) 399-402 and
Rhodes 1981, 191-99.
14 Rhodes 1981, 198.
15 Compare Kolb 1977, 104-06 and Tolle-
Kastenbein 1992, 133-36.
See T. L. Shear, “Ioovéyous tt’A@tivas
étroinodtnv: the Agora and the democracy,”
in Coulson 1994, 228-31.
17 The entrance ramp to the Acropol is is incon-
clusive as an argument for or against physical
access during the tyranny: E. Vanderpool, in
“The date of the Pre-Persian War city wall of
Athens,” in Bradeen and McGregor 1974, 156—
60, preferred a date close to 566, but the ramp
could have been constructed as late as the early
fifth century.
I have quoted Stewart's (1986, 67) translation.
See Stewart 1986, 66—69, who also compares
this phenomenon with the end of Archaic
Athenian marble statue types, in particular
the kouros and the equestrian figure, after
Kleisthenes reforms: “whatever the exact
motivation and date of these various dis-
appearances, a strong circumstantial case
might be made for associating them with
the new drive for ssonomia in post-Peisistratid
Athens.” See also Stewart 1990, 119 (Naxos)
and 126 (Samos) and Gruben 1997, 416
(Naxos). Did tyrants kill the kouros on Naxos
and Samos, while democrats killed him in
Athens?
For example, B. M. Mitchell, “Herodotos and
Samos,” J/HS 95 (1975) 84-85, who extrapo-
lates from Naxos to Samos: “Since in Samos
the aristocrats were Polykrates’ enemies, they
may have been forbidden to make ostentatious
dedications in the form of large votive statues
representing themselves.”
~ — According to Hdt. 6.121, Peisistratos’ own
property was sold at auction during one of
his two exiles (probably at the end of his

second tyranny) and purchased by an Athe-
nian named Kallias, son of Phainippos.
22) The standard date for the start of Lygdamis’
tyranny is ca. 540 B.c. Polykrates’ begin-
ning date is more difficult to pin down but
hovers around ca. 533; in 522, he was crucified
by the Persian satrap of Sardis (Hdt. 3.125). For
the chronology of the Archaic marble sculp-
ture from the Samian Heraion, see Freyer-
Schauenburg 1974, 1-5.
23 The shif t fro m mar ble to bro nze for large-
scale sculpture might occur earliest on Samos,
where the artist Theodoros was credited with
inventing hollow casting by ancient sources
and where Late Archaic bases for large-scale
bronze statues have been found. Kienast (1992,
193-98 and Fig. 27) gives a general description
of approximately 200 statue bases found in
the Heraion and promises a fuller publication.
Richter (1970, 114) and Freyer-Schauenburg
(1974, I-5) considered the shift from marble
to bronze sculptures as a possible explanation
for the end of the marble statue series from
the Samian Heraion.
24 According to Hdt. 6.103.1-3, Kimon Koale-
mos won the Olympic chariot race for the first
time while in exile from Athens; when he had
Peisistratos declared victor in his place after
winning a second victory, he was recalled. Af-
ter his third victory, Peisistratos’ sons ordered
his murder.
25 For the arc hon list, see MZ no. 6. Kol b
(1977, 104) questions the view that Peisistratos’
policies were inherently antiaristocratic. One
could argue, however, that Hippias followed
a policy of conciliation after his father’s death
in 528/7 and recalled earlier exiles, although
Herodotus’ story of Kimon Koalemos con-
tradicts this generalization. On the question
of exiles, see A. Andrewes, “The tyranny of
Pisi stra tus, ” in CAH ? III. 3 (198 2), 404 -06 .
26 See esp. R. Gar lan d, “Th e wel l-o rde red corp se:
an investigation into the motives behind
Greek funerary legi slat ion, ” B/ CS36 (198 9) 1—
15; R. Seaf ord, Reci proc ity and Ritu al: Hom er
and Tra ged y in the Dev elo pin g City -Sta te
(Oxford 1994 ), 74- 92; D. B. Smal l, “Mo n-
uments, laws and anal ysis : com bin ing arch ae-
ology and text in anc ien t Ath ens ,” in Sma ll
1995, 143- 74.; and Par ker 1996 , 133- 35. Com -
pare I. Morris 1992 , 145- 55 and S. Mor ris 1992 ,
305-07.
Nores TO PAGES 41-46
27 For exa mpl e, Sok olo wsk i 196 9, no. 65 (An-
dania: the priest and the Aieroi are to take
responsibility for any anathemata left in the
sanctuary by worshippers); Sokolowski 1969,
no. 112 (Parian Asklepieion: activities that
might damage the anathemata are prohib-
ited); Sokolowski 1962, no. 43 (Delphi: no
anathemata are to be set up inside the stoa
of Attalos); Sokolowski 1962, no. 107 (the
astynomoi are empowered to move anathe-
mata blocking access); and Sokolowski 1955,
no. 74 (Loryma: prohibition against removing
or harming anathemata, or rearranging the vo-
tive plaques or bringing in others without the
priest's permission). Sokolowski 1955, no. 80,
from Rhodes, states that anyone who wishes
may set up an anathema. On restrictions gov-
erning access to Greek temples and sanctuar-
ies, see esp. R. Parker, Miasma, Pollution and
Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford
1983), 352-356, and Hurwit 1999, 54-57.
2 co Aeschines 3.21. For an exceptional late fifth
century statue dedication made by an archon
basileus while still in office, see Edmonson
1982.
29 See Burkert 1985, 332-37.
30 Harrison 1965, 8.
3}ILanglot z (1975, 24) himself, in a later publi-
cation, accepted Raubitschek and Harrison's
chronologies and revised his political inter-
pretation of the Acropolis dedications accord-
ingly: “Die geringe Zahl erhaltener Skulp-
turen zwischen 600 und 520 allein Scheint
mir ihre Hinaufdatierung nicht notwendig
zu machen. Die Weihung der Mehrzahl der
Koren auf der Akropolis wird aus politis-
chen Griinden erst nach der Vertreibung des
Hippias (510) méglich gewesen sein” [my
emphasis]. Compare Holloway 1992, 269.
32 DAA 46s.
33 Sch nei der and Hoc ker 199 0, 1o9 —11 . Co mp ar e
J. S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from
s61/o to 405/4 B.c. (Groningen 1970), 20: eco-
nomic growth produced an increase in statue
dedications on the Acropolis.
34 Tol le- Kas ten bei n 199 2, 141 -43 .
The banausic dedicators on the Acropolis
cannot easily be explained as new citizens.
Aristotle Ath . Pol . 13. 5 me nt io ns a “vo tin g out ”
of citizens enfranchised by the tyrants; yet
Ari st. Pol iti cs 127 563 7 cla ims tha t Kle ist hen es
enrolled a new set of foreigners and slaves
Notes TO PaGEs 46-50
in the Athenian citizen body as part of his
reforms.
36 See most recently K. A. Raaflaub, “Einleitung
und Bilanz: Kleisthenes, Ephialtes und die
Begriindung der Demokratie,” in K. H. Kinzl,
ed. Demokratia, der Weg zur Demokratie bei
den Griechen (Darmstadt 1995). K. H. Kinzl,
in “Athens: between tyranny and democracy,”
in K. H. Kinzl, ed. Greece and the Eastern
Mediterranean in Ancient History and Pre-
history, Studies Presented to Fritz Schacher-
meyr on the Occasion ofHis Eightieth Birthday
(Berlin/New York 1977), 199-223, earlier cau-
tioned against equating Kleisthenes’ reforms
and the events of the 30 years after them with
a march toward greater democracy.
3y/ G. Daux and E. Hansen, Le Trésor de Siphnos
(Fouilles de Delphes II.2) (Paris 1987), 22-31.
3 Langlot
co z 1920; see also B. v. Bothmer , “Ando-
kides the Potter and the Andokides Painter,”
BMMA 24 (1965-1966) 201-12.
39 The style of Master A, the sculptor of the west
and south sides of the Siphnian frieze, shows
East Greek characteristics (Langlotz 1975, 77—
78). Master B, the sculptor whose fragmen-
tary signature on the north side takes credit
for the north and east sides of the frieze, has
been identified in previous scholarship as an
unknown Athenian, see M. Guarducci, “Lo
scudo iscritto nel fregio del Tesoro dei Sifni a
Delfi,” in Studi in Onore di Luisa Banti (Rome
1965), 167-76; a Chian, see Langlotz 1975, 76—
77 and FE Croissant, Les protomés féminines
archa™.ques. Recherches sur les représentations du
visage dans la plastique grecque de 550 a 480 av.
J.-C. (Paris 1983), 75-86; Endoios, a sculptor
known to have worked in both East Greece
and Athens, see A. Rumpf, “Endoios, ein
Versuch,” La Critica d’Arte3 (1938) 44—45 and
W. Deyhle, “Meisterfragen der archaischen
Plastik Attikas,” AM 84 (1969) 22—25; or Aris-
tion of Paros, the sculptor of Phrasikleia’s
kore in Athens, see L. H. Jeffery, An-
cient Greece, The City-States c. 700-500 B.C.
(London 1976), 185 and Ridgway 1993, 395.
Brinkmann (1994, 74-75 and Fig. 116) con-
vincingly restores Aristion’s name in the
signature.
40 Gauer 1968b, 130-33. The account in Arist.
Ath. Pol. 19.3-4 seems to be based upon
Herodotus, but is less clear about the connec-
tion between the Alkmeonid benefaction and
224
the subseque nt ex pu ls io n of th e Pe is is tr at id s
by Kleomenes.
4 = For the Vickers—Francis chronology, see E. D.
Francis and M. Vickers, “Signa priscae artis.
Er et ri a an d Si ph no s, ” JH S 10 3 (1 98 3) 49 -6 7;
and Vickers 1985; cf. Biers 1992, 82-85 and
the comprehensive refutation by T. L. Shear,
“The Persian destruction of Athens, evidence
from Agora deposits,” Hesperia 62 (1993) 383—
482. In contrast to downward-revisers such as
Vickers and Francis, R. Bianchi-Bandinelli,
in Storicita dell’ arte classica (Florence 1950),
3-43, sought to shift the dates of the Severe
style in Greek sculpture upward from ca. 480—
450 B.C. to ca. 500-480 in order to make the
style a direct result of Kleisthenes’ democratic
reforms of 508/7.
42 R. M. Cook, “The Francis-Vickers Chrono-
logy,” JHS 109 (1989) 164-70 and J. Board-
man, “Dates and Doubts,” AA (1988) 423-25.
B For example , R. Télle-K astenbe in, “Bemer-
kungen zur absoluten Chronologie spatar-
chaischer und friihklassischer Denkmiler
Athens,” AA (1983) 573-84.
For a full discussion, see Hurwit 1989, 51-53
and 62-63.
4 See Lindenlauf 1997, 70 and 107—o8 and
~“
Hurwit 1985, 338. The original publication
of the statues and statue bases from the
deposit is P. Kavwvadias, “‘Avackxagai &v
Tt ‘AxpdtroAei,” ArchEph 3 (1886) 73-82; his
Figure 1 shows their findspots.
46o Lindenlauf 1997, 84-86; cf Hdt. 9.3 and
Thue. 1.89.3 on Mardonius destruction ofthe
lower city (without explicit reference to the
Acropolis) ten months after Xerxes’ sack of
the Acropolis.
’ See the discussion by P.-A. Beaulieu, “An epi-
sode in the fall of Babylon to the Persians,”
JNES52 (1993) 241-261. Kanachos’ cult statue
of Apollo at Didyma was taken to Ecbatana
by Xerxes and eventually returned by Seleu-
cus (Paus. 1.16.3 and 8.46.3). Compare Datis’
promise not to harm Delos in 490 (Hdt.
6.97.2) and his return of a gilded agalma of
Apollo plundered by his army (Hd. 6.118: the
statue originally came from Delion in Boio-
tia), discussed by Parke 1985, 60-61.
Paus. 1.8.5; Pliny Naturalis Historia 34.70; and
Arrian, Anabasis 3.16.7-8 and 7.19.2.
See C. Houser, “Slain statues: classical murder
mysteries,” in [Tpaxtikeé tou XII Ais6vous

2uvedpiou KAaoikrs Apyaiodoytas III
(Athens 1988), 112-15 and Lindenlauf 1997,
91-92.
50 Hurwit 1989, 61-62. M. Donderer, in “Ir-
reversible Deponierung von Grossplastik bei
Griechen, Etruskern und Rémern,” OJ/Beibl
61 (1991-1992), cols. 193-276, collects multiple
examples of votive statues buried in or near
Greek sanctuaries. Three cases other than the
Acropolis Perserschutt attest to the intentional
beheading of statues: nos. I.4 (kore from Ery-
thrai), I.5 (Cyrene), and I.11 (Golgoi). Fora de-
posit of four Archaic votive statues beheaded
before burial from Cyrene, see Pedley 1971: the
statues may have been damaged in a Persian
sack of the late sixth century. For Persian par-
allels, see C. Nylander, “Earless in Nineveh:
who mutilated ‘Sargon’s head?” AJA 84 (1980)
329-33.
5 For
al example s, see Lindenla uf 1997, 86-89 (fire
damage) and 89—92 (intentional dismember-
ment). Two Acropolis korai, Acr. no. 595 and
the over-life-size Acr. no. 1360, show unmis-
takable signs of having been struck repeatedly
with an axe or a hammer, damage unlikely to
have been inflicted by the Athenians after the
480 sack. For examples of intentional damage
to statues that may date after 480, see DAA
no. 462 and Hurwit 1989; cf. Vickers’ theory
(1985, 22-29) that the Archaic marble statues
found on the Acropolis were destroyed by an
Athenian mob during Ephialtes’ democratic
reforms of 462/I.
iS) For marble statues and statue bases showing
possible signs of repair, see Hurwit 1989, 59—
60, no. 55. Not all of these need have been re-
paired after being damaged in the Persian sack;
one repaired kore (Acr. no. 670) was found in
the February 1886 deposit (Lindenlauf 1997,
70, no. 179).
5w On e of the sur viv ors was an Ath ena ded ica ted
by Kallias and signed by the sculptor Endoios
mentioned by Pausanias (1.26.5), whether or
not it is the same as Acr. no. 625, an over-
life-size seated marble Athena found on the
Acr opo lis Nor th Slo pe in the 183 0s. Viv ier s
(1992, 62-67) has suggested that Endoios’
Athena was spa red bec aus e the ded ica tor
Kal lia s was the fat her -in -la w the
of tyr ant Hip -
pias. Alt ern ati vel y, the sta tue may hav e bee n
knocked ove r and ree rec ted aft er 480 (Fl ore n
1987, 297-99).
Notes To PaGEs 50-54
54 Fora defense of this method of dating Archaic
inscriptions, see A. J. Graham, “Dating Ar-
chaic Greek inscriptions,” in Acta of the Fifth
International Congress of Greek and Latin Epi-
graphy, Cambridge 1967 (Oxford 1971), 9-17.
55 For DA A nos . 32 6- 328 and the problem of the
dating of the festival, see J. A. Davison, “Notes
on the Panathenaea,” /HS'78 (1958) 29-33. For
a possible fourth stele in the series, now lost,
see JG D} sogbis. The interpretation of dromos
here is admittedly difficult: does it mean races,
gymnastic contests, contests in general, or the
entire festival?
56 M. Stahl, in Aristokraten und Tyrannen im
archaischen Athen (Stuttgart 1987), 247-48,
no. 75, rejects the connection of DAA nos.
326-28 with the Panathenaia and downdates
the three dedications to the “spateren Jahren
der peisistratidischen Herrschaft,” but he ap-
pears not to have noticed the use of koppa
in place of kappa on DAA nos. 326 and 327;
the very latest examples of koppa on Athenian
vases date to the third quarter of the sixth cen-
tury, a date well before the end of Peisistratid
rule in 510 (Immerwahr 1990, 155).
Wy, For surveys of the changes in the letter
forms of Attic inscriptions over the course
of the sixth and fifth centuries, see Meiggs
1966 and A. E. Raubitschek, “Bemerkungen
zu den Buchstabenformen der griechischen
Inschriften des fiinften Jahrhunderts,” in Ger-
hard Pfohl, ed. Das Studium der griechischen
Epigraphik (Darmstadt 1977), 62-72; for a sur-
vey of Athenian lettering in both stone inscrip-
tions and other media, see Immerwahr 1990,
131-69.
58 See J. Kirchner and S. Dow, “Inschriften
vom attischen Lande,” AM 62 (1937) 1-3; and
J. E Crome, “‘Irmrépyetor ‘Epyat,” AM 60-61
(1935-1936) 300-14.
59 Pythion altar: ML no. u.
60 Archon list fragment: MZ no. 6.
6 pa Herodotus apparently saw the replacement
monument just outside the Propylaia, whereas
Pausanias (1.28.2) locates it near Pheidias’
colossal bronze Athena. The solution to the
problem may be that the replacement had
to be moved after Mnesikles’ Propylaia were
finished (WL no. 15).
we) Compare E. B. Harrison, “The victory of
Kallimachos,” GRBS 12 (1971) 5—24, who in-
terprets Kallimachos’ monument (/G IP’ 784)
i)
Notes TO PAGES 54-55
as a dedication originally commemorating an
agonistic victory in the greater Panathenaia of
490 renewed with an added inscription after
Marathon. I plan to address this problem else-
where.
63 So me sma ll fra gme nts of the ins cri bed bas e
for the Kallimachos dedication were found in
the Perserschutt deposit excavated in February
1886; cf. Childs (1993, 403-04), who rejects
the dedication as a chronological fixed point,
citing doubts about the restoration of Kalli-
machos’ name in the inscription and the as-
sociation between the inscribed base and the
Nike statue Acr. no. 690.
64 DAA 448-51. DAA no. 168, the Boiotians and
Chalcidians monument of 507/6, lacks some
important diagnostic letters, and the ones it
does preserve are not consistent with one an-
other. A cautionary tale: two different forms of
the letter nu appear within the same inscrip-
tion, one of which looks considerably “older”
than the other.
65 Raubitsc hek’s old and new styles more or less
correspond with Immerwahr’s (1990, 76-79
and 93-97) “sloppy” and “fine” styles.
66 DAA 449-50 and 1982, 131: “We have here
an inscription which was re-engraved or tran-
scribed later than the event to which it refers,
perhaps as much as thirty years later.”
67 B. D. Meritt, “The American excavations in
the Athenian Agora, fifteenth report: the in-
scriptions,” Hesperia 8 (1939) 62-65.
68 M. Arnush, “The career of Peisistratos son of
Hippias,” Hesperia 64 (1995) 48-82; cf. Jeffery
(LSAG* 75): “Peisistratos dedicated [the
Pythion altar] as a ‘memorial of his office’
(uvfjya TOde As apyfs...) which does not
necessarily mean an immediate memorial; but
even so, it can hardly be later than 511/10, un-
less we are to believe that he returned and held
office under the democracy, a view for which
there is no ancient authority.” In JG DP} 948,
the altar has been dated “ca. 520-511?”
A point made by D. M. Lewis, “The tyranny
of the Pisistratidae,” in CAH? IV, 289.
7O Compare Immerwahr (1990, 18 and 76,
no. 455), who accepted the letter forms of the
inscription as sixth-century ones, but doubted
that “the almost complete regularity of the
proportions of the letters and spacing” (18)
could agree with a sixth-century date. He pro-
posed that the inscription was recut late in
226
the fifth cent ur y af te r Th uc yd id es re ad it , “a t
a time when there was renewed interest in
th e Pe is is tr at id fa mi ly ” (7 6) . If so , no co m-
parable effort was made to preserve Peisis-
tratos’ dedicatory inscription on the Altar of
the Twelve Gods. The leaf and dart molding
below the inscription “belongs in the cycle
of the Siphnian Treasury” (Dinsmoor 1942);
see also Boardman 1959, 206-07. The altar
of Aphrodite Ourania in the Athenian agora
is very similar in form to the Pythion altar.
It has been dated as ca. 500 by associated pot-
tery finds; seeJ.M. Camp, The Athenian Agora
(London 1986), 57 and Figs. 37 and 38.
The quotation is from Dinsmoor 1942, 197—
98. Winters (1995) makes a similar point and
argues against assigning close dates based upon
letter forms to most of the Acropolis dedica-
tions.
72 Pto6n dedication: JG P 1470 and Viviers 1992,
Figs. 19 (Pythion altar) and 20 (Ptoén dedica-
tion). Raubitschek made the hand attribution,
followed by Meiggs (1966, 87—88) and Viviers
(1992, 109), but rejected by Immerwahr (1990,
76). Despite his own attribution of both in-
scriptions to the same hand, Raubitschek, in
“The dedication of Aristokrates,” in Studies in
Attic Epigraphy, History and Topography Pre-
sented to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia Supple-
ment 19) (Princeton 1982), 131, suggested that
the Ptoén dedication was made by a hypo-
thetical son of the younger Peisistratos named
Hipparchos.
5
ww Raubits chek (DAA, 450) explain ed the Kalli-
machos inscription as the work of “a stone-
cutter who received his training about twenty
years earlier, and who did not change the style
of his writing.” Yet, despite the old-fashioned
letter forms, the letter spacing is much more
regular and controlled than that of the Hip-
parchan herm inscription. For a fifth-century
Athenian letterer with a career that lasted 30
or 40 years, see S. V. Tracy, “Hands in fifth-
century B.c. Attic inscriptions,” in Studies Pre-
sented to Sterling Dow on his Eightieth Birthday
(Durham, N.C., 1984), 281-82.
74 Th e period between the Kallimachos dedica-
tion (DAA no. 13) and DAA no. 306, the fixed
point dated to 429/8 B.c., represents a 50-year
gap in epigraphical fixed points. Within this
gap fall the majority of the ostraka found in the
Athenian agora and Kerameikos excavations.

For the chronology of the ostraka, see Lang
1990, 3-6.
75 D A A 23 3.
DAA 449. Compare DAA 450: DAA no. 197 is
“markedly earlier” than the Pythion altar. The
alpha and rho on DAA no. 197 are close to the
forms of the same letters on DAA no. 168.
TE An te no r' ’s ko re da ted before the Delphi ped-
iment: Harrison 1965, 7-8. After the Delphi
pediment: Childs 1993, 413-14.
iico Pli ny (H N 34.1 7) syn chronizes Antenor’s
Tyrannicides group with the expulsion of
the kings from Rome in sro. By 477 B.c.,
Antenor’s career was probably over because -
Kritios and Nesiotes were commissioned to
make the replacement monument. The iden-
tification of Antenor’s father Eumares with the
painter Eumares or Eumaros mentioned by
Pliny (HN 35.56) does not provide any inde-
pendent evidence that might help to date the
Nearchos/Antenor dedication (cf. DAA 498—
500).
79 L. Shoe, in Profiles of Greek Mouldings
(Cambridge, Mass., 1936), 91 and pl. XL.
3, dated the cyma recta moulding on the
Antenor/Nearchos base stylistically to ca. 510
B.c.; Acr. no. 681 and the largest fragment
of the Nearchos/Antenor base were both
found in the Perserschutt deposit excavated in
February 1886.
80 For the date of Nearchos, see Boardman 1974,
35 and Immerwahr 1990, 26-28.
8 HW Immerwahr 1990, 47 and 53.
82 A Kerameikos ostrakon cast against Leagros
son of Glaukon (Wagner 2000, 384) and the
building accounts for the Propylaia dated
434/3 (IG B 46s, lines 123-24) both use kera-
meus as a demotic in place of the more com-
mon &k Kepauéov. Other possible demotics
for DAA no. 197 are ho Acharneus, ho Meli-
teus, and ho Paleneus (the latter written with-
out a double consonant, as it appears on
DAA no. 311). The ethnic Eleuthereus also
fits.
Os bo rn e an d By rn e (1 99 4, s.v . Né ap yx os ) ci te
83
no Athenian ex am pl es of th e na me be fo re th e
third ce nt ur y B. c. ot he r th an DA A no . 19 7 an d
the signatures of the potter Nearchos.
84 St ud ni cz ka (1 88 7b , 14 6) re st or ed [N ec &p yo
huJus (“ so n of Ne ar ch os ”) : co ul d th e de di ca to r
be anot he r so n of th e po tt er Ne ar ch os ra th er
than a grandson?
Notes To PaGEs 55-62
85 Co mp ar e JG DP 628 (ca . 5202); Payne and
Mackworth-Young 1950, 63-65 (ca. 530);
Harrison 1965, 7-8 (ca. 520); and Childs 1993,
413-14 (530-520).
86 Nearchos’ dedication may not in fact be the
earliest one by a craftsman or. other banau-
sos on the Acropolis. At least two other dedi-
cations that Raubitschek considered banausic
were assigned dates later than their letter
forms would otherwise warrant. DAA no. 49,
a column base dedicated by Simon the fuller,
was dated ca. 500 in DAA. The editors of JG
P (616) have redated the column capital in-
scribed with the dedication to ca. 525-510 and
dissociated from it the column with the sig-
nature of the sculptor Eleutheros, which they
redate to ca. 490-480 (JG P 790). Simon’s
dedication was probably a marble kore, and
the new date places it before the Late Archaic
bulge.
87 Winters 1995.
88 Samian Heraion: Freyer-Schauenburg 1974,
1-5 (marble sculpture) and Kienast 1992, 193—
98 (statue bases, most not yet published).
Didyma: Tuchelt 1970, 131-65. Ptoén: Ducat
1971, 448-50 (statues) and 397—401 (bases). For
the marble sculptures from the Archaic Parian
and Naxian workshops, which also seem to
stop before the bulge in Acropolis dedica-
tions, see Kostoglou-Despini 1979 (Paros) and
Kokkorou-Alewras 1995 (Naxos).
89 Scha chte r 1994.
90 For Early Classical statue dedications on
the Acropolis, see Hurwit 1999, 145-53; cf.
Schneider and Hocker 1990, 186-94.
9 = These are the “donaria incerta” /G II’ nos.
4881-4884, 4886, 4889, 4893-4895, 4898—
4899, 4901, 4903, 4905, 4907, 4911-4915
(4912/13 is a single base), 4919, 4929, 4943,
4949-4950, 4953, and 4956.
S) NS For these figures and discussions of them, see
Geagan 1996, 153-54 and Parker 1996, 271.
a7ee) T. Lind ers, “Go ds, gift s, soci ety, ” in T. Lin-
ders and G. Nordquist, eds. Gifts to the Gods,
Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985
(Uppsala 1987), 118-121.
94 According to Demosthenes (a7) and
24.180), Konon dedicated a gold crown to
Athena on the Acropolis after his victory at
Knidos in 394; inventories of the Erechtheion
(Harris 1995, VI.59) mention this crown.
Oi In ge ne ra l, see Pa rk er 19 96 , 25 6- 81 .
227
Nores TO PAGES 63-67
CHAPTER 4: VOTIVE STATUES AND
ATHENIAN SOCIETY
E For the Heraion, see E. Buschor, “Altsam-
ische Stifter,” in R. Lullies, ed. Newe Beitrage
zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Festschrift
zum 60. Geburtstag B. Schweitzer (Stuttgart
1954), 95-100; Dunst 1972; and Freyer-
Schauenburg 1974, 6-8.
For patterns in Greek naming and name dif-
fusion, see J. Bremmer, “The Importance of
the maternal uncle and grandfather in Archaic
and Classical Greece and early Byzantium,”
ZPE 50 (1983) 173-86 and G. Herman 1990,
“Patterns of name diffusion within the Greek
world and beyond,” CQ 40 (1990) 349-63.
3 W. E. Tho mps on, “To t Ath eni ens ibu s ide m
nomen erat...,” in Bradeen and McGregor
1974, 144-49 and C. Habicht, “Notes on Attic
prosopography, coincidence in father-son
pairs of names,” Hesperia 59 (1990) 459-62.
L. Stone, “Prosopography,” Daedalus 100
(1971) 61.
al
Exceptions are the citizen casualty lists (JG
P nos. 1144-1193) and “onomastic graffiti”
(Stoddart and Whitley 1988, 763) including
owners marks on vases and names written on
curse tablets. These graffiti very seldom in-
clude a patronymic or a demotic.
6 See esp. J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic
Athens. Rhetoric, Ideology, and the Power ofthe
People (Princeton 1989), 1-17 and 248-49 and
W. R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-
Century Athens (New York 1971).
Davies 1971, xvii—xxx1.
DAA no. 127 was dedicated by Karkinos
son of Xenotimos of Thorikos: if we accept
Raubitschek’s restoration [tp]inplapyxav],
then Karkinos made his offering while serv-
ing as trierarch in the Athenian navy, an im-
portant military liturgy. For Karkinos and his
family, see Davies 1971, no. 8254 and Thuc.
2.23.2. Karkinos also won a choregic victory
at the Dionysia in 447/6 and served as an ad-
miral of the Athenian fleet in 432/1 (Fornara
1971, 52—53 and Develin 1989, 102).
9 There is scant evidence that any nonaristo-
crats participated in the major Greek athletic
contests before the fourth century; see H. W.
Pleket, “Games, prizes, athletes and ideology.
Some aspects of the history of sport in the
Greco-Roman world,” Stadion 1 (1975) 54—
60.
228
10 For Al km eo ni de s, se e Da vi es 19 71 , no . 96 88 ,
pp. 372-74; E. Vanderpool, “The rectangular
rock-cut shaft,” Hesperiats(1946) 274-75; and
Ky le 19 87 , no . As . Th e Pt oé n de di ca ti on co ul d
have been either a statue (marble or bronze) or
po ss ib ly a br on ze ve ss el (J G T 14 69 an d Du ca t
1971, 242-51).
I Lal For Pronapes son of Pronapides (Prasieus), see
Davies 1971, 471, no. 12250; Raubitschek 1939,
158—60; Kyle 1987, no. As7; and Develin 1989,
104 and 137. A fifth-century inscription pub-
lished by W. E. Thompson, “Two new frag-
ments ofI.G., I?, 233,” Hesperia 34 (1965) 29—
33, names another Pronapes from the deme
Erchia, raising the possibility that this Pron-
apes dedicated DAA no. 135 with Lakedaimo-
nios and Xenophon. Service in the Athenian
cavalry should be another valid indicator of
aristocratic status, but DAA no. 135 is the earli-
est solid evidence for the Athenian cavalry; see
G. R. Bugh, The Horsemen of Athens (Prince-
ton 1988), 3-38.
12 For the new restoration Thetalos, see S. D.
Lambert, “Ten notes on Attic inscriptions,”
ZPE 135 (2001): 51. Kimon had a son by this
name.
Phayllos of Kroton: Hdt. 8.47; Paus.
10.9.1 (victor dedication at Delphi); and
Robinson and Fluck 1937, 167-71. Kallias
son of Didymias: Paus. 5.9.3 (Olympic vic-
tory in 472); JG B 1473 (dedication at
Olympia); Kyle 1987, no. Az9; E. Vanderpool,
Ostracism in Athens (Cincinnati 1970), 239—
40; and T. T. Rapke, “The demotic of Kallias
Didymiou,” AnrC/43 (1974) 332-33. Epichari-
nos: Kyle 1987, no. A24 and Hausmann
1977.
Though Plutarch (Per. 13) attributes the first
Panathenaic musical contests to Perikles’ time,
prize vases with musical scenes appear al-
ready in the sixth century (Shapiro 1989, 41—
43). Fifth-century tripod dedications on the
Acropolis such as DAA nos. 319 (dedicated
by Chionis) and 322 (dedicated by Philon
son of Aresios) might commemorate choregic
victories.
Arist. Ath. Pol. 8.1 and 47.1.
iO Davies 1971, no. 1395. The brothers’ full names
are Thrasyllos and Gnathios sons of Mneson
of the deme Leukonoion. The secretary of
the board of tamiai in 407/6 was named
[GnJathion Leukonoieus (Develin 1989, 175).

For further references to this family, see
B. D. Meritt, “Greek inscriptions,” Hesperia
36 (1967) 93-94, no. 21 and Isaeus 7 (354 B.C.).
For the lack of dedications by cult officials on
the Acropolis, see M. H. Jameson, “Religion
in the Athenian democracy,” in Morris and
Raaflaub 1997, 175.
17 As arg ued by E. Badian, “Archons and strate-
gol,” Antichthon 5 (1971) 1-34; Ath. Pol. 22.5
claims that in the archonship of Telesinos
(487/6), the method of choosing the archons
changed from election to sortition from a list
drawn up by the ten Kleisthenic demes. Ac-
cording to Ath. Pol. 26.2, 30 years later, in “
457/6, a member of the third Solonian prop-
erty class (the zeugitai) was chosen as archon.
Compare M. Lipka, “Anmerkungen zu den
Weihinschriften der Athena Parthenos und
zur Hekatompedon-Inschrift,” in Hoepfner
1997, 37-44. Even if Telesinos of Kettos is the
archon of 487/6, we cannot be certain that he
himself was chosen by the new, more demo-
cratic method, though this is likely (Rhodes
1981, 272-74).
19 Matthaiou 1990-1991.
20 A genos was a named clan encompassing mul-
tiple households (oikoi) and multiple lines
of descent. In the Classical period the aristo-
cratic status of members of gene with priestly
functions (the Kerykes and the Eumolpidai) is
not in doubt; it is uncertain, though, whether
other aristocratic families (such as the Alkme-
onidai) were also gene (Rhodes 1981, 70).
I) = See Davies 1971, 258-62, no. 9688, and Kyle
1987, no. A3r. This Kallias may have won char-
iot victories at Olympia like his grandfather
Kallias I son of Phainippos. The dedicatory
inscription on DAA no. 111 does not mention
a victory.
Davies 1971, 507, no. 13700; Fornara 1971, 65,
68-70, and 79-80. Konon I, the eponymous
archon of 462/1, may have been this Timoth-
eos father (Develin 1989, 72).
23 DA A no. 13 6 is si gn ed by th e sc ul pt or Ka la mi s;
it may be th e ba se for th e sta tue of Ap hr od it e
dedicated by Kallias and made by Kalamis
mentioned by Pausanias (1.23.2).
24 For th e pr ac ti ce of os tr ac is m in ge ne ra l, se e
A. Martin, “L os tr ac is me at hé ni en : un de mi -
siecle de dé co uv er te s et de re ch er ch es ,” R E G
102 (1 98 9) 12 4- 45 ; La ng 19 90 , 1- 6; an d D.
J. Phillips, “Observations on some Ostraka
Nores To Paces 67-68
from the Athenian Agora,” ZPE 83 (1990)
123-48.
25 Kal lia s son of Did ymi as and Kallias son of
Hipponikos: F, Willemsen and S. Brenne,
“Verzeichnis der Kerameikos-Ostraka,” AM
106 (1991) 151-52 and Lang 1990, 65. Aristaich-
mos son of Timokrates: Lang 1990, 34-35;
Kydrokles son of Timokrates: Lang 1990,
91-93. Laispodias Koilethen: Lang 1990, 93.
26 For example, the Alkimachos named without
a patronymic could conceivably be Alkima-
chos son of Chairion, the dedicator of DAA
no. 6, but other vases name Alkimachos the
son of Epichares (Robinson and Fluck 1937,
78-79). For kalos names with patronymic
on vases dating between ca. 470 and 440,
see H. A. Shapiro, “Kalos-Inscriptions with
Patronymic,” ZPE 68 (1987) 107-18. For
lists of kaloi, see Robinson and Fluck 1937,
66-191; Beazley 1956, 664-78; and Beazley
1963, 317-19.
27, Raubitschek restored the names of the
dedicators of DAA no. 8 as [Aris]tion and
[Lys]eas “based upon the assumption that the
dedicators...are the same as the two men
bearing these names who were buried not far
from each other near the Attic village Ve-
lanideza” (DAA 14). The inscribed relief stele
of Aristion and the painted stele of Lyseas were
found together in the same burial mound in
1839 (Richter 1961, nos. 67 and 70, Figs. 155—
160). Yet both names were common, and other
name restorations fit the space available on the
fragmentary Acropolis dedication, where the
relationship between the two men is unspeci-
fied. Compare Viviers 1992, 133. The demotic
was almost entirely unknown in Athenian epi-
taphs before the end of the fifth century; see
E. Meyer, “Epitaphs and citizenship in Clas-
sical Athens,” /HS 113 (1993) 109-10.
28 Raubitschek’s restoration of the Alkmeonid
name [Mega]kl[es Eu]ryp[tolemou] on DAA
no. 251 (JG I 707) may well be correct: the
combination -putr- is unusual, and the name
Euryptolemos is only found in the Alkmeonid
line in the sixth and fifth centuries.
29 See Lycurgus 1.117 and W. R. Connor, “The
razing of the house in Greek society,” TAPA 115
(1985) 92. This statue was reportedly a portrait
(eikon) of Hipparchos.
For reconstructions, see Stevens 1936, Fig-
ure 14 and E W. Hamdorf, “Zur Weihung des
229
Nores TO PAGEs 68-72
Chairedemos auf der Akropolis von Athen,”
in St7HAn. Touos els uvrjunv NikoAcou
Kovtodgovtos (Athens 1988) 231-35. The base
measures 5.05 m by 1.79 m, and the statue may
have been as tall as 4.5 m.
31 For the late-fifth-century example of
Sosikrates the bronze seller, see Edmonson
1982. Resident aliens with the status of metics
did not commonly identify themselves by
their deme of residence (using the formula
oikéov/oikoUoa év) until the fourth century
(Whitehead 1977, 31-32). For inconsistent
recording of occupations by metics: White-
head 1977, 31-34; 63-64, no. 36; and 103,
no. 80. For lists of occupations, see White-
head 1977, 154-59. Potters do not appear on
these lists, which is a possible sign that they
were more likely to be Athenian citizens than
the practitioners of other crafts. For the potter
as citizen, see A. L. Boegehold, “The time of
the Amasis painter,” in D. von Bothmer, ed.
The Amasis Painter and His World (Malibu
1985) 28-29.
DAA no. 297 was dedicated jointly by two
sisters from Argos, and DAA no. 252 was ded-
icated by -theos of Sikyon. The wording of
DAA no. 121 (discussed in Chapter 7) shows
that the dedicator Hegelochos son of Ekphan-
tos emigrated to Athens, but he gives no eth-
nic; Phayllos of Kroton’s dedication (DAA
no. 76) probably omitted his ethnic as well.
However, the use of ethnics on dedications in
Panhellenic sanctuaries by Athenians and
others is notoriously inconsistent (Schachter
1994, 304-06).
33 See K. A. Raaflaub, “The transformation of
Athens in the fifth century,” in Boedeker and
Raaflaub 1998, 23.
34 See, in general, M. M. Austin and P. Vidal-
Naquet, Economic and Social History ofAncient
Greece: An Introduction (Berkeley/Los Angeles
1977), 1-18 and 168—73, and Whitehead 1977,
116-21. For female breadsellers, see C. Brown,
“From rags to riches: Anacreon’s Artemon,”
Phoenix 37 (1983) 13 and L. Kurke, “Inventing
the Hetaira: sex, politics, and the discursive
conflict in Archaic Greece,” CA 16 (1997) 120,
n. 36.
3 mn For an expression of pride in craft on a grave
relief for a metic bronze worker dated to ca.
430-425, see JG BP 1349bis.
36 Lazzarini 1976, 68-70.
230
37 See , in ge ne ra l, Ro us e 19 02 , 58 -7 0; La zz ar in i
1976, 68-70; and Scheibler 1979. The ded-
ica tor of th e in sc ri be d pe ri rr ha nt er io n DA A
no. 383, Mechanion ho grammateus, could
conceivably be the secretary for a board of
Athenian officials rather than a professional
scribe, but dedications by office holders usu-
ally employ a verb rather than a title such
as grammateus. Raubitschek’s restoration of
naup[egos] (“shipwright”) on the early-sixth-
century inscription DAA no. 376 has been
thrown out by the editors of JG P (no. 589).
38 For an example of a workshop scene, seeJ.M.
Camp, “Cobblers and heroes,” AJA 77 (1973):
209.
39 Lazz arin i 1976 , 137- 39; for vases dedi cate d on
the Acropolis by potters, see Wagner 2000,
384. Craftsmen’s dedications in the Palatine
Anthology often represent the dedication of
“tools of the trade” in a sanctuary upon re-
tirement; for a discussion of both literary and
real expressions of this theme, see Rouse 1902,
70-75.
40 Beazley 1946, 21-22 and Boardman 1975,
30-33.
4 =I Mnesiades: Beazley 1956, 314; Beazley 1963,
2; and Scheibler 1979, 8-9 and Figure 1.
Andokides: Beazley 1963, 1-2, 6—7, and 1617;
Beazley 1946, 21; and Boardman 1975, 15—
17.
42 DAA 258 and J. Maxmin, “Euphronios
epoiesen: portrait of the artist as a Presbyopic
potter,” GaR 21 (1974) 178-8o.
43 wy See Webs ter 1972, 4—6. For a black figure sherd
from the Archaic Acropolis (Acr. no. 1367) in-
scribed with a dedication to Athena Hygieia,
see Beazley 1963, 1556 and P. Wolters, “Zur
Athena Hygieia des Pyrros,” AM 16 (1891)
182-90. The Epidauros cure tablets (JG IV?
951, lines 79-89) include the story of a slave
who broke his master’s cup and took it to the
sanctuary of Asklepios, where the god mirac-
ulously restored it.
44 Raubitschek suggested [Euthymides Polliou
keramelus for the sculptors name on DAA
no. 150, despite the problem of identifying a
potter as a sculptor; cf. G. Klaffenbach, re-
view of DAA, AJA 57 (1953) 138. Because the
length of the lacuna on the stone is not fixed,
other names or demotics ending in -us are pos-
sible. DAA no. 32 is a fragmentary column
base preserving only the six inscribed letters

]xoueett[. Raubitschek’s extremely speculative
restoration would make this a joint sculptors’
signature by the potters Tleson and Ergoteles,
sons of Nearchos. The name Bry[gos] on DAA
no. 92 is not the only probable restoration; in
my opinion, a better reading than Be[Gyos]
for the name fragment on DAA no. 179 is
Bio.
4 Al For attempts to narrow down the list, see Beaz-
ley 1946, 21-25; H. Philipp, 7ektonon Daidala,
Der bildende Kiinstler und sein Werk im vor-
platonischen Schrifium (Berlin 1968), 113-15;
Webster 1972, 4-7; Scheibler 1979, 8-13;
A. W. Johnston, “Amasis and the vase trade,”
in Papers on the Amasis Painter and His World
(Malibu 1987), 135-36; and K. Arafat and
C. Morgan, “Pots and potters in Athens and
Corinth: a review,” OJA 8 (1989) 312-13.
46 One could add Kalis (DAA no. 33), a match
with the potter who dedicated a red figure
vase (Acr. no. 1367) to Athena Hygieia on
the Acropolis. The black figure potter Arch-
eneides signed Little Master cups of ca. 560—
530 (Beazley 1956, 160 and 1932, 180), whereas
the dedication by Archeneides of the deme
Kollytos (DAA no. 184) has been dated ca.
500-480. Xenokles signed Little Master cups
of ca. 525 — see Beazley 1956, 184-86; J. D.
Beazley, Paralipomena: Additions to Attic
Black-Figure Vase-Painters and to Attic Red-
Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1971),
76-77; and Boardman 1974, 60 — but the ded-
ication by Xenokles son of Sosineos (DAA no.
42) dates to ca. 500-480.
47 DAA 465. Raubits chek identifi ed as bases for
stone or metal vases DAA nos. 42, 48, 53, and
209. In practice, Raubitschek’s criteria over-
lap: the name matches between the dedica-
tors of nos. 42 (Xenokles), 48 (Aischines), and
53 (Smikros) reinforce the hypothesis that the
bases supported vases, and vice versa. Com-
pare DAA no. 209, called a potter dedication
because the name of one ofthe two dedicators,
Kephaf[los], matches that of a fourth-century
envoy to Chalkis (Develin 1989, 219) whose
father was called a potter by a scholiast on Ar.
Ecclesiazusae 752; cf. Beazley 1946, 23, note I.
48 This is DAA no. 42 dedicated by Xenokles son
ofSosineos. The shallow, round plinth cavities
on DAA nos. 48 and 53 could be intended for
ma rb le kor e sta tue s. Wh at is lef t of the pli nth
cav ity on DA A no. 209 loo ks ova l rat her tha n
Notes To PaGEs 72-73
round; it could belong toa marble kouros with
an oval plinth.
49. Fo r example, ergon aparche or ergon dekate
(first-fruits or tithe of produce) on DAA nos.
53, 184, 210, and 234. Xepotv (“with his hands”)
on the fragment DAA no. 154 could be a
reference to the dedication of the profits from
a craft. Taken together, the words techne and
sophia on DAA no. 224 point to a dedication
by a craftsman whose name has been lost.
50 The potter Kriton signed in the mid-sixth
century (Beazley 1956, 446), but the dedica-
tion by Kriton son of Skythes dates to ca.
510-500. In this case, though, the red figure
potter Skythes of ca. 520-505 (Beazley 1963,
82-85 and 1624; Boardman 1975, 59-60) in-
creases the possibility of a grandson named
Kriton working in Athens at the right time.
Kriton’s dedication was signed by the sculptor
Pollias, thought to be the father of the vase
painter Euthymides, who signed some vases
with his patronymic. Yet Pollias’ three signa-
tures on the Acropolis dedications have been
made contemporary with Euthymides’ vases
(ca. 530-500) in the relative chronology — a
problem without an easy solution.
5 D.
ial W. J. Gill and M. Vickers, Artful Crafis,
Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery (Ox-
ford 1994); cf. D. Williams, “Refiguring At-
tic red-figure, a review-article,” RA(1996) 227—
52. For gold and silversmiths, see D. Harris,
“Nikokrates of Kolonos, metalworker to the
Parthenon treasurers,” Hesperia 57 (1988) 329—
a7
52 As suggested by D. W. J. Gill and M. Vickers,
“Reflected glory: pottery and precious metal
in Classical Greece,” Jdl 105 (1990) 7. For
Acrocups of ca. 525-480, see B. A. Sparkes
and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery ofthe
Sixth, Fifth and Fourth Centuries 8.c. (The
Athenian Agora XII) (Princeton 1970), esp.
266, no. 444 and Figure 5; for the Acrocups
on the Potter relief, see Beazley 1946, 22-23.
Compare Payne’s (1950, 48) identification of
Droop cups with offset lip of ca. 530-520, ear-
lier than the date of ca. 500 now assigned to the
relief, and Webster's (1972, 6) identification of
type B red figure cups. For a fifth-century Attic
silver Acrocup found in Bulgaria, see B. Barr-
Sharrar, “Macedonian metal vases in perspec-
tive: some observations on context and tra-
dition,” in B. Barr-Sharrar and E. N. Borza,
231
Nores TO PAGES 73-75
eds. Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical
and Early Hellenistic Times (Studies in the His-
tory of Art 10) (Washington 1982), Figure 3.
Dickins’ (1912, 272—74) restoration of the ded-
icator’s name as [Pamphalios is exempli gratia
only: only the last three letters and one stroke
of a fourth (now covered with plaster) remain
of the name, and the lacuna is large enough
to accomodate a variety of possibilities; cf.
Beazley 1946, 22-23.
53 The frag ment pres ervi ng the cent ral acrot e-
rion cutting is EM 6520; the single preserved
cutting for a corner acroterion is Agora I 4571.
54 For the Pith ekou ssai sign atur e, see Tho mas
1992, 58.
55 R. M. Cook, “‘Epoies en’ on greek vases,” JHS
91 (1971) 137-38.
56 For irregular signing practices in a variety of
media and periods, see G. Siebert, “Signa-
tures d’ artists, d’artisans et de fabricants dans
Pantiquité classique,” Ktema 3 (1978) 111-31.
Compare M. M. Eisman, “A further note on
EPOIESEN signatures,” AJA 92 (1988) 236—
37, who suggested that signed vases were “ei-
ther inspection pieces signed by a foreman,
owner or some other person in control of the
manufacturing process or that signed pieces
were made to be used as identification pieces
for a shipment.”
oY, Cup makers as dedicators: I. Scheibler,
Griechische Topferkunst. Herstellung, Handel
und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefidsse (Munich
1995), 124-28.
58 For the line “as never Euphronios” on
an amphora attributed to the vase painter
Euthymides, see H. Engelmann, ““Wie nie Eu-
phronios’ (Euthymides, Amphora Miinchen
2307), ZPE 68 (1987) 129-34. The name
Euphronios also appears as the name la-
bel for one of a pair of lovers (along with
the aristocrat Leagros’ name) on a vase in
the Getty Museum. A figure in a sympo-
sium scene on a krater signed by Euphro-
nios is labeled “Smikros”; see E. Keuls, “New
light on the social position of vase painters
in Late Archaic Athens,” in Mélanges Pierre
Lévéque3 (Annales littéraires de !Université de
Besancon 404) (Paris 1989), 149—62. However,
the names Euphronios and Smikros were com-
mon in Athens: both appear in fifth-century
citizen casualty lists (Osborne and Byrne
1994).
232
59 St ew ar t 19 79 , 10 9- 11 ; cf . We bs te r 19 72 , 41 . Th e
fourth-centu ry At he ni an po tt er s Ba kc hi os an d
his brother Kittos received exceptional honors
an d sh ou ld no t be ta ke n as th e no rm fo r ea rl ie r
periods.
60 Co mp ar e D. Pe pp a- De lm ou zo u, “T ex to vi kc
on ue ia Ka l ém iy pa ga l él pa py ap iv eo v
APY ITEKTOVIK@V LEAwvek TOU ’EttrypagiKoU
Mo vo et ou ” in Xa pi ot ip io v ei s ‘A va ot dc io v
K. OpAdv&ov IV (Athens 1967-1968), 380—
81. The term architekton to distinguish an ar-
chitect from a carpenter was already in use
by the time of Herodotus (3.60.3 and 4.87.1);
Plutarch (Per. 12) calls tektones members of the
“disorderly and banausic mob.” See also Dunst
1972, 124-27, no. XIII (fifth-century building
inscription from Samos) and R. R. Holloway,
“Architect and engineer in Archaic Greece,”
HSCP 73 (1969) 281-90.
61 The women who took part in the Plynteria
were few in number and were probably cho-
sen from the genos Praxiergidai (Brulé 1987,
105—I3). For a votive relief dedicated by ten
male and female washers (trAuvtfjs) to Pan,
the Nymphs, and the river Acheloés, see Lohr
2000, 98-100, no. 116.
62 These are /G II? nos. 4318, 4334, and 4339
(dedicated by Bakchios and Kittos) and SEG
25.220 (Agora I 7007), collected and discussed
by Geagan 1996, 154. Two of these dedications
(no. 4334 dedicated by Melinna and no. 4339)
are first-fruits offerings. Pausanias (1.24.3) saw
a statue of Athena Ergane somewhere between
the Parthenon and Erechtheion.
63 See Harris 1995, 14-15 and Hurwit 1999, 16-17.
64 Fo r ex am pl es of te ch ne ra ng in g from sculpt-
ing to mining, see A. Burford, Crafismen in
Greek and Roman Society (Ithaca 1972), 198—
218. Sophia was associated with art and artists
beginning with Daidalos (e.g., Hdt. 7.23.3 and
Paus. 1.26.7).
65 Out of about 50 reasonably complete inscribed
bronzes from the Acropolis (JG P nos. 526—
580), 2 were dedicated by self-identified da-
nausot: Phrygia the breadseller (JGTP546) and
Polykles the fuller (7G B 554). Compare the
so—60 inscribed sixth- and fifth-century ded-
ications from the remainder of Attica, which
yield no occupations and no name matches
with known potters or vase painters.
66 The dedicators are: the sisters Aristomache
and Charikleia, DAA no. 297; Empedia,

no. 25; Ergokleia, no. 232; Heido, no. 258;
Iphidike, no. 3; Kallikrite, no. 348 — a frag-
ment completing the name was published by
R. S. Stroud, “Inscriptions from the North
Slope of the Acropolis I,” Hesperia 40 (1971)
158, no. 14; [Kal]listo daughter of Naukydes,
no. 369; [Ly]sippo, no. 299; Mikythe,
no. 298; Phryne and Smikythe, no. 93;
Psakythe, no. 81; Smikythe the washerwoman,
no. 380; — wife of Eumelides Sphettothen,
no. 378; — wife of Prepis Xypetaion, no. 194;
and wife of —os, JG P 83obis. In the sixth and
fifth centuries, names ending in —1s are more
likely to be male than female. Kallis (DAA
no. 33) is also the name of a potter who dedi-
cated a vase on the Acropolis, and Spoudis (no.
87) was probably a man as well; see R. Develin,
“Laispodias Andronymios,” /HS 106 (1986)
184. Chionis (DAA no. 33) and Euarchis, the
joint dedicator with Lysias of DAA no. 292,
could conceivably have been women.
67 Al es hi re 19 89 , 67 an d S. B. Aleshire, “The
economics of dedication at the Athenian
Asklepieion,” in T. Linders and B. Alroth, eds.
The Economics of Cult in the Ancient Greek
World, Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium
1990 (Uppsala 1992), 86-92. Compare Harris
1995, 237.
68 Lazzarini 1976, 77 and B. S. Ridgway, “Ancient
Greek women and art: the material evidence,”
AJA 91 (1987) 401-02.
69 Out of 40 example s with enough of the ded-
icators name preserved to determine gender,
I count 14 small bronzes dedicated by women
compared with 26 dedicated by men. I have
left out of these totals as uncertain 2 dedica-
tions by individuals with names ending in —is.
70 Harris 1995, 224-28.
I — Tem ple ded ica tio ns: Ale shi re 198 9, 45- 46. The
dedicators of statues break down as follows:
67 percent men, 12 percent women, and 21
percent names from joint dedications by men
and women and dedications by public bodies;
cf. a fourth-century Acropolis joint statue
ded ica tio n by a hus ban d, wif e, and chi ldr en
(UG IP? 4318).
72 The sa mp le fo r th es e st at is ti cs ar e th e vo ti ve
inscriptions fr om th e Ac ro po li s th at sp ec if y
Athenaas the reci pi en t de it y (/ G II * no s. 43 18 —
4350) to ge th er wi th ot he rs th at om it th e re ci p-
ient deity bu t th at al so co me fr om th e Ac ro p-
olis (JG II’ nos. 4881-4959).
Notes TO PaGEs 75-79
73 I base my statistics upon JG P nos. 1194-1381;
cf. Ridgway 1993, 233.
74 See S. C. Hum phr eys , “Family tombs and
tomb-cult in Ancient Athens: tradition or
traditionalism?,” in The Family, Women and
Death (London 1983), 111-17, whose sample
comprises only fourth-century monuments
for Athenian citizens, as identified by the use
of the demotic.
Ds In Athe nian soci ety the bride’s dowry, though
it continued to be considered her own prop-
erty rather than her husband’s, was usually tied
up in land or other nondisposable possessions;
see L. Foxhall, “Household, gender and prop-
erty in Classical Athens,” CQ 39 (1989) 22-44.
76 See esp. D. Schaps, “The woman least men-
tioned: etiquette and women’s names,” CQ
27 (1977) 323-30; J. Bremmer, “Plutarch and
the naming of Greek women,” A/P 102 (1982)
425-26; R. D. Cromey, “On Deinomache,”
Historia 33 (1984) 385-401. Compare Harris
1995, 236-38.
Hil Schneider 1975; Schneider and Hocker 1990,
86-95 and 109; Holloway 1992, 268.
78 In addition to DAA, see Borrmann 1888;
W. B. Dinsmoor, “A note on the new bases
at Athens,” A/A 27 (1923) 23-24 (type A pillar
bases); Raubitschek 1938; Raubitschek 1939—
1940; Willemsen 1963; Jacob-Felsch 1969; and
Kissas 2000, 11-29.
I See Boardman 1959 and McGowan 1997. To
the fluted column bases in DAA, add a new
example (now Acr. no. 13782) published by
C. Vlassopoulou, “Avo avaOnuatiKés etri-
ypapés amd thy A®nvaixr AKpdtroAn,”
Horos 8—9 (1990-1991) I5—I6.
80 For the shapes and decoration of round capi-
tals from the Acropolis, see Kissas 2000, 199—
231, nos. B156—B182. Small bronze statues at-
tached to the tops of unfluted columns: DAA
nos. 40 and 41.
81 Mattusch 1988, 53—-59.
82 E. Buschor, A/tsamische Standbilder WM (Berlin
1935), 43-44; Mattusch 1988, 48; and Walter
1990, Figure 187.
8:St) The odo ros of Sam os: Pau s. 8.1 4.5 , 9.41 .1,
and 10.38.3; and Pliny HN 34.83. R. S.
Bianchi, in “Egyptian metal statuary of the
Third Intermediate period (circa 1070-656
B.c.), from its Egyptian antecedents to its
Samian examples,” in Small Bronze Sculp-
ture from the Ancient World (Malibu 1991),
Notes To PaGEs 79-81
61-84, traces the origins of hollow casting to
Egypt.
84 These are DAA nos. 77, 147; 150, 178 (dedi-
cated by Mnesiades and Andokides), 181, 191,
211, 232, 233, and 235. Three are low bases
(DAA nos. 77, 147, and 150), and the rest are
rectangular pillar bases of types A (nos. 178,
181, 191, 211, and 221) and B (nos. 232, 233, and
235).
85 For tech nica l desc ript ions , see Raub itsc hek
1938, 134-37; and Kissas 2000, 10. For illus-
trations of unpublished examples from the
Samian Heraion, see Walter 1990, Figure 183
(a base with cuttings for four Samian tech-
nique statues and one using the dowel tech-
nique, dated ca. 530). Raubitschek attributed
the arrival of the technique in Athens to
migrant Samian craftsmen, but none of the
sculptors who signed Acropolis statue bases
identified himself as Samian. A variant of
the Samian technique was used to attach the
round foot of a bronze vessel to the top of the
Acropolis Potter relief (DAA no. 70).
86 For the Ugento Zeus, see N. Degrassi, Lo
Zeus stilita di Ugento (Rome 1981) and Mat-
tusch 1988, 65—71 and Figure 4.16. Its height is
71 cm, less than half of life-size.
87 For the Livadhostro Poseidon, see D.
Philios, “XaAKxoUv &yaAua TMooeiSaovos ex
Boiotias,” ArchEph 17 (1899) 57-74; Houser
1987, 55-69; and Mattusch 1988, 79-83.
88 Mattusch 1980 and Mattusch 1988, ro1—os.
89 A statue ofZeus 10 ft tall was dedicated by the
Kleitorians and made by two Lakonian sculp-
tors (Paus. 5.23.6); Onatas’ statue was an
18-ft-tall Herakles dedicated by the Thasians
(5.25.7). Compare the small bronze statuette
signed by Onatas on the Acropolis attached to
its base by the dowel technique. For Onatas,
see J. Dérig, Onatas ofAegina (Leiden 1977),
D5
90 For fuller descriptions and illustrations, see
P.C. Bol, Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von
Antikythera (AM Beiheft 2) (Berlin 1972), 29—
32 and pls. 13-15, and P. C. Bol, Grossplastik aus
Bronze in Olympia (Olympische Forschungen
9) (Berlin 1978), 85-87, Figure 9 and pl. 19,
no. 128.
)—IG P dates 18 dowel technique bases before
480: DAA nos. 41, 80, 88, 94, 95, 97, 106,
107, 109, IIO, 115, 171, 236, 246, 277—279, and
282.
23.4
92 See de Ri dd er 18 96 , no . 77 7; Ni em ey er 19 64 ,
1 an d pl . 30 ; an d Ri dg wa y 19 93 , 12 9- 30
(NM 6450). H. G. Niemeyer, in “Das Kult-
bi ld de r Eu pa tr id en ?, ” in Fe st sc hr if t Eu ge n vo n
Mercklin (Waldsassen, Bavaria 1964) 106-11,
suggested that the Acropolis statuette copied
a Palladion used as the cult statue of the
Ur-Parthenon.
93 Ath ena s at rest : de Rid der 189 6, nos . 791 and
793 (this could be a mirror caryatid rather than
a freestanding votive statuette). De Ridder
1896, nos. 794 and 795 are flat bronze re-
poussé plaques worked on both sides: one may
have been supported by DAA no. 184, and a
torso fragment (de Ridder 1896, no. 933 and
Studniczka 1887a, 141-48, Fig. 10) may belong
to no. 795. Early Classical Athena with aegis:
Niemeyer 1964, 22-23, pls. 12 and 13. Danc-
ing women: Niemeyer 1964, 29 and pl. 26
(= de Ridder 1896, no. 787) and de Ridder
1896, no. 786. Male figures: to the nine ex-
amples included by Niemeyer 1964, add de
Ridder 1896, nos. 732 and 750 (both athletes).
Kore with right forearm inserted separately:
de Ridder 1896, no. 779. Centaur: Niemeyer
1964, 29-30 and pl. 27. Sphinx: Niemeyer
1964, 30 and pl. 29. Giant: Niemeyer 1964,
30 and pl. 28.
4 For the Acropolis statuette series and the Pro-
machos type in general, see Studniczka 1887a;
Niemeyer 1964; C. Rolley, “Statuette d’Athéna
Promachos,” RA(1968): 35-48; Herdejiirgen
1969; Stella G. Miller, “A miniature Athena
Promachos,” in Studies in Athenian Archi-
tecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presented
to Homer A. Thompson (Hesperia Supple-
ment 20) (Princeton 1982), 93-99; PB. G.
Kalligas, “’Atrd tiv ASnvaixt “AxpdétroAn.
Td dOnvaikd epyaotrpio petadoTtexvias,”
in TTpaxtikaé tou XII Ais6vous SuveSprou
KAaocoikts ApyaioAoytas B (Athens 1988),
92-97; and Ridgway 1992, 127-31.
95 Helmets possibly from Athena statuettes: de
Ridder 1896, nos. 261 and 262. Shields: nos.
263a (with an elbow inside and a gorgoneion
blazon) and 264 (inscribed with a dedication
by Phrygia the breadseller, JG BP 546). Left
arms bent to carry shield: nos. 637, 638, and
641 (with snakes draped over the upper arm).
Snakes’ heads, some possibly from Athena’s
aegis: nos. 544-572. Right hands clenched to
hold spear: nos. 634, 652, and 653.

96 Meleso’s Athena (NM 6447): de Ridder 1896,
no. 796; Niemeyer 1964, 21-22; and JG I
540. For gilding techniques, see P. C. Bol,
Antike Bronzetechnik: Kunst und Handwerk
antiker Erzbildner (Munich 1985), 157-60;
Mattusch 1988, 172—76; and P. Schulz, “The
Akroteria of the temple of Athena Nike,”
Hesperia 70 (2001) 2-5.
Si C.J . Her ing ton , Ath ena Par the nos and Athena
Polias (Manchester 1955); cf. Raubitschek’s
(DAA 359-60) connection between the
Athena Promachos type and the cult statue
of Athena Nike.
98 For the problem of the Archaic temples on
the Acropolis, see most recently M. Korres,
“Die Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis,” in
Hoepfner 1997, 218-43, and Hurwit 1999,
105-16.
99 See E. B. Harrison, review of C. J. Herington,
Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias, in AJA
61 (1957): 208—o9 and Shapiro 1989, 27-37.
Arguments against a monumental prototype:
E. K. Borthwick, “Two notes on Athena
as protectress,” Hermes 97 (1969) 385-91;
G. Pinney, “Pallas and Panathenaea,” in
J. Christiansen and T. Melander, eds. Pro-
ceedings of the Third Symposium on Ancient
Greek and Related Pottery (Copenhagen 1988),
465-77; and Alroth 1989, 48-54.
100 See D. Collon, “The smiting god: a study
of a bronze in the Pomerance Collection
in New York,” Levant 4 (1972) 111-34, and
S. Morris 1992, 108 and 291. For catalogs, see
O. Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Ar-
chaeological Study ofAncient Syro-Palestinian
Figurines (Tel Aviv 1976) and H. Seeden,
The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant
(Munich 1980); for examples found in the
Samian Heraion and classed as imports,
see U. Jantzen, Agyptische und orientalische
Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos (Samos
VII) (Bonn 1972), nos. B252, B1212, and
Br28s5.
ite) = Kunze 1961, 145—51 and pls. 60-61.
102 W. Bu rk er t, “R es ep -F ig ur en , Ap ol lo n
Amykla i un d di e ‘E rf in du ng ’ de s Op fe rs
au f Cy pe rn ,” Gr az er Be it rd ge 4 (1 97 5)
66; Wi in sc he 19 79 ; an d C. A. Sa lo we y,
“A va te lv au ev os TO PO TT AA OV : re co gn iz in g
the stance of He ra kl es ,” A/ A 97 (1 99 3) 29 9.
103 The si ze ra ng e fo r th e br on ze mi rr or ca ry at id s
collecte d by Co ng do n (1 98 1) is 6. 5— 20 .5 cm ,
Nores To PaGEs 81-84
with most examples in the range of 12-18 cm;
cf. the range of 6.9—29 cm for the statuettes
included by Niemeyer 1964. For small fig-
ural tripod supports, see L. Savignoni, “Di
un bronzetto arcaico dell’Acropoli di Atene
e di una classe di tripodi di tipo greco-
orientale,” MonAnt 7 (1897), cols. 277-376
and Herdejiirgen 1969, 102-06.
104 See JG B nos. 526-538, 540, and 541. Three
of these belong to extant Athena Promachos
statuettes: nos. 528 (dedicated by Nikylos;
the statuette is Niemeyer 1964, 19-20 and pl.
8), 530 (dedicated by Menekleides; Niemeyer
1964, 20-21 and pl. 10), and 540 (dedicated
by Meleso).
105 The Athena Promachos statuette dedicated
by Nikylos (NM 6452) stands on an inscribed
plinth attached to alost base with lead solder-
ing (Studniczka 18872, Figs. 1 and 2). Several
of the statuettes from the Acropolis are bro-
ken off at the ankles, a sign that they were
forcibly detached from their original bronze
plinths (Niemeyer 1964, pls. 1-3, 5, 9, 12, 16,
21, and 28).
106 Uninscribed plinths: de Ridder 1896, nos.
575-580, 583, 586, 588, 589, 592-594, 596, 597,
599, 600, 602—609, 611, and 612. Statue bases
for small bronze plinths: DAA nos. 40 (with
the plinth for an Athena Promachos statuette
still in place), 43, 46, 79 (two plinths still in
place), 81, 83, 184, 208, 241, 258, 260, 286,
289, 307, 308, and 311 (stepped bronze plinth
still in place). Small bronze plinth attached
by the Samian technique: DAA no. 191. In-
scribed marble plinths for small bronzes at-
tached by foot dowels: DAA nos. 313-315.
Combination of bronze plinths and dowel
technique on a base for multiple statuettes:
DAA no. 217, found in the February 1886
Perserschutt deposit. Small bronze statuettes
attached with foot dowels: DAA nos. 80
and 236.
107 I have identified as bases for Athena Proma-
chos statuettes examples that show holes for
vo n foot dowels with the left foot forward and the
feet far apart and, in the case of one of the
64 - two bronze plinths on top of DAA no. 79
and the plinth on DAA no. 184, bronze
plinths of a shape and size appropriate only
for this type of statuette. Additional bases
with cavities for small, rectangular bronze
plinths with length-to-width ratios of about
235
Notes To Paces 84-89
L5:1 or 2:1 could possibly have supported
Athena Promachos statuettes; these are DAA
nos. 58, 178 (dedicated by Mnesiades and
Andokides), and 232. The inscribed bronze
plinth for Meleso’s Athena measures 11 cm by
7.5 cm (1.5:5). DAA no. 43 features a shallow
rectangular cavity for a small bronze plinth
with a possible spear hole in front of it; it
could belong to an Athena standing at rest
and holding a spear vertically in her right
hand.
108 Compare Houser (1987), who used 1 m as the
height cutoff for inclusion in her catalog of
large-scale bronzes. The 76 Acropolis bases
for bronzes break down as follows. Samian
technique: DAA nos. 77, 147, 150, 178, 181,
211, 221, 232, 233, and 235. Dowel technique:
DAA nos. 41, 47, 80, 88, 94, 95, 97, 106, 107,
109113115; 117; 118) 120;"121,°123, 131b,, 195,
137, 139, 140, 143b, 145, 146, 160, 164, 166,
167, 171, 174-177, 193, 218, 236, 246, 277—
279, 282, and 313-315. Bases for small bronze
plinths: DAA nos. 40, 43, 46, 79, 81, 83, 184,
I9I, 208, 217, 241, 258, 260, 286, 289, 307,
308, and 311. The bases that (judging by their
size and top cuttings) could have supported
bronze statues at least 1 m tall are the follow-
ing: DAA nos. 41, 47, 77 (Samian technique),
88, 94, 95, 106, 107, 109-113, 115, 117, 118,
120, 121, 123, 131b, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143b, 145,
146, 147 (Samian technique), 160, 164, 166,
167, 168 (Boiotians and Chalcidians), 171, 173
(replacement Boiotians and Chalcidians),
174-177, 193, and 221 (Samian technique).
109 Three hollow cast drapery fragments found
on the Acropolis could come from Athena
Promachos statues over 30 cm tall (de Ridder
1896, nos. 662-664; no. 664 was as large
as half of life-size). Compare Niemeyer
(1964, 9-10), who argues for discontinuity
in subject matter between small bronze stat-
uettes and large-scale bronzes in the Late
Archaic period, followed by closer icono-
graphic connections in the Early Classical
period.
I10 Circa or post-480 bases for marble statues
in the /G chronology: DAA nos. 55a, 75,
76, 153, 162, 163, 213, 294, and JG 3 830bis;
cf. the list given by DAA 479: DAA nos. 22
(Angelitos’ Athena), 76, and 294.
II H The total number ofsixth- and fifth-century
bases for marble sculptures is 59, which
236
breaks down as follows. Matches with pre-
served ma rb le st at ue s: DA A no s. 6, 8, 10 , 13 ,
22 , 45 , 50 , 56 , 59 , 62 , 19 7, 29 0, 29 2, an d JG T?
804a. Ma rb le vo ti ve re li ef s wi th in sc ri pt io ns :
DA A no s. 70 , 29 9, an d 30 0. Po ss ib le su pp or ts
for votive reliefs: DAA nos. 298, 301, and 303—
306. Herms and inscribed bases for herms:
DAA nos. 295 and 302, and the herm pub-
lished by Matthaiou 1990-1991. Bases with
cuttings for marble statue plinths: DAA nos.
52, 54, 55a, 60-62, 64, 65, 66a, 67, 69a,
71-76, 148, 152, 153, 162, 163, 169, 195, 196,
200, 201, 206, 209, 210, 213, 215, 291, 293,
294, IG P 653, and JG P 83obis.
112 The Ptoén in Boiotia presents a similar dis-
junction between the series of preserved mar-
ble statues, in this case kouroi, and the
inscribed statue base series. The total num-
ber of kouroi falls somewhere between 90
and 135; among the 51 Archaic and Classical
inscriptions, only two definitely belong to
kouroi, with another five possible matches
(Ducat 1971, 455-58). Some of the inscribed
bases surely supported bronze tripods.
113 The plinths for small bronze statuettes
often have holes cut through them that
extended down into the floor of the plinth
cutting. These holes were either for nails
driven through the statuettes’ feet (e.g., DAA
no. 40) or for dowels attached to the bottoms
of the feet (DAA no. 191). In other cases,
nails were driven through smaller holes in
the plinth near its corners or between the
statuette’s feet (e.g., the left-hand plinth cay-
ity on DAA no. 81). On some bases it is not
possible to tell whether the holes correspond
with the position of the statuette’s feet or not
(e.g., DAA no. 258).
114 Holloway 1992. His inclusion of marble
Nikai in the same category as the korai is
equally problematic. So is the suggested con-
nection between DAA no. 3, a fluted column
base dedicated by a woman named Iphidike
and signed by Archermos of Chios, and Acr.
no. 693, a marble Nike: without a capital and
a plinth cavity, there is no way oftelling what
type of statue the base supported (cf. DAA
8). The only Acropolis Nike statue matched
with a dedicator is Kallimachos’ Nike (DAA
no. 13).
IIs In addition to DAA no. 62, other possible
bases for kouroi are DAA no. 209, JG BP 8042,

and three uninscribed bases; see G. Dontas,
“Néx poppyapivn dvabquatiKh Ba&ous
apxaixdv ypdveov els thv ’Axodtroaty,”
AAA 5 (1972) 84-86, and Kissas 2000, nos.
B29 and B139. Only DAA no. 209 preserves
the names of its dedicators, Iatrokles and
Kephal[los].
116 Eaverly 1995 and S. Morris 1992, 306. Eaverly
(1995, 16-17 and 64) dated the marble series
between ca. 550 and ca. 500 and associated
them with the Peisistratid tyranny, yet two
of the inscribed bases for marble horses and
horsemen (DAA nos. 74 and 210) could date
as late as ca. 500—480.
117 Pre-480 bases for bronze equestrian statues:
DAA no. 171 (four-horse chariot group); DAA
no. 236 (statuette); DAA nos. 88, 211, and
221, identified by the dimensions of their
bronze plinths; and possibly DAA no. m0.
At least four bronze equestrian monuments
date to the second half of the fifth century:
the bronze horse and groom set up by three
hipparchs of the Athenian cavalry (DAA no.
135), the colossal Trojan horse dedicated by
Chairedemos (DAA no. 176), the four-horse
chariot group dedicated by Pronapes (DAA
no. 174), and the statue supported by DAA
no. 177, reinscribed as an honorific portrait
in the Roman period; DAA no. 289 may have
supported a marble horse.
118 See Serwint 1987, 72-79; Eaverly 1995, 11-
12; and Korres 2000. For examples of horses
without riders dedicated by victors in the
chariot race, see Paus. 5.27.1, 6.13.5-6, and
6.14.1, and Hyde 1921, 27-28.
19 For example, Paus. 6.1.2 and 6.13.6, and
Serwint 1987, 72-73 and 75-76.
120 Marble rider from the Kerameikos: Eaverly
1995, 87-93, no. 5. Inscribed base for a marble
horse: Jeffery 1962, 125, no. 1 and Willemsen
1963, 136-39, no. 8. For a possible fourth-
century example by Praxiteles, see Paus. 1.2.3.
I2I See Siedentopf 1968 and FE Chamoux,
“I monumenti equestri in Grecia,” in A.
Melucio Vaccaro and A. Mura Sommella,
eds. Marco Aurelio: Storia di un monumento
e del suo restauro (Milan 1989), 51-62. The
ear ly- fou rth -ce ntu ry Ath eni an scu lpt or
Demetrios of Alo pek e is cred ited wit h a called Persian rider (Acr. no. 606), but its
bro nze equ est ria n port rait of an Ath eni an
nam ed Sim on (Pli ny HN 34. 76 = Ove rbe ck
1868, no. 898).
Notes TO PaGEs 89-90
122 Victor statue: Payne and Mackworth-Young
1950, 6-9. Fragments of a marble horse previ-
ously assigned to a “twin” of the Rampin rider
have been shown by I. Trianti, To Mougero
AxpotroAews (Athens 1998), 183, to belong
to two other extant marble horses from the
Acropolis; cf. Ridgway 1993, 200-o1 and
Nn. 5.47.
123 In the Roman period, the base was flipped
upside down and reused to support a bronze
rider, at which time the original dedicatory
text was reinscribed; Arist. Ath. Pol. 7.4
quotes an epigram purported to belong to
an Acropolis dedication by Anthemion son
of Diphilos: Anthemion supposedly dedi-
cated statues of himself and his horse upon
moving up from the Solonian property class
of the zeugites to the hippeis. Though the
meter of the epigram’s first line identifies it
as the second line of a typical elegiac couplet,
there is no first line, and its wording places it
in the fourth century; the second line reads
like a gloss on the first line rather than an
authentic votive statue dedication (Rhodes
1981, 143-45).
124 Archaic marble dogs from the Acropolis (Act.
nos. 143 and 550): Schuchhardt 1939, nos.
377 and 378. Marble bull: Schuchhardt 1939,
no. 379. Bronze bulls: Shapiro 1988. Myron’s
cow: Overbeck 1868, nos. 550-588. Bronze
lioness (interpreted as a “portrait” of the cour-
tesan Leaina): Paus. 1.23.2.
12 mn" The plinths of complete and near-complete
marble horse and horseman statues have
length-to-width proportions between 3.5:1
and 4.5:1: e.g., horse and rider Acr. no. 700,
which measures 79 cm by 19.5 cm (Schuch-
hardt 1939, no. 314 and Eaverly 1995, no.
12); a horse measuring 1.31m by 0.36 m
(Schuchhardt 1939, no. 316 and Eaverly 1995,
no. 2); and the funerary base for Xenophan-
tos in the Kerameikos with a plinth cavity
measuring 1.45m by 0.32 m (Jeffery 1962,
125, no. rand Willemsen 1963, 136-39, no. 8).
The torso of a marble bull from the Acrop-
olis (Schuchhardt 1939, no. 379) is about
twice as wide as all of the extant horses
and horsemen with the exception of the so-
length-to-width proportion of 2.6:1 is close
to the proportions of the plinth for a mar-
ble horseman from Amphipolis published
NorTes TO PaGEs 90-98

by D. Lazarides, “Emfypaupa Mapfoov ard Athena, “having vowed it when he was a

thy Augttroaiv,” ArchEph (1976) 164-81 and boy.”
"Augttroais (Athens 1993), 15-16 and Figure 136 Fo r de di ca ti on s ma de on th e or de rs of th e
3: the plinth measures 1.94 m by 0.715 m. god as ex pr es si on s of di vi ne po we r, se e
126 The base for the Archaic marble statue of a A. D. No ck , “S tu di es in th e Gr ae co -R om an
rider from Amphipolis has its inscription on beliefs of the empire,” in Z. Stewart, ed. Essays
the long side. The bases for a series of bronze on Religion and the Ancient World
statues of cows from Hermione dating to the (Cambridge, Mass., 1972), 45-48; cf. the
fifth century (Jameson 1953) are inscribed at fourth-century Acropolis dedication by a
the narrow end. woman named Meneia, “having seen the
Ty Burkert 1985, 65. arete of the goddess with her eyes.” (JG II’
128 For the distinction between ritual and art 4326).
historical discourses in Pausanias, see Elsner 137 For arg ume nts aga ins t the ass ump tio n that
1996. Greek art “reflects” everyday life, see A. F
129 W. Burkert, “Offerings in perspective: sur- Stewart, Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient
render, distribution, exchange,” in T. Linders Greece (Cambridge 1997), 12.
and G. Nordquist, eds. Gifts to the Gods, 13 8 Tran s. Blam ire 1989 , 35.
Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 139 On this aspe ct of Ath ena Poli as, see C.
(Boreas 15) (Uppsala 1987), 46-49. Sourvinou-Inwood, “What is Polis religion?”
130 For example, I. Morris 1992, 156-57: “more in O. Murray and S. Price, eds. The Greek
attention needs to be paid to the way ritual City from Homer to Alexander (Oxford 1990),
processes controlled the formation of the ar- 306-08.
chaeological record.” 140 Compare the equestrian trappings dedicated
3 = Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 284-94. at Brauron by Xenotimos son of Karkinos
132 This bias in favor of the exceptional dead of Thorikos and later stored in the Opis-
is particularly evident among the grave- thodomos; the entry in the inscribed inven-
stones inscribed with metrical epigrams dis- tories records no occasion for the offering
cussed by M. B. Wallace, “Notes on Early (Harris 1995, 50, no. II.31). Xenotimos was
Greek grave epigrams,” Phoenix 24 (1970) the son of a trierarch who dedicated a statue
95-05. on the Acropolis (DAA no. 127).
133 Holloway (1992, 272) connected the aparche 141 Compare Blamire 1989, ror (“Kimon’s dedi-
mechanism with dedications by nonaristo- cation may have possessed some ritual signi-
crats in the Archaic period; yet after 480, at ficance which has eluded Plutarch”).
least one dedication by an aristocrat (DAA 142 For the story, see Plut. Cim. 15.4; Diodoros
no. 132, dedicated by Hermolykos son of Siculus (Diod. Sic.) 17.17.6—17.18.1; and Arr.
Dieitrephes) was inscribed as an aparche. Anab. 1.11.7-8.
Banausic dedications with aparche. DAA
no. 197 (Nearchos). Several bronze statuettes
CHAPTER 5: THE IDENTITIES OF
and vessels dedicated on the Acropolis were
THE ACROPOLIS KORAI
also inscribed as aparchai: IGP nos. 526, 531,
1 For comparative statistics that underesti-
547, 554bis?, 559, s6tbis, 566, 570bis a, 57obis
mate the true numbers, see Ducat 1976, 239—
c, §70bis d, 57obis f; 583), and 5831.
40.
134 Banausic dedications with dekate. DAA
i) For lists of possible funerary korai from
nos. 49 (Simon the fuller) and 70 (Acropolis
Attica, including Phrasikleia’s kore and the
Potter relief). One fourth-century statue base
Berlin kore, see A. M. D’Onofrio, “Korai
probably from the Acropolis (JG IP 4889)
e kouroi funerari attici,” AnnArchStorAnt 4
also uses this formula. Small bronze statuettes
(1982) 142 and 144—45.
and vessels from the Acropolis inscribed as
=) For metal attachments to the korai in gen-
dekatat: IG 1} 533, 536, 540, 542, 5442, 548bis,
eral, see Ridgway 1990b; for forearm attach-
565, 567, 570bis e, 574, and 583p.
ment techniques, see A. Claridge, “Ancient
13 5 Com par e the fourth-century Acropolis dedi-
techniques of making joins in marble statu-
cation IG II’ 4325, dedicated by Myton to
ary,” in Marble: Art Historical and Scientific

238

Perspectives on Ancient Sculpture (Malibu
1990), 135-62.
Richter 1968, 3. See also Dickins 1912, 32;
Freyer-Schauenburg 1974, 10-11; Schneider
1975, 53, no. 20; Robertson 1985, 168; and
Brommer 1986, 43.
“" See esp. Rouse 1902, 283-90 and 302-06;
C. Renfrew, ed. The Archaeology of Cult: The
Sanctuary at Phylakopi (London 1985), 22-24;
Burkert 1985, 93; R. D. Whitehouse, “Ritual
objects: archaeological joke or neglected evi-
dence?,” inJ. B. Wilkins, ed. Approaches to the
Study ofRitual, Italy and the Ancient Mediter-
ranean (London 1996), 13-15 and 19; and N.
Himmelmann, “Some characteristics of the
representation of gods in Classical art,” in
Childs 1998, 103. For an example of this prob-
lem in fourth-century votive sculpture, see O.
Palagia, “No Demokratia,” in Coulson 1994,
118.
Osborne (1994, 88-96) stresses the con-
trast between predominantly male dedica-
tors and female korai on the Archaic Acro-
polis.
Point noted by Brommer 1986, 40. Base for a
kouros dedicated by the sons of Charopinos
of Paros at Delphi: Richter 1970, 103, no. 105.
Kouros dedicated by Pythias and Aischrion to
Apollo at the Ptodn: Richter 1970, 134, no. 155
and Ducat 1971, no. 202.
co For the arrhephoroi and other sacred per-
sonnel attested on the Acropolis, see B.
Jordan, Servants of the Gods (Hypomnemata
55) (Gottingen 1979), 28-36, who probably
overestimates the number of sacred offices in
place in the Archaic period, and Mansfield
1985, 260-357 (arrhephoroi).
Compare Ar. Lysistrata ll. 646-47: “and I
served as kanephoros when I was a fine young
girl wearing a necklace of figs”
ite) Roccos 1995, 647-48.
= al Compare Turner 1983, 392-95; Brulé 1987,
248; M. Stieber, “Aeschylus’s 7heoroi and re-
alism in Greek art,” ZAPA 124 (1994) 110-11;
and Shapiro 2001, 93-94.
Langlotz 1939, 7-9.
13 Kr on 199 6, 142 -49 . In the Arg ive Her aio n,
Pausanias (2.17.3) saw statues of priestesses
standing in front of the fourth-century
tem ple . For sta tue s of arr hep hor oi ded ica ted
on the Acr opo lis , see Tu rn er 198 3, 34 6-
50 an d Ma ns fi el d 198 5, 296 -30 1. Sta tue s
Notes TO PAGEs 98-102
kanephoroi by Polykleitos are mentioned by
Cicero (Overbeck 1868, no. 964).
14 Discovery of the Tenea kouros and its impli-
cations: Stewart 1986, 54-56. Kouros schema
used to represent athletes: C. Waldstein,
“Pythagoras of Rhegion and the early ath-
lete statues, I,” JHS 1 (1880) 168-201 and C.
Waldstein, “Pythagoras of Rhegion and the
early athlete statues, II,” /HS 2 (1881): 332—51.
I mM" Kouroi without attributes could be used
to represent Apollo: V. Zinserling, “Zum
Bedeutungsgehalt des archaischen Kuros,”
Eirene 13 (1975) 22; N. Himmelmann,
Herrscher und Athlet, Die Bronzen vom Quiri-
nal (Milan 1989), 78; cf. Ducat 1976 and Hur-
wit 1985, 198. Diodoros Siculus (1.98.6—9)
describes how the Archaic Samian sculptors
Telekles and Theodoros used the Egyptian
canon to make a kouros-like wooden statue
representing Pythian Apollo in two halves
and join them up at the end; for discussion
of the passage, see W. Davis, “Egypt, Samos,
and the Archaic style in Greek sculpture,”
JEA 67 (1981) 74-75. On a red figure vase
of ca. 470 by the Berlin Painter, a statuette of
Apollo is represented as a true kouros with-
out handheld attributes (de Cesare 1997, 91
and Fig. 42); for a similar figure in Pompeian
wall painting, see E. M. Moorman, La pit-
tura parietale romana come fonte di conoscenza
per la scultura antica (Assen/Maastricht and
Wolfeboro, N. H., 1988), 51 and 177, no.
203/1. On a Hellenistic votive relief from
Mysia, Apollo is represented by two sep-
arate figures, a kitharoidos and a kouros;
see F. van Straten, “Images of gods and
men in a changing society: self-identity in
Hellenistic religion,” in A. Bullock, A. A.
Long, and A. Stewart, eds. /mages and Ide-
ologies. Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World
(Berkeley/Los Angeles 1993), 254 and Figure
14.
16o For example, E. Csapo and M. Miller,
“Democracy, empire, and art: toward a poli-
tics of time and narrative,” in Boedeker and
Raaflaub 1998, 115-16.
Stewart 1986, 60. For a similar view, see R.
Osborne 198s, 51: “Kouroi are almost invari-
ably cut from a single block, and by the com-
plete lack of particularisation of their poses,
expressions and actions they refuse to invite
of any context in the human world outside the
239
Notes TO PAGEs 102-106
minimum one involved in the assumption of
human form: when kouroi are used as grave
monuments we have to rely on inscriptions
for any indication of the circumstances of
death.”
I co Hurwit 1985, 199.
19 See LSA G* 332, no. 29; Sok olo wsk i 1962 ,
no. 50, 1. 30; and Tuchelt 1970, 78-80,
no. K47, and pls. 43-46.
20 For the reconstruction of the group followed
here, see E. Walter-Karydi, “Geneleos,” AM
100 (1985) 91-104 and H. Kienast, “Die Basis
der Geneleos-Gruppe,” AM 107 (1992) 29-
42. For reclining male figures as representa-
tions of symposiasts, see Sourvinou-Inwood
19955 233-35-
2 Lal For these statues and their inscriptions, see
Freyer-Schauenburg 1974, nos. 61 (Philippe)
and 62 (Ornithe).
22 Lazzarini 1976.
2 ww For these figures, see Freyer-Schauenburg
1974, 9-10.
24 U. Kron, “Eine archaische Kore aus dem
Heraion von Samos,” in Kyrieleis 1986, 47—
65. For the new kore dedicated by Cheramyes,
see Kyrieleis 1995.
2 n"" See Freyer-Schauenburg 1974, nos. 6 (“Hera”
of Cheramyes in the Louvre), 7 (kore with
rabbit), and 49A/B (inscribed fragments of
over-life-size kouros); and Kyrieleis 1995,
26-30.
26 Kyrieleis 1995, 15-21 and Figs. s—to.
27 Freyer- Schauen burg 1974, 135-39, no. 65.
28 For a photograph of this base, see Walter
1990, Figure 183.
29 But at least one divine statue group was dedi-
cated in the Heraion in the fifth century: these
are the over-life-size bronze statues represent-
ing Zeus, Athena, and Herakles made by
Myron (Strabo 14.1.4). An uninscribed, curv-
ing base found in the Heraion might belong
to this group: see H. Kyrieleis, Fiihrer durch
das Heraion von Samos (Athens 1981), 129—
30, no. 33 and Figure 98, and Walter 1990,
188.
30 See Tuchelt 1970, 212-14; K. Tuchelt, “Drei
Heiligtiimer von Didyma und ihre Grund-
ziige,” RAX (1991) 85-98, and Ridgway 1993,
185—88.
3 See=K. Tuc hel t et al., “Di dyma. Bericht iiber
die Ausgrabungen 1985 und 1986 an der
Heiligen Strasse von Milet nach Didyma,”
240
AA (1 98 9) 14 3- 21 7; K. Tu ch el t, “B ra nc hi da i—
Didyma. Geschichte, Ausgrabung und
Wieder en td ec ku ng ei ne s an ti ke n He il ig -
tu ms , 17 65 bi s 19 90 ,” A n t W22 (1 99 1) 40 -5 03
and K. Tuchelt et al., eds., Ein Kultbezirk an
der Heiligen Strasse von Milet nach Didyma
(Didyma III. 1) (Mainz 1996).
32 Parke 1985.
3 Ww Tuc hel t 197 0, 215 -19 . On e add iti ona l sea ted
female figure from Didyma (no. K64) is prob-
ably too small to belong to a family group of
Branchidai, and another consists only of a
throne fragment (no. K44). The problem of
gender is most acute in the case of the seated
statue dedicated by Aiakes from Samos,
which represents either Aiakes himself — see
Freyer-Schauenburg 1974, 139—46, no. 67 — or
Hera —see P. Lévéque, “Héra et le lion d’aprés
statuettes de Délos,” BCH 73 (1949) 129-30
and Ridgway 1993, 191-93 and nn. 5.27—5.28.
See also U. Muss, “Bemerkungen zur Phileia
der Geneleosgruppe,” AM 96 (1981) 139-44,
who argues that the seated statue of Phileia
from the Geneleos group matches the iconog-
raphy of male rather than female seated
figures.
34 The exception is the male figure discussed
by H. Mébius, “Archaische Sitzstatue aus
Didyma,” AntP2 (1963) 23-29, and illustrated
by Tuchelt 1970, pls. 53-54, which sits on a
block seat rather than a throne and holds a
staffin the crook of its left arm.
35 See Parke 1985, 60.
3 6 For the dedi cation of Hermesianax, see
Tuchelt 1970, 82 and 119-20, no. Kso and
Lazzarini 1976, no. 168, where the statue
is called female. For the lost, fragmentary
kouros whose inscription refers to the dedi-
cation of “these andriantes,” see A. Rehm and
R. Harder, Die Jnscriften (Didyma II) (Berlin
1958), no. 12; Tuchelt 1970, no. K9; Lazzarini
1976, no. 768; and LSAG* 333-34. Unlike the
inscription on the Geneleos group, this is not
a speaking statue formula and does not im-
ply anything about whom the statues repre-
sented.
7 Compare a pair of near-identical korai from
Cyrene that may have formed part of a statue
group; these are pendants rather than mir-
ror images of one another (Pedley 1971). Two
early korai from Chios are nearly identical
pendants (Boardman 1962).

38 Compare the unique group of marble stat-
ues representing Zeus, Hera, Athena, Apollo,
Artemis, and Leto from the Dodekatheon
on Delos; see A. Hermary, P. Jockey,
and F Queyrel, Sculptures déliennes (Ecole
Frangaise d’ Athénes Sites et Monuments
XVII) (Paris/Athens 1996), nos. 14-19. Each
of the statues in the group, unlike typical
kouroi and korai, was characterized by added
attributes and distinctive clothing. For a pre-
liminary report on the Archaic sculpture from
Klaros, see B. Holtzmann, “Les sculptures de
Claros,” CRAT (1993) 801-17.
39 Num ber of kouroi from the Ptoén: Ducat
1971, 451-52. Korai from the Ptoén: Ducat
1971, nos. 46 (dedicated to Apollo by a man),
no. 47¢, and no. 138; cf. two small bronze stat-
uettes in the kore schema, nos. 188 and 195.
40 See Ducat 1971, 456-57 and Kienast 1992.
4 Lol Lechat 1903, 276-77: “Elles [the Acropo-
lis korai] doivent étre toutes impersonnelles
et anonymes. Probablement, les Athéniens
du Vle siécle se servaient pour les nommer
du méme terme que ceux du Ve siécle ap-
pliquaient aux ‘caryatides’ de l’Erectheion:
c était des k6paa, rien de plus. Appelons-les
donc, nous aussi, les corés: c’est le nom le plus
vague, mais, presque certainement, cest le
plus juste.”
42 Dickins 1912, 32: “It would... be impossible
by all the recognized canons of Greek art to
portray Athena at so early a period without
any distinguishing attribute of helmet, aegis,
or shield.”
N. Salo mon, “Ma kin g a worl d ofdiff eren ce.
43
Gender, asymmetry, and the Greek nude,”
in A. O. Koloski-Ostrow and C. L. Lyons,
eds. Naked Truths, Women, Sexuality, and
Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology (Lon-
don 1997), 201. For a similar argument, see
Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 231-32; but cf. pp.
24143, where she distinguishes between ko-
rai with feet together and more active korai
with feet apart.
re ap pr op ri -
44 R. Osbo rn e 19 94 , 91: “K or ai we
ate gift s to th e go ds , re tu rn s to th e go ds
th ei r go od ne ss in be st ow in g ec on om ic ca p-
ital, only because of their value as symbolic
capital in th e ex ch an ge s be tw ee n me n. ”
Sc hn ei de r 19 75 ; Sc hn ei de r an d Ho ck er 19 90 ,
45
88-95.
46 Holloway 1992, 268.
Nortes To PAGEs 106-112
47 Ric hte r 196 8, 3~5 ; Bar ber 1990; and Holloway
1992.
48 Lechat 1903, 276-77; Dickins 1912, 33; Payne
and Mackworth-Young 1950, 9-10; and
Robertson 1985, 169.
49 S. Mor ris 1992, 304. Télle-Kastenbein
(1992, 145) links her interpretation of the
Acropolis korai with the Archaic mental-
ity: “Die kiinstlerische Umsetzung eines
solchen Gedankenguts kann gar nicht an-
ders als zeitgebunden sein. Die fiir die
spatarchaische Kulturstufe charakteristische
Formgebung einer Madchenstatue wird nach
den Perserkriegen nicht wieder aufgegriffen.”
[Th]vde Kdenv dvé8nkev =dtrapytv
[Nav]JAoyos a&ypas/fv oi trovtopudd[av
xXpluocotptali]v’ étropev.
See CEG no. 266; cf. DAA 261-62.
IG P 706: “Hoc carmine demonstratur
virginum statuas vetustas Athenis in arce
inventas si non omnes at certe plerasque iure
appellari k6pas.” Compare H. A. Lolling,
“Emiypagixal dvaKoivooeis,” ADelt 3
(1890) 146, no. 5, who published the first
complete text of the inscription but made
no connection between DAA no. 229 and
the kore statues discovered in the Acropolis
excavations of the 1880s.
53 So Langlotz 1939, 7-8; Schweitzer 1963, 128—
29; Schneider 1975, 53, no. 20; and Holloway
1992, 267: “A statue of a standing woman,
even if given a specific identity, was known
to the Archaic Greeks as a ‘kore’.”
54 Dimensions of DAA no. 290 (from Kissas
2000, no. B79): 15.7—-19 cm by 19-21 cm (with
taper from bottom to top). DAA no. 229
measures 11.5 cm by 20.5 cm (Kissas 2000,
no. Br36).
5 n"n Dimensions of DAA no. 236 (Kissas 2000,
no. Bgg): 11.8-13.5 cm by 20.5—23 cm (with
taper).
5 nN For further examples of mnema, doron, and
hieron, see Lazzarini 1976, 101-04.
Compare Rouse 1902, 90. In Ar. Thesmopho-
riazusae \l. 317-18 and 1139, Athena is called
“Glaukopis kore” and “parthenos and kore”
fo r
(Anderson 1995, 60-61 and 64—65); cf. Plato
Laws 796B, where she is referred to as “our
kore and despoina (lady).” For a vase rep-
resentation where a figure of Athena has
been labeled “Herakleous kore” (“Herakles’
girl”?), see Boardman 1972, 64~65 and Cook
241
NOTES TO PAGES I12-116
1987, 168. For the meaning of kore on the
funerary monument for Phrasikleia, see now
H. Lohmann, “Das Motiv der mors immatura
in der griechischen Grabkunst,” in H. Fron-
ing, ed. Kotinos: Festschrift fiir Erika Simon
(Mainz 1992), 106-09.
Hurwit 1999, 61; cf. L. H. Jeffery, “Posei-
don on the Acropolis,” in [Tpaxtika Tou XII
Suvedpiou EAAnuikrs Koa Aativikys Erri-
ypagixrs III (Athens 1988), 125: “The gift of
a maiden statue must be to Athena, but the
gratitude is clearly to Poseidon.” Elsewhere,
in a review of Schneider 1975 in Gnomon 49
(1977) 430-32, Jeffery disputed the idea that
korai were ever dedicated to male gods.
wy For the epigram , see Diogene s Laertius 1.89
and Raubitschek 1968, 13-15.
60 The prescript to an Acropolis inventory of
409/8 (IG B 474, II line 1) refers to the old
wooden cult statue of Athena as the “archaion
agalma’” (the old statue).
6 =) Statuettes: J. Schelp, Das Kanoun: Der
griechische Opferkorb (Wiirzburg 1975), 20.
Basket attachments: Ridgway 1990a, 587-88,
no. 13.
62 D. Harris, “Gold and silver on the Athenian
Acropolis: Thucydides 2.13.4 and the inven-
tory lists,” Horos 8-9 (1990-1991) 81 and
Harris 1995, nos. IV. 20 and V. 90. For the
use of stele to mean column base, see R. H.
W. Stichel, “Columella-mensa-tabellum. Zur
Form der attischen Grabmaler im Luxusge-
setz des Demetrios von Phaleron,” AA 107
(1992) 436-38.
63 Nupgeov té Tiveov kal "AyeAwou tepdv dtd
TOV KOPOV TE Kal dyaAUaTooV EoiKev elvan.
64 For references to nymphs as korai, see
T. Hadzisteliou-Price, “Double and multiple
representations in Greek art and religious
thought,” /HS 91 (1971) 56-57. Compare
Delphi in the Hellenistic period, where the
“Leukai korai” (“white girls”) in inscriptions
may be Artemis and Athena; see G. Nachter-
gael, Les Galates en Grece et les Sotéria de
Delphes (Brussels 1978), 154-61.
6 mn For example, by Télle-Kastenbein 1986, 57—
62 and Frost 1998, 200-02.
66 For Themistokles’ dedication as the water
nymph Kallirhoe, see E. Diehl, Die Hydria.
Formgeschichte und Verwendung im Kult des
Altertums (Mainz 1964), 189—92 and 202-03.
Classical terra-cotta hydrophoroi: P. Guillon,
242
“Les offrandes en terre-cuite et le culte de
la terr as se su pé ri eu re de Ca st ra ki (P to io n) ,”
B C H 60 (1 93 6) 42 5. Co mp ar e th e Ac ro po li s
terra-cottas called hydrophoroi by Brooke
1921, 379-81: all are fragmentary and might
equally well be restored as kanephoroi.
67 "A pi ot ou ax ny Kai “A py eo tp at [n v. .. .. . ]
Traide/Mapidve, Kal yevedv hoiv [..]/
KuvapBos traisAi[........ ]. For the text,
see IG P 745 (ca. 500-480 B.c.).
68 Compare JG II’ 4321 (= CEG 2 no. 761),
a fragmentary dedication including a prayer
to preserve the dedicator’s wealth and to
give benefits to him and his family. The
base includes a signature of the famous por-
trait sculptor Demetrios of Alopeke, which
suggests that the dedication consisted of por-
traits of the dedicator and his family. For
Demetrios see Overbeck 1868, nos. 897—903.
69 See CE G no. 228 .
7O See DAA85; fora photograph of the top of the
base, see Kissas 2000, no. B22 and Figure 89.
7 Schweit
lol zer 1963, 128-29.
72 The name Kynarbos recurs in a fourth-
century Athenian citizen family: a Kephi-
sodotos son of Kyna[rbos] dedicated an hon-
orific statue on the Acropolis (JG II’ 3828).
For the family, see S. D. Lambert, “JG IP
2345, Thiasoi of Herakles and the Salaminioi
again,” ZPE 125 (1999) 116-17.
fa
=)The case of Archaic Cypriot votive “korai” re-
mains ambiguous. Though the Archaic male
figures dedicated in Cypriot sanctuaries are
typically characterized as individuals of dif-
ferent ethnicities and social statuses by their
distinctive clothing and headgear, the abun-
dant female figures have usually been inter-
preted as generic, anonymous votaries. The
same question that applies to the Acropolis
korai applies here: why dedicate “real” men
alongside “generic” women? The lack of epi-
graphical evidence attesting female votaries,
female priestesses, and sacerdotal personnel,
or statue groups representing families, in
Cyprus before the Hellenistic period ren-
ders problematic any inference that specific
women were being represented. The lack of
secure excavation contexts for most Cypriot
korai makes it impossible to determine how
many were dedicated to the “Great God-
dess” Aphrodite and how many might repre-
sent her. For interpretations of Cypriot korai

as generic, anonymous female votaries, see
Lechat 1903, 272-73; Yon 1974, 144-45; J.
B. Connelly, Votive Sculpture of Hellenistic
Cyprus (Nicosia 1988); and Connelly 1989.
Compare T. Hackens, “La couronne fleurie
de Héra” in O. Morkholm and N. M. Wag-
goner, eds. Greek Numismatics and Archae-
ology. Essays in Honor of Margaret Thomp-
son (Wetteren, Belgium 1979), 63-69; A.
Hermary, “Divinités chypriotes I,” RDAC
(1982): 171-73; and Yon 1989. Among the over
2,000 terra-cotta figures of votaries found in
situ and clustered around an altar at Agia
Irini, the great majority represent men; see
S. Térnqvist, “Arms, armour, and dress of the
terra-cotta sculpture from Ajia Irini, Cyprus,”
MedMusB6 (1972) 7-55.
74 See, in gene ral, A. Spy cket, La statuaire du
Proche-Orient ancien (Leiden 1981), 47-76.
Ui Col
~s lon 1995 , 60- 63 and Figure 43 (ca. 2,700
BIGHe
76 Gudea of Lagash: Collon 1995, 82-85; D. O.
Edzard, Gudea and his Dynasty (The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods
Vol. 3/1) (Toronto 1997), 29-67 (inscrip-
tions).
Tih H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the
Ancient Orient, 5th ed. (New Haven/London
1996), Figure 135.
78 For an example ofthe blending of divine and
royal iconography, see the stele of the Akka-
dian king Naram-Sin in the Louvre (Collon
1995, Fig. 58). For the problem of telling
priests apart from ordinary votaries, see D.
Collon, “Depictions ofpriests and priestesses
in the ancient Near East,” in K. Watanabe, ed.
Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East
(Heidelberg 1999), 17-46. P. R. S. Moorey
and S. Fleming, in “Problems in the study
ofthe anthropomorphic metal statuary from
Syro-Palestine before 330 B.c.,” Levant 16
(1984) 79, caution against interpreting all
bronze votive statuettes as gods: “As no Syro-
Palestinian metal statuette has yet been found
bearing an inscription naming the deity rep-
resented, nor any inscribed base for such a
statuette, there is no direct means of knowing
their precise identities.”
TS) As Pos tga te (19 94) arg ues for Ba by lo ni an
figurines of the third millennium B.c.
80 For an ei gh th -c en tu ry br on ze sta tue tte of
a pharoa h in a kn ee li ng pos e, see E. R.
Nores To PaGEs 116-117
Russmann, “An Egyptian royal statuette of
the eighth century B.c.,” in W. K. Simpson
and W. M. Davis, eds. Studies in Ancient
Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan. Essays in
Honor of Dows Dunham on the Occasion of
His 90th Birthday, June 1, 1980 (Boston 1981),
149-55.
8 i) See Bothmer, de Meulenaere, and Miiller
1969 and Schanz 1980, 5. On the dedica-
tors’ motives, see O. Masson and J. Yoyotte,
“Une inscription ionienne mentionnant
Psammétique ler,” EpigAnat 11 (1988) 176:
“Ils souhaitaient que leur personne, devenue
commensale d’un dieu, en recoive santé,
longévité et carritre prospére.”
82 See A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus, Book II (Etudes
préliminaires aux religions orientales dans
Empire romain 43) (Leiden 1975-1988),
107-10.
83 For exam ple, Diod . Sic. 1.97 .5—6: in return
for building the propylon for the temple
of Ptah (Hephaistos) at Memphis, Daidalos
was allowed to set up a wooden statue of
himself in the temple. For a small, Egyptian
stone statue inscribed as the representation
of a Greek mercenary, see Kyrieleis 1996,
109-10.
84 Bothmer, de Meulenaere, and Miiller 1969,
xxxvii: “The reason for this strange ban
against temple sculptures of women is not
known.”
85 As noted by Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 243-45.
86 The early sixth-century kore dedicated by
Nikandre on Delos has often been called a
representation of Nikandre herself, but it
can also be reconstructed as an Artemis (see
Chapter 6). An Archaic bronze “kore” stat-
uette from Paestum dedicated by Phillo to
Athena might also be a self-representation:
see CEG no. 395; Renate Thomas, Griechis-
che Bronzestatuetten (Darmstadt 1992), 10-11;
and Kron 1996, 159-60. Though not in-
cluded in Congdon’s (1981) catalog, it might
in fact be a bronze mirror support figure; for
comparanda, see Congdon 1981, nos. 7A, 14,
25, 26, 28, 94, 110, 115, and 116.
87 For the Moschop horos as a votary, see
W. Schiering, Der Kalbtrager (Opus Nobile
Heft 11) (Bremen 1958), 15; Robertson 1985,
167; and van Straten 1995, 55. The parapet
frieze of the Athena Nike temple also ap-
parently shows bulls destined for sacrifice to
43
NoTeEs TO PAGES 117-125
Athena; see M. H. Jameson, “The ritual of
the Athena Nike parapet,” in Osborne and
Hornblower 1994, 313-17.
88 I owe this observation to Carol Lawton.
For Athenian votive reliefs in general, see
U. Hausmann, Griechische Wethreliefs (Berlin
1960); G. Neumann, “Considerazioni sul
‘genere’ e sulla storia del rilievo votivo greco,”
Prospettiva18 (1979) 2-9; G. Neumann, Prob-
leme des griechischen Weihreliefs (Tiibingen
1979); E. Pemberton, “Dedications by Alcib-
iades and Thrasyboulos,” BSA 76 (1981) 309—
21; Aleshire 1989, 43; van Straten 1995, 58-62;
and M. Depew, “Reading Greek prayers,”
CA 16 (1997) 247-58. Walter’s (1923) pub-
lication of votive reliefs from the Acropolis
includes material from other sanctuaries; only
the reliefs that show Athena as the recipient
deity (nos. 38-78) belong to the Acropolis.
Olga Palagia plans to republish the Acropolis
reliefs.
89 Van Straten 1992, 275-83.
90 M. Guarducci, “Lofferta de Xenokrateia nel
santuario di Cefiso al Falero,” in Bradeen and
McGregor 1974, 57-66.
9 See
Lal O. Palagia, “Akropolis Museum 581, a
family at the Apatouria?,” Hesperia 64 (1995)
493-501.
92 For an example with name labels, see the
relief from the Amphiareion at Rhamnous
discussed by van Straten 1992, 274. One
of the Archaic painted votive plaques from
Pitsa near Sikyon shows a family sacrifi-
cial procession, including name labels for
three of the members of the family: see FE.
Lorber, Jnscriften auf korinthischen Vasen
(Berlin 1979), 93-94, no. 154 and pl. 46;
van Straten 1995, 57-58; the family includes
one adult male, two adult females, three
boys of different sizes, and a girl serving as
kanephoros.
93 See Gauthier 1985, 74-75. Women are also
poorly represented in Athenian honorific
decrees (Lawton 1995, 61).
CHAPTER 6: THE ICONOGRAPHY
OF THE ACROPOLIS KORAI
1 A small number of Archaistic kore statues
dating after 480 were found on the Acropo-
lis; they could date anywhere from the fifth
century B.C. to first century A.c. These are
Acr. no, 628 (Langlotz 1939, no. 36) and small
244
drapery fragments (Langlotz 1939, nos. 138—
143). Se e al so Ha rr is on 19 65 , 51 an d Ri dg wa y
1993, 453 and 456-58.
2 Co mp ar e Sn od gr as s’ (1 98 0, 17 9) re ma rk s on
the kouros type: “[The kouros] had an ex-
tremely broad social significance; but this does
not mean that it had an equally wide artistic
im po rt an ce . A go od cas e co ul d be ma de for
saying that, on the contrary, after the early
stages the better sculptors came to regard it as
a tiresomely inhibiting and convention-bound
medium, which they were compelled to adopt
for the majority of their commissions, but
from which they would escape with relief when
opportunity arose.”
Ww For example, Niemeyer 1964, 10.
aN Ten female seated figures in marble from the
Archaic period are included in Langlotz’ cat-
alog (Langlotz 1939, nos. 57-66); one is the
large seated Athena, Acr. no. 625 (no. 60); an-
other one may represent Cybele with a lion
on her lap (no. 57); Acr. no. 169 (Langlotz
1939, no. 58) may have been characterized as
Athena by an aegis rendered in paint. Compare
Langlotz 1939, no. 282, possibly the feet of a
seated female figure with a hole for a spear or
scepter next to the right foot. None of the seated
statues has been matched with any dedicatory
inscription. For votive, freestanding seated fe-
male figures as goddesses, see Herdejiirgen 1968;
Ridgway 1993, 196-97; and J. de la Geniére,
“Statuaire archa™.que de la Mére des dieux en
Arcadie et en Laconie,” in Palagia and Coulson
1993, 153-58; cf. H. Nagy, “Divinity, exalta-
tion and heroization: thoughts on the seated
posture in Early Archaic Greek sculpture,” in
Hartswick and Sturgeon 1998, 182-83.
“I E. B. Harrison, “Sculpture in stone,” in
J. Sweeney, L. Curry, and Y. Tzedakis, eds. The
Human Figure in Early Greek Art (Washington
1988), 54: “the unnamed Acropolis maidens
seem not to have represented mortal girls but
rather nymphs who served Athena, perhaps
daughters of the mythical earliest kings who
were treated as common ancestors of all Atheni-
ans in the new [Kleisthenic] constitution. ...”
The suggestion that nymphs took on an added
importance in Athens after Kleisthenes’ reforms
of 508/7 raises the question of why the marble
kore series comes to an end in 480.
6 Ridgway 1990a, 608-12; Ridgway 1993, 147—
49; Rouse 1902, 90 and 306-07.

i R i d g way 1990a, 610.
8 See, in general, F Winter, Die Typen der
figiirlichen Terrakotten | (Die antiken Ter-
rakotten II.1) (Berlin/Stuttgart 1903), 1-2
and 44~50; Brooke 1921; Sotiriadhi-Sedgwick
1939; Higgins 1967, 42-44 and 71-76; 1982;
and Alroth 1989, 52-54.
See Sotiriadhi-Sedgwick 1939, 52-55 and
Higgins 1967, 71-76. Example with extended
forearm gesture: R. Nicholls, “Two groups
of Archaic Attic terracottas,” in Kurtz and
Sparkes 1982, pl. 27f.
ite) At least two small, freestanding bronze stat-
uettes in the kore schema were also dedicated
on the Acropolis (de Ridder 1896, no. 779 and
Fig. 287 and Richter 1968, no. 136); one of
these has a separately attached right forearm
(de Ridder 1896, no. 779). The feet of two
other bronze statuettes may have belonged
either to kore figures or to attacking Athenas
in the “Palladion” pose with feet together (de
Ridder 1896, nos. 772 and 778).
I ani See esp. N. Weill, “Images d’ Artémis a
PArtémision de Thasos,” in EIAOAOTIOIIA.
Actes du colloque sur les problémes de l'image
dans le monde méditerranéen classique (Arche-
ologica 61) (Rome 1985), 137-48 on terra-
cotta figurines from the Artemision on
Thasos.
i3 For figurines as Athena, see Brooke 1921, 93—
105; cf. Higgins 1967, 72: “The offering in
the hand suggests a votary, but she sometimes
wears a helmet.” For the kanephoros type,
see Brooke 1921, 111 and pl. 272.
LonWw But cf. the contrary assumption by G. Zuntz,
Persephone, Three Essays on Religion and
Thought in Magna Graecia (Oxford 1971),
91-97 and 399: figurines represent human
subjects unless identified otherwise.
Sotiriadhi-Sedgwick 1939, 65-66.
H ~” For peplophoroi, see R. Télle-Kastenbein,
Friihklassische Peplosfiguren, Originale (Mainz
1980) and Télle-Kastenbein 1986. The Early
Classical bronze Athena statuette NM 6454
wears a peplos.
See C. M. Keesling, “A lost bronze Athena
signed by Kritios and Nesiotes (DAA 160),”
in C. C. Mattusch, A. Brauer, and S. E.
Knudsen, eds. From the Parts to the Whole,
I, Act a of the 13t h Int ern ati ona l Br on ze
Co ng re ss (J RA Su pp le me nt ar y Ser ies no.
39) (Portsmouth, R. I., 2000), 69-74.
Nores TO PaGEs 125-129
17 Fo r th is in ve ntory, see Harris 1992.
18 See M. Krumme, “Das Heiligtum der
‘Athena beim Palladion’ in Athen,” AA
(1993) 225. Fifth-century Palladia attested
by literary and epigraphical sources in-
clude a gilded one dedicated by the gen-
eral Nikias on the Acropolis (Plut. Nic. 3.3),
and the Palladion and palm tree dedicated
by the Athenians at Delphi to commem-
orate their victory over the Persians at the
Eurymedon river (Paus. 10.15.3). For two
Palladia made of precious materials in fifth-
century Acropolis temple inventories, see
Harris 1995, V.97 and VL.19.
For Pausanias’ and other Roman authors’ use
of archaios, see J. J. Pollitt, The Ancient View
of Greek Art. Criticism, History, and Termino-
logy (New Haven 1974), 154-58; Hurwit 1985,
15-18; and Arafat 1992, 396-97.
20 Korai found before the 1885 excavations: Acr.
no. 687 (torso found in 1843, with an ancient
repair); Acr. no. 269 (the head and torso of
the Lyons kore, first recorded in Marseilles
in 1719); and Acr. no. 584 (torso found
before 1843). The marble seated figure, Acr.
no. 620, was found in 1838 (Langlotz 1939, no.
59); Dickins (1912, 153) suggested it might be
one of the Athenas seen by Pausanias. Com-
pare the Propylaia kore (Acr. no. 688), reused
in the foundations of the Mnesiklean Propy-
laia less than 50 years after its dedication.
2| Compare Kalapodi (ancient Hyampolis) in
Boiotia, where the cult statue was displayed
in a temporary shrine built over the ruins
of the Archaic temple destroyed by the Per-
sians; see R. C. S. Felsch, “Tempel und Altire
im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos von
Hyampolis bei Kalapodi,” in R. Etienne and
M.-T. Le Dinahet, eds. Léspace sacrificiel dans
les civilisations méditerranéennes de lantiquité
(Paris 1991) 85-91.
22 Spear and shield: Floren 1987, 297-99 and
Ridgway 1992, 138-39. Spindle and distaff:
S. Stucchi, “Una recente terra-cotta sicil-
iana di Atena Ergane ed una proposta in-
torno all’ Atena detta di Endoios,” RM 63
(1956) 122-28; cf. Viviers 1992, 162-70 and
Villing 1998, 154-59. Erythrai cult statue:
Paus. 7.5.9. Archaic terra-cotta plaques from
the Acropolis show a seated, spinning woman
without any identifying attributes who might
be Athena; see C. A. Hutton, “Votive reliefs
245
Notes TO PAGES 129-136
in the Acropolis museum,” /HS 17 (1897)
306-18; Brouskari 1974, 41-42, no. 13055.
These are Schuchhardt 1939, no. 411, a strid-
ing female figure that might be a mar-
ble Athena Promachos; no. 412 (Acr. no.
142), usually associated with the so-called
Brettspieler group of two kneeling male fig-
ures; and no. 413 (Acr. nos. 293 and 658), an
attacking Athena possibly grouped with the
marble giant, Acr. no. 141. Trianti (1994, 86—
90) suggests that the Brettspieler group could
belong to the pediment of a small Archaic
building.
Acr. no. 136 and DAA no. 10: Langlotz 1939,
no. 271; Richter 1968, no. 132; and Brouskari
1974, 54-55. It took the sculptor two tries to
position the spear hole correctly: the second
hole measures approximately 1.5 cm in diam-
eter and 6cm deep, comparable to the size
and depth of the spear hole on the mid-fifth-
century Athena Hygieia base (DAA no. 166).
wn"
This is the pose of Athena on the early-
fifth-century “double Athena” relief NM
82 — see K. D. Mylonas, “’Ava®nquatixéy
aveyAvupov € ’Attikiis,” ArchEph 8 (1890),
cols. 1-10 and pl. 1— and the fragmentary vo-
tive relief, DAA no. 299. Pheidias’ cult statue
of Athena Areia at Plataia probably stood at
rest with a spear held upright in her right
hand (E. B. Harrison, “Pheidias,” in Palagia
and Pollitt 1996, 34-38). On Attic document
reliefs, the spear was sometimes either painted
in or added in metal; see, e.g., Lawton 1995,
nos. 26, 40, 68, and 96. A painted spear
may also have appeared in the right hand of
Athena on the Archaic Pig Sacrifice relief.
Plinth with hole fora spear (?): Langlotz 1939,
no. 282 and Figure 172 (Acr. no. 428).
Ridgway 1990.
Acr. no. 646: Dickins 1912, no. 646 and
Langlotz 1939, no. 99 (mislabeled Acr. no.
648). Compare Langlotz 1939, no. 109, not
clearly an Athena (as noted by Richter 1968,
no. 130), mislabeled Acr. no. 646.
NM 6491: de Ridder 1896, no. 793 and
Richter 1968, no. 136. Congdon (1981) does
not include this statuette in her catalog of
bronze mirror caryatids, but it does fall within
the typical height range for these figures and
there are two parallels among mirror supports
for its triangular base (Congdon 1981, no. 34
and pl. 32, and no. 88 and pl. 83).
30 PR Danner, “Meniskoi und Obeloi. Zum
Schutz vo n St at ue n un d Ba uw er ke n vo r de n
Végeln,” JOAI 62 (1993) 19-28, esp. 26.
31 The band on the head of Acr. no. 617
(Langlotz 1939, no. 86) is also raised all the
way ar ou nd , no t on ly in th e fr on t, bu t
Ridgway (1990a, 601, no. 76) suggests it
might not belong to a kore. Two other korai
with a smooth cranium are Acr. no. 671,
with a mantle draped over both shoulders
and both forearms extended (Langlotz 1939,
no. 14 and Richter 1968, no. 11), and a head,
Acr. no. 648 (Langlotz 1939, no. 109, misla-
beled Acr. 646); cf. the ridged rendering of
the hair above the stephane on heads Acr.
no. 616 (Langlotz 1939, no. 106) and 660
(Langlotz 1939, no. 87), and korai Acr. no.
670 (Langlotz 1939, no. 8), 672 (Langlotz
1939, no. 42), 673 (Langlotz 1939, no. 51), and
685 (Langlotz 1939, no. 47).
The second is the early “Naxian” kore, Acr.
no. 677 (Langlotz 1939, no. 23).
ww Euthydikos’ kore: Langlotz 1939, no. 37 and
Figure 44, and Richter 1968, no. 180. Acr. no.
677: Langlotz 1939, no. 23 and Richter 1968,
no. 59. For gigantomachy scenes showing the
gods riding in chariots, see F. Vian, Répertoire
des gigantomachies figurées dans l art grec et ro-
main (Paris 1951), 38-45: these include a frag-
mentary dinos signed by Lydos found on the
Acropolis (no. 105). An uninscribed Archaic
relief base from the Acropolis probably shows
Athena asa charioteer (Schuchhardt 1939, no.
420 and Fig. 347; Kissas 2000, no. B29).
For the fillet as a headband worn at wed-
dings, see J. Reilly, “Many brides: ‘mistress
and maid’ on Athenian lekythoi,” Hesperia
56 (1989) 418-20.
“ The kore Acr. no. 678 (Langlotz 1939, no.
10 and Richter 1968, no. 112) shows a similar
rendering ofthe hair, complete with a taenia
(fillet) wound only around the back section
of the hair.
-) Nikandre’s kore: Richter 1968, no. 1; Ridgway
1990b, 190; and Kokkorou-Alewras 1995, no.
Kr. Compare Hurwit 1985, 186-87. A Late
Archaic, over-life-size marble kore found in
the Delion on Paros has been called a possible
cult statue of Artemis; both arms were held
free of the body, but the hands are missing
(Kostoglou-Despini 1979, 26—31 and pls. 1-6;
and Alroth 1989, 19-20).

F
37 or the Naxian Apollo, see most recently
Gruben (1997, 267-82 and Fig. 3). The left
hand Delos A 4094 (Kokkorou-Alewras 1995,
no. K6r) belongs to the Naxian colossus; the
second hand is Delos A 4095 (Kokkorou-
Alewras 1995, no. K62). Compare P. Bruneau
and J. Ducat, Guide de Délos, 3rd ed.
(Paris/Athens 1983), 125-28, no. 9.
3} Bé
ioe) ar n (also called Béhague) Apollo, inscribed
as a dedication to Artemis: K. A. Pfeiff, Apol-
lon, Wandlung seines Bildes in der griechischen
Kunst (Frankfurt 1943), 80 and pl. 30 and
A. W. Johnston, “Some thoughts on the
Béhague Apollo,” in Palagia and Coulson
1993, 41-45; cf. Brommer 1986, 41-42. NM
16356 Apollo statuette: C. Karusos, “Ein
lakonischer Apollon,” in Schauenburg 1957,
33-37- Mantiklos’ Apollo: Kozloffand Mitten
1988, 52-57, no. 2.
3 \o Del ian Apo llo : R. Pfeiffer, “The image of the
Delian Apollo and Apolline ethics,” /Warb15
(1952) 20-32; E. H. Kantorowicz, “On trans-
formations of Apolline ethics,” in Schauen-
burg 1957, 265-74; and S. Jackson, “Cal-
limachus, Istrus and the statue of Delian
Apollo,” ZPE 110 (1996) 43-48. Apollo
Philesios, possibly a votive offering rather
than a cult statue: E. Simon, “Beobachtung
zum Apollon Philesios des Kanachos,” in
Schauenburg 1957, 38-46; Romano 1980,
221-35; and Tuchelt 1986.
40 See Richter 1968, no. 144 and Kozloff and
Mitten 1988, 62—65, no. 4.
4I See B. Sta’.s, “"Apyaixov d&yadya é€
"AxpoTroAews,” ArchEph3 (1887), pl. 9, and
V. Brinkmann, “La polychromie de la sculp-
ture archa”.que en marbre,” PACT (Revue du
groupe européen d études pour les techniques
physiques, chimiques et mathématiques ap-
pliquées a Varchéologie) 17 (1987) 43-46 and
Figs. 5 and 6. Compare the story frieze on the
Archaistic Dresden Athena, with metopes
showing scenes from the gigantomachy — E.
J. W. Barber, “The Peplos of Athena,” in J.
Neils, ed. Goddess and Polis: The Panathenaic
Festival in Ancient Athens (Hanover, N. H.,
1992), 115-16 and Figure 74.
42 Ridgway 1993, 174-75, no. 4.69; cf. B. S.
Ridgway, “The Peplos Kore, Akropolis 679,”
JWalt 36 (1977) 49-61 and Ridgway 1990b,
186-87. Two marble arms with shields from
the Acropolis were included by Schuchhardt
Nores TO PaGEs 136-140
(1939, no. 354 and 457) in his catalog of sculp-
tural groups, but could conceivably belong
to korai; one of the shields (no. 457) has a
gorgoneion on it.
4 ww For the pottery, see L. Kahil, “Le ‘cratérisque’
d’Artemis et le Brauronion de lAcropole,”
Hesperia 50 (1981) 253-63. For the archi-
tectural remains of the fifth-century Brau-
ronion, see Stevens 1936, 459-70 and R. E
Rhodes andJ.J. Dobbins, “The sanctuary of
Artemis Brauronia on the Athenian Acrop-
olis,” Hesperia 48 (1979) 325-41. Peisistratos
and Brauron: Angiolillo 1997, 68-69. The
head identified as a bear by Y. Morizot, in
“Un ours ou deux pour Artémis, une sculp-
ture de l’Acropole d’Athénes reconsidérée,
une figurine en terre cuite de Thasos,” REA 95
(1993) 29-44, might come from the Brauro-
nion, but it appears be a piece of architectural
sculpture rather than part of a freestanding
statue anathema.
Alroth’s studies, i.e., B. Alroth, “Visiting
gods — who and why?” in Gifts to the Gods,
Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985
(Boreas 15) (Uppsala 1987), 9-19 and Alroth
1989, focus on small bronze statuettes and
terra-cotta figurines.
4 Al
See esp. M. Robertson, A History of Greek
Art (Cambridge 1975), 560 and Brommer
1986, 43-46. Compare the small number of
Archaic examples identified by studies other
than Alroth’s, e.g., Kunze 1961, 160-68 (small
bronzes from Olympia, including a seventh-
century Palladion) and T. B. L. Webster,
“Some terra-cotta dedications,” in Studies
in Honour of A. D. Trendall (Sydney 1979),
181-84 (terra-cotta figurines).
46 Compare Plutarch’s story (Them. 30.1-3)
that Themistokles’ daughter Mnesiptolema
became a priestess of Cybele/Dindymene in
Magnesia because the goddess had saved his
life. For a brief discussion of Themistokles’
connections with Cybele and Artemis, see
Frost 1998, 199-200.
47 Change from peplos to chiton and himation:
Payne and Mackworth-Young 1950, 15—18;
and Richter 1968, 9-10. “Naxian” korai on
the Acropolis: Payne and Mackworth-Young
1950, 12-13; J. G. Pedley, Greek Sculpture
of the Archaic Period: The Island Work-
shops (Mainz 1976), 28-29; and Kokkorou-
Alewras 1995, 108—11 (Acr. nos. 619, 677, and
Nores TO PAGES 140-146
fragments of three other korai). Compare
Langlotz 1939, nos. 22-24, who calls these
“Samian.”
48 For the chiton and diagonal himation com-
bination, see Payne and Mackworth-Young
1950, 25-26; Herdejiirgen 1968, 47-63 and
Ridgway 1985, 7-9. J. A. Schaffer, in “The
costume of the korai. A re-interpretation,”
CSCA 8 (1975) 241-56, and Brinkmann
1994, 63-68, argue that this costume ac-
tually represents a combination of three
rather than two garments: himation, chi-
ton/blouse made of crinkly linen, and
a separate skirt made of heavier fabric.
But cf. the fragmentary seated figure Lan-
glotz 1939, no. 63 (Acr. no. 158 + 4834),
where the part of the chiton below the belt
shows “heavy” folds in front blending into
crinkly folds at the sides and back.
ae Cf. B. S. Ridgway, “Of kouroi and korai,
Attic variety,” in Studies in Athenian Archi-
tecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presented to
Homer A. Thompson (Hesperia Supplement
20) (Princeton 1982), 123-27, suggesting that
the chiton and himation was a sculptural
convention for depicting nonhuman sub-
jects rather than an everyday costume in
Athens.
50 Promachos statuettes with chiton and hima-
tion: NM 6457, NM 6456, Paris Bibliothéque
Nationale 149, NM 6455, NM 6458, and NM
6447 (Meleso’s Athena).
5 4 Acropolis korai with peplos: Langlotz 1939,
nos. 1 (Acr. no. 589), 2 (Acr. no. 593, with a
mantle draped over both shoulders and ob-
jects in both hands), 3 (Acr. no. 656), and 4
(Acr. no. 679, the Peplos kore).
Korai with chiton only: Langlotz 1939, nos. 6
(Acr. no. 582), 7 (Acr. no. 602), 8 (Acr.
no. 670), and 9 (“Red Shoes” kore, Acr. no.
683); cf. the costume of nos. 10 (Act.
no. 678), m (Acr. no. 611), and 12 (Acr. no.
605), called chiton and short mantle by Lan-
glotz but possibly a chiton with overfall;
see E. B. Harrison, “The dress of the Archaic
Greek korai,” in Buitron-Oliver 1991, 232-34.
Promachos statuettes with chiton only: NM
16364, NM 6451, and NM 6452. Harrison
also suggests that korai wearing the chiton
without himation represented younger girls
than the korai with himation.
53 Schuchhardt 1939, no. 430.
248
54 Compare Roccos 1995, 647-48. Korai with
himati on ov er bo th sh ou ld er s an d bo th fo re -
ar ms ex te nd ed : La ng lo tz 19 39 no s. 14 (A ct .
no. 671) , Is (A cr . no . 66 6) , 16 (A cr . no . 35 11 ),
20 (A cr . no . 69 6) , an d 21 (A cr . no . 68 8) ;
only one forearm extended: nos. 13 (Acr. no.
585) and 19 (Acr. no. 687); too fragmentary
to be sure: nos. 17 (Acr. 588 + 175) and 18.
Acropolis korai wearing the peplos (no. 12)
and the chiton with diagonal himation (nos.
27, 47, 53, and 56) also extend both forearms.
5 Se
~“s
e es p. Sc hn ei de r 19 75 , 20 -2 3 an d St ie be r
1996, 82-86.
56 See M. M. Levine, “The gendered gram-
mar of Ancient Mediterranean hair,” in H.
Eilberg-Schwartz and W. Doniger, eds. Off
Women’ Identity
with her Head! The Denial of
in Myth, Religion and Culture (Berkeley/Los
Angeles 1995), 91-107.
Brinkmann 1994, 61-62 and Figs. 1, 2, 10,
and 20.
Langlotz 1939, no. 68.
D. B. Thompson, “The golden Nikai recon-
sidered,” Hesperia 13 (1944) 192-98.
Langlotz 1939, nos. 189-220 (arm fragments
with or without hands), 221-236 (hand frag-
ments), and 237-245 (fingers). Compare the
list assembled by Sourvinou-Inwood (1995,
243-44), which includes only evidence for
marble objects held in the hands of the well-
preserved statues.
ion See Brinkmann 1994, 30-31, 47—48 and Figs.
80-81 (Zeus), 30-31 (Apollo), and Beilage
5-8. Athena on the East and North friezes
wears an aegis fringed with metal snakes.
io)) See E. G. Pemberton, “The gods of the East
Frieze of the Parthenon,” AJA 80 (1976) 117—
20; EF. Brommer, Der Parthenonfries (Mainz
1977), 153-56 and 160-64; and most recently
J. Neils, “Reconfiguring the gods on the
Parthenon Frieze,” ArtB 81 (1999) 6—20.
6 es) Two further examples ofhands holding metal
cylinders are included by Langlotz in his cat-
alog (Langlotz 1939, nos. 232 and 234), but
described as “kaum Archaisch” and “late,”
respectively.
64 On one of th e Arc haic painted votive plaques
from Pitsa, participants ina sacrificial proces-
sion hold branches with ribbons tied at the
bottom in their right hands. A fragmentary
left hand (Langlotz 1939, no. 207) holding
drapery folds also has a dowel hole, possibly

for a bronze object held in the fist; but E. B.
Harrison (personal communication) suggests
that the hole might represent a repair to the
hand.
6 Storrs Olsen of the Smithsonian Institu-
~“"
tion (personal communication) confirms the
identification of the birds in the hands of the
Acropolis korai as doves; cf. the partridge held
by Richter 1968, no. 57 from Miletos. Dif-
ficulty of recognizing birds in vase painting:
E. Bohr, “A rare bird on Greek vases: the
Wryneck,” in Oakley, Coulson, and Palagia
1997, 109. Representations of Athena holding
an owl in vase painting: M. H. Groothand,
“The owl on Athena's hand,” BABesch 43
(1968) 35-51. For a list of birds associated
with the gods, see H. B. Jessen, “Kirkos
und Rabe in ihrer Beziehung zu Apollo und
Hera,” AA (1955) 307, no. 69.
66 Flowers are emphasized by Schneider 1975;
Richter 1968, 3; Sourvinou-Inwood 1995,
249; and Stieber 1996, 77-90. Compare
Schneider and Hocker 1990, 88: “Bliiten oder
Zweige.”
67 For the “flo wer sniff er” moti f, see, in gen-
eral, K. Schauenburg, “Eine neue Am-
phora des Andokidesmalers,” /dI 76 (1961)
49-51; Hartmann 1976-1980, 184-92; and
C. Sourvinou-Inwood, “A series of erotic
pursuits: images and meanings,” /HS 108
(1987) 137. Examples in relief sculpture in-
clude the funerary stele ofabrother and sister
in the Metropolitan Museum (Richter 1968,
no. 137).
6 co See Yon 1974, 107—13 and 144 and Yon 1989,
257-60: the Cypriot korai consistently hold
the flower in the right hand, whereas the
Egyptian prototypes always hold it in the
left. For examples of Egyptian statues, see
Richter 1968, Figs. 1a and Ic.
69 For Spes , see Har tma nn 1976 -198 0, 192- 94
and M. D. Fullerton, The Archaistic Style
in Roman Statuary (Mnemosyne Supplement
110) (Leiden 1990), 114-16.
7O Sounion relief: Ridgway 1970, 49-50. The
goddess on the right in the later-fifth-century
Great Eleusinian reliefisanother possible ex-
ample; see Ridgway 1981, 138-41 and E. B.
Harrison, “Eumolpos arrives in Eleusis,” Hes-
peria 69 (2000) 270.
i = For a rep res ent ati on of a sta tue of a god -
dess holding a wreath in her left hand and
Nores To PaGEs 146-149
a phiale in her right in vase painting, see de
Cesare 1997, no. 218 and Figure 152. For vase
scenes in which women give flowers, wreaths,
or fillets to men, see Sutton 1981, 304—
20.
72 Cypriot korai holding bulls: A. Hermary,
Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre: Sculp-
tures (Musée du Louvre) (Paris 1989), 321
and Connelly 1989, Figure 26. R. Ozgan, in
Untersuchungen zur archaischen Plastik Ion-
zens (Diss. Bonn 1978), 133-136, identifies
the marble staff held by an East Greek kore,
which was published by E. Bielefeld, “Ein
ostgriechischer Koren-Torso,” in Wandlun-
gen, Studien zur antiken und neueren Kunst
Ernst Homann-Wedeking gewidmet (Wald-
sassen, Bavaria 1975), 53-56, as the Krumm-
stab (“crooked staff”) held by gods and rulers
in Hittite reliefs. Aghios Ioannis Rendis kore:
D. Lazaridis, “EiSioeis €€ “Attixfis,” AAA 1
(1968) 34 and Figure 3; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood
1995, 251, who mistakenly calls her empty
handed. Two other possible examples are
the kore from Samos published by U. Kron,
“Eine archaische Kore aus dem Heraion von
Samos,” in Kyrieleis 1986, 47—65, and one of
a pair of korai found in Cyrene (Pedley 1971,
45, no. 55).
i, For
eS) another kore holding a pomegra nate, see
C. Bayburtluoglu, “Archaische Statuen und
Statuenfragmente aus Erythrai,” in Kyrieleis
1986, 193-98.
74 For the Athena Nike cult statue, see Romano
1980, 58-69 and I. S. Mark, The Sanctuary
ofAthena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages
and Chronology (Hesperia Supplement 26),
(Princeton 1993), 20-30 and 93-98, but cf.
Ridgway 1992, 135-37; N. Robertson, “Athena
and early Greek society: Palladium shrines
and promontory shrines,” in M. Dillon, ed.
Religion in the Ancient World, New Themes
and Approaches (Amsterdam 1996), 389-90;
and Robertson 1996, 44—46. For vase repre-
sentations of Athena holding a helmet, see
N. Kunisch, “Zur helmhaltenden Athena,”
AM 89 (1974) 85-104. For dedications of
bronze and terra-cotta pomegranates on the
Acropolis and in the Samian Heraion, see
IG BP 544 and N. Kourou, “Poa yAukela”
in Topos TiuntiKkos yia Tov Ka@nyntrH
NixoAdo TTAdtova I (Herakleion 1987)
105-09.
249
Nores To PaGEs 149-156
75 The late-fifth-century cult statue of Hera
in the Argive Heraion held a pomegranate
(Paus. 2.17.4).
See Houser 1987, 51 no. 26.
Harpy tomb reliefs and Lakonian hero re-
lief from Chrysapha: Richter 1968, no. 192
and E. Berger, Das Basler Arztrelief, Studien
zum griechischen Grab- und Votivrelief um
500 v. Chr. und zur vorhippokratischen Medi-
zin (Basel 1970), 129-42 and Figs. 149, 154,
and 128.
Ornithe: Richter 1968, no. 68 and Freyer-
Schauenburg 1974, 115-16, no. 62. Philippe:
Richter 1968, no. 67 and Freyer-Schauenburg
1974, 113-I5, no. 61. Third empty-handed
kore: Richter 1968, no. 69 and Freyer-
Schauenburg 1974, no. 22 and pl. 13. All
three wear the chiton without himation and
grasp chiton folds with the right hand.
La Dame d’Auxerre: Neumann 1965, 81-82
and Richter 1968, no. 18.
Chios korai: Boardman 1962.
mH For the Classical prayer gesture, see Neumann
1965, 82-84 and Pulleyn 1997, 188-95. The
gods could also be shown making this gesture.
For kneeling women in votive reliefs, see
E van Straten, “Did the Greeks kneel before
their Gods?,” BABesch 49 (1974) 159-89; for
kneeling goddesses, seeJ.Dérig, “EiAe{8uia,”
in Palagia and Coulson 1993, 145-51.
Cf. Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 241-43 and 247—
48.
Late korai from Delos: Richter 1968 nos.
147, 149, and 150; Floren 1987, 167 and
nn. 53-59. Late korai from Eleusis: Richter
1968, nos. 139 and 140. There are also two ex-
amples from Taranto in Italy (Richter 1968,
nos. 171 and 172). The exceptions are the
korai from Cyprus, where the extended fore-
arm gesture remained rare even after it was
adopted on the Acropolis (Yon 1974, 144—45).
n”n Compare Sourvinou-Inwood 1995, 244 and
246-48 and Stieber 1996, 96 and no. 100,
who conflates the gesture of holding an ob-
ject against the chest with the Near Eastern
votary gesture of clasping empty hands in
front of the chest.
Oo’ See Langlotz 1939, no. 27 (Acr. no. 614), 37 cm
tall without its head and with both forearms
inserted separately and extended; and no. 33
(Acr. no. 667), 22.5 cm tall without its head,
with its right forearm inserted separately
and ex te nd ed . Tw o un us ua l wo od en st at -
ue tt es fr om Sy ra cu se ea ch ha d bo th fo re ar ms
inserted separately (Richter 1968, nos. 53
and 54).
See Richter 1968, nos. 106 and 107; for a re-
construction of the pediment, see Amandry
1991, 53 Figure 16.
Seated figure: Langlotz 1939, no. 61 (right
forearm extended). Nikai: Langlotz 1939,
nos. 69 and 77 (Kallimachos’ Nike) and
fragment no. 74. The Early Classical seated
goddess from Tarentum holds both fore-
arms extended at slightly different angles
(Herdejiirgen 1968).
See, e.g., Palagia 1990, Figure 12 and T.
Brahms, Archaismus: Untersuchungen zu
Funktion und Bedeutung archaistischer Kunst
in der Klassik und im Hellenismus (Frankfurt
1994), no. 6 and Figure 5.
East Greek influence upon Bégazkéy god-
dess: K. Bittel, “Phrygisches Kultbild aus
Bégazkéy,” AntP2 (1963) 12; Richter 1968, 5;
J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, Their Early
Colonies and Trade, 4th ed. (London 1999),
93-94 and Figure 106; and J. Boardman,
The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity
(Princeton 1994), 25-26. Phrygian influence
upon East Greek korai: F. Isik, “Die Entste-
hung der friihen Kybelebilder Phrygiens und
ihre Einwirkung auf die ionische Plastik,”
JOAI57 (1986-1987), cols. 43-63.
= Hittite pose: E. Richardson, Etruscan Votive
Bronzes (Mainz 1983), 36-37. Walters stat-
uette: Richter 1968, no. 14 and Kozloff and
Mitten 1988, 57—61, no. 3.
N This is true also of the statues shown repre-
sented on two Archaistic votive reliefs from
the Acropolis that have been used to re-
construct the appearance and setting of the
Athena Nike cult statue: Walter 1923, nos.
76, cited by I. Mark, “The ancient image and
Naiskos of Athena Polias: the ritual setting
on a late fifth century Acropolis relief,” AJA
91 (1987) 287-88, and 274 (cf. Palagia 1990,
350-55).
Ww Ephesian Artemis: Romano 1980, 236—49.
Samian Hera: Romano 1980, 250-71. Early
date and Anatolian influence: Villing 1998,
147.
Amandry 1991, 208.
Amyklaian Apollo: L. Lacroix, Les reproduc-
tions de statues sur les monnaies grecques, la

statuaire archa”.que et classique (Lidge
1949), 54-58; Romano 1980, 99-114; and
A. Faustoferri, “The throne of Apollo at
Amyklai: its significance and chronology,”
in Palagia and Coulson 1993, who argues
for a mid-sixth-century date for the marble
throne. For Apollo statuettes with bow and
spear, see N. Fields, “Apollo: god of war,
protector of mercenaries,” in K. A. Sheedy,
ed. Archaeology in the Peloponnese: New
Excavations and Research (Oxford 1994),
96-99.
96 The Apollo Philesios was stolen by the Per-
sians in 494 and returned by Seleucus Nikator
in 301 B.C. (Tuchelt 1986). If Pausanias (2.32.5)
and Pliny (HN36.9) are correct, Tektaios and
Angelion’s Delian Apollo should date to the
sixth century rather than the fifth.
97 Th e qu ot at io n is from Kroll 1982, 73. For
collections and discussions of the testimonia,
see Romano 1980, 42-57; Alroth 1989, 48-52;
and Ridgway 1992, 120-27.
98 For the inventories, see Mansfield 1985, 135—
73 and 185-88.
99 Krol l 1982 ; but cf. Mansfield 1985, 179-84
and Robertson 1996, 46—47.
ste) [°) Keesling 1999, 523-32.
IOI As argued by K. J. Hartswick, “The Gor-
goneion on the Aigis of Athena: genesis, sup-
pression and survival,” RA (1993) 269-92 and
P. A. Marx, “The introduction of the Gor-
goneion to the shield and aegis of Athena and
the question of Endoios,” RA (1993) 227-68.
102 Phiale in large-scale sculpture: O. Palagia,
“Reflections on the Piraeus bronzes,” in Pala-
gia 1997, 180 and E. Simon, “Archaologisches
zu Spende und Gebet in Griechenland und
Rom,” in Ansichten griechischer Rituale,
Geburstags-Symposium fiir Walter Burkert
(Stuttgart 1998), 134-38. Some, if not all,
of the small bronze “libating athletes” in-
cluded by Thomas (1981, 99-126 and pls.
LV-LXXVII) in her catalog of Late Archaic
and Early Classical athlete statuettes could,
in fact, represent Apollo holding a phiale.
IO Ww Ridgway 1985, 8—10.
104 See Shapiro 1989, 134-39 and N. Him-
melmann, “Narrative and figure in Ar-
chaic Art,” in Childs 1998, 67-102 and N.
Himmelmann, “Some characteristics of the
representation of gods in Classical art,” in
Childs 1998, esp. 115-16.
Nores TO PaGEs 156-158
tos For another view of the phiale’s significance,
see B. Eckstein-Wolf, “Zur Darstellung
spendender Gotter,” MdI 5 (1952) 39-75.
I prefer the explanation of K. C. Patton,
“Gods who sacrifice: a paradox of Attic
iconography,” A/A 94 (1990) 326: “the para-
dox of a ‘worshipping deity’ emerges as a
cultic structure whose immense power de-
pends on its very reversal of canonical sacri-
ficial categories (sacrificer or devotee, victim,
object of sacrifice or devotion).”
106 C. Sourvinou-Inwood, in “Persephone and
Aphrodite at Locri: a model for person-
ality definitions in Greek religion,” JHS 98
(1978) 101-21, distinguishes between the Pan-
hellenic and the local personalities of the
gods.
107 See Ridgway 1984, 8 and 41; Alroth 1989,
15—64 and 106-08; Lawton 1995, 39-44; and
K. D. S. Lapatin, “The ancient reception
of Pheidias’s Athena Parthenos: the visual
evidence in context,” in L. Hardwick and
S. Ireland, eds. The Reception of Classical
Texts and Images (Milton Keynes 1996),
1-20. Compare Rouse 1902, 357-60 and
E. Bartman, Ancient Sculptural Copies in
Miniature (Leiden 1992), 33-34. None of the
votive statues of Zeus mentioned by Pausa-
nias (5.22.1-24.11) in the Altis at Olympia
shares both of the attributes of Pheidias’ cult
statue (Wiinsche 1979, 107-10 and Ridgway
1984, 40-43).
108 For a catalog of over 500 examples, see de
Cesare 1997.
109 Alroth (1992) and Romano (1980) associate
the divine statues on vases with cult statues
rather than votives. Compare a red figure
vase ofca. 460 B.C. in the Metropolitan Mu-
seum, G. M. A. Richter, Red-Figured Athe-
nian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt
(New Haven 1936), no. 84 and pl. 88, which
shows a man praying to an Athena statue al-
most identical to Angelitos’ Athena from the
Acropolis.
I1O For the splanchna as a product of animal sac-
rifice, see J.-L. Durand, “Greek animals:
toward a topology of edible bodies,” in
M. Detienne and J.-P. Vernant, eds. The
Cuisine of Sacrifice among the Greeks, trans.
P. Wissing (Chicago/London 1989), 87-118.
Il See Ar. Eccl. 780-783: “take a lesson from
the hands of agalmata: even when we pray
251
NorTes TO PAGES 158-161
for [the gods] to give us good things, they
still stand there stretching out a hand palm-
upwards, as if they intend not to give some-
thing but to take it.”
Ii2 Compare Ar. Equites 1168-1169: the Sausage-
seller molds pastries in the hand of the Athena
Parthenos cult statue and then gives them to
Athena as an offering (Anderson 1995, 27—
29). An epigram on a lost statue of the fifth-
century Olympic victor Theagenes, who was
worshipped as a god after his death, de-
scribes his statue as stretching out its hand
to ask for more sacrificial meat: “And on a
wager I once ate a Maeonian ox; for my own
country Thasos could not have furnished a
meal to Theagenes; whatever I ate, I kept
asking for more. For this reason | stand in
bronze, holding forth my hand” (Athenaeus
X.412d; trans. Gulick). For the statue, see F.
Chamoux, “Le monument de Théogenés:
autel ou statue?,” in Thasiaca (BCH
Supplement 5) (Paris/Athens 1979), 143—
53.
13 Six Chian inscriptions concerning the re-
sponsibilities of priests include either the
formula T& és yeipas (“the [portions] to the
hands”) or some variation of the formula T&
és XElpas Kal Ta &€5 yOvaTa (“the [portions]
to the hands and to the knees”): these are
Sokolowski 1969, nos. 119-120 (fourth cen-
tury B.c.) and Sokolowski 1962, nos. 76-77
(fourth century), 78 (second century) and 129
(fifth century). Sokolowski (1962, 138-39) in-
terpreted these formulas as references to the
parts of the sacrificial victim earned by the
priest as payment for services rendered. But
cf. H. von Prott and L. Ziehen, Leges Graeco-
rum Sacrae e Titulis Collectae, Leges Graeciae et
Insularum (Leipzig 1906), 297-99, no. 113; A.
Plassart and C. Picard, “Inscriptions d’Eolide
de d'lonie,” BCH 37 (1913) 198-99; FE. Graf,
Nordionische Kulte (Zurich 1985), 40-41;
Brulotte 1994, 282—85; and van Straten 1995,
131-33, who relate the inscriptions to the
Birds passage. For the practice of placing
sacrificial meat on offering tables situated
in front of both cult and votive statues,
see D. Gill, “Trapezomata: a neglected as-
pect of Greek sacrifice,” HTR 67 (1974)
117-37.
114 Hittite parallels: O. Gurney, Some Aspects of
Hittite Religion (The Schweich Lectures of
252
the British Academy 1976) (Oxford 1977),
62. In th e At he ni an As kl ep ie io n, sm al l vo -
ti ve rel ief s an d se al st on es we re de di ca te d in
the hand s of th e cu lt st at ue (A le sh ir e 19 89 ,
220). In Diodoros Siculus’ (20.14.6) and
Cleitarchus’ (FGrH IIB 137 F9) description
of infant sacrifice at Carthage, the infant
to be sacrificed was placed in the hands of
a statue of Kronos, which stood with both
forearms outstretched and both palms turned
upward; see S. Brown, Late Carthaginian
Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in
their Mediterranean Context (Sheffield 1991),
23.
15 B. S. Ridgway, “The bronze Apollo from Pi-
ombino in the Louvre,” AntP7 (1967) 62-65.
Pausanias (5.24.1) mentions a small statue of
Zeus with one hand outstretched standing
on a pillar in the Altis.
116 Two other Late Archaic fragments (Schuch-
hardt 1939, nos. 330 and 340) are hands
held with palms flat, with no indication of
any object held in the hands. These have
been associated with the male figures from
the Acropolis because they do not wear
bracelets, but neither do Euthydikos’ kore
nor the kore Acr. no. 615. Another male hand
(Schuchhardt 1939, no. 335) was extended
with palm up and with holes for a lost metal
attachment.
117 Langlotz 1939, no. 211. Vase scenes show
men handing whole animals and pieces of
animals to women as gifts (Sutton 1981,
300-04), but not strips of meat and internal
organs.
118 Ridgway 1981, 141-42 and Figure ror; and
Kron 1996, 142-43.
119 For source and discussion, see H. J. Magou-
lias, trans. O City of Byzantium, Annals of
Niketas Choniates (Detroit 1984), 305-06
and K. J. Hartswick, “The Athena Lemnia: a
response,” in Hartswick and Sturgeon 1998,
108.
See K. Gross, The Dream ofthe Moving Statue
(Ithaca 1992), 52-59 discussing the motif
in Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman” and
Wallace Stevens’ “Dance of the Macabre
Mice.”
B. Fehr, “Zur religionspolitischen Funk-
tion der Athena Parthenos im Rahmen des
Delisch-Attischen Seebunden,” Hephaistos1
(1979) 71-91, esp. 75-76.

CHAPTER 7: FIFTH-CENTURY
PORTRAIT STATUES ON
THE ACROPOLIS
I Act. no. 1336: Brouskari (1974, 21-22) dates it
to the late Hellenistic period; cf. P. Karanas-
tassis, “Untersuchung zur kaiserzeitlichen
Plastik in Griechenland II: Kopien, Vari-
anten und Umbildungen nach Athena-
‘Typen des 5. Jhs. v. Chr.,” AM 102 (1987), no.
B IV 1, who dates it to the first century a.c.
Brommer 1986, 53.
Ww
N For the statues of Konon and Timotheos in
the agora, see Gauthier 1985, 96-97; Kru-
meich 1997, 207-09; and Léhr 2000, 74-75,
no. 85. For the family, see Davies 1971, 508.
For the phenomenon of retrospective hon-
orific portraits, see Zanker 1995, 57-58 and
63-65.
~“"
On the practice of honorific portraits in
Athens and elsewhere, see, in general,
M. K. Welsh, “Honorary statues in ancient
Greece,” BSA 11 (1904-1905) 32-49; Wycher-
ley 1957, 207-17, nos. 690-712; P. Veyne, “Les
honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla et
les dédicaces grecques et latines,” Latomus 21
(1962) 49-98; M. Guarducci, Epigrafia greca
IT (Rome 1970), 147-62; D. M. Lewis and
R. M. Stroud, “Athens honors King Euago-
ras of Salamis,” Hesperia 48 (1979) 180-93;
Stewart 1979; Lazzarini 1984-1985; R. R. R.
Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford
1988); J. J. Tanner, “Art as expressive symbo-
lism: civic portraits in Classical Athens,” CA/
2 (1992) 167-90; and Geagan 1996.
a Example of a fourth-century official hon-
orific portrait on the Acropolis: /G II? 3822.
Portraits inscribed with name labels: /G
II’ 3828 (Lohr 2000, 94-95, no. 111); 3829
(Pandaites and Pasikles group: Lohr 2000,
139-142, no. 161); and 3205 (Léhr 2000, 93—
94, no. 109). The statues of Konon and
Timotheos that Pausanias (1.24.3) saw on the
Acropolis were restored by Stevens (1946,
4-10 and Figs. 5-11) as honorific portraits
with inscribed name labels, but the discoy-
ery of new parts of the base reveals a dedi-
catory inscription that reads “Konon son of
Timotheos, Timotheos son of Konon dedi-
cated.” This is the earliest example of asemi-
circular base on the Acropolis, and it went
through at least two phases; this type of base
was use d els ewh ere onl y for stat ue gro ups.
Notes To PaGEs 165-171
See Jacob-Felsch 1969, 32—33 and 54-55 and I.
Schmidt, Hellenistische Statuenbasen (Frank-
furt/New York 1995), 111-23; cf. Krume-
ich 1997, 212. For preliminary descriptions
of the base, see G. Touchais, “Chronique
des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques en
Gréce en 1985,” BCH 110 (1986) 675; H. R.
Goette, “Restaurierungen und Porschungen
auf der Akropolis von Athen, ein Forschungs-
bericht,” AntW 22 (1991) 172; A. Pariente,
“Chronique des fouilles et découvertes
archéologiques en Gréce en 1993,” BCH 118
(1994) 698; and Lohr 2000, 76-77, no. 86.
E.g. G. M. A. Richter, “Greek portraits I: a
study of their development,” Co//Latomus 20
(1955); G. M. A. Richter, “The Greek por-
traits of the fifth century B.c.,” RendPontAcc
34 (1961-1962) 37-57; B. Schweitzer, “Be-
deutung und Geburt des Portrats bei den
Griechen,” in Zur Kunst der Antike, Aus-
gewahlte Schrifien, 11 (Tiibingen 1963), 189—
97; Schweitzer 1963; and Metzler 1971; cf.
K. Fittschen, “Griechische Portraits — zum
Stand der Forschung,” in Fittschen 1988,
1-38.
co See CEG no. 394 (from Francavilla Marit-
tima); Ebert 1972, 251-55, and Kurke 1993,
141-42.
For speculation as to the reasons why, see
K. Stears, “Dead women’s society: construct-
ing female gender in Classical Athenian fu-
nerary sculpture,” in N. Spencer, ed. Time,
Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology,
Bridging the ‘Great Divide’ (London/New
York 1995), 109-31; cf. Stieber 1996.
For Demetrios and his contemporaries, see
Stewart 1979 and Lazzarini 1984-1985, esp.
1o1—03. Metzler (1971, 314-26) dates his work
too early.
— Recent critiques of Kopienkritik: C. H.
Hallett, “Kopienkrititk and the works of
Polykleitos,” in Moon 1995, 121-27; Zanker
1995, 9-14; J. J. Pollitt, “Introduction: mas-
ters and masterworks in the study of Classical
sculpture,” in Palagia and Pollitt 1996, 14-15;
and Ridgway 1998.
For example, Ebert 1972, nos. 15 (preserved
only in the literary tradition), 16 (Euthymos
of Locri), 17 (Hieron of Syracuse), and 20
(Ergoteles of Himera).
ww Compare Raubitschek’s (1939) discussion of
Athenian fifth-century victor statues, which
Notes To PaGEs 171-172
includes DAA no. 111 and the Leagros base in
the agora. It has been suggested that DAA no.
47 (IG P 863) dedicated by Timotheos son
of Konon, an ancestor of the fourth-century
admiral Konon, was also a victor statue (e.g.,
by Davies 1971, 508; Kyle 1987, no. P113; and
Harris 1995, 231). The inscription as pre-
served includes only the name, patronymic,
and demotic of Timotheos and appears to
be a name label rather than a dedicatory
formula, but the verb anetheken might have
originally been included where the inscrip-
tion breaks off (as noted by Krumeich 1997,
111-13). If so, the under-life-size bronze statue
supported by the base could have represented
a divine or heroic subject rather than Timo-
theos himself.
14 Richter (1970, 67 no. 41 and 77) rightly
argues against identifying a kouros statue
found in Phigaleia and now on display in
the Olympia Museum as Arrachion’s victor
portrait. For the victor statues at Olympia,
see H.-V. Herrmann, “Die Siegerstatuen von
Olympia,” Nikephoros 1 (1988) 119-83.
q5 On Archaic victor statues, see Amandry 1957
and S. Lattimore, “The nature of early Greek
victor statues,” in S. J. Bandy, ed. Coroebus
Triumphs (San Diego 1988), 245-56.
For a new reconstruction of this dedication,
see Korres 2000, 296-311.
17, For Kallias’ statue at Olympia, see Paus. 6.6.1
and Lazzarini 1976, no. 862.
18 On the Acropolis, fluted column bases such
as DAA no. 21 appear to have been used
only for marble statues. Raubitschek’s (1939,
156 and DAA 24-26) suggested connection
between DAA no. 21 and the Kritios Boy is
purely hypothetical because the column has
no preserved capital, and therefore provides
no archaeological evidence for the statue it
supported (as noted by Kissas 2000, 300, n.
471). The same goes fora connection between
the marble head called the “Blond Boy” and
DAA no. 76, the victor dedication of Phayl-
los of Kroton mentioned by Raubitschek
(DAA 82). For possible examples of marble
victor statues, see Hyde 1921, 323-28 and A.
Hermary, La sculpture archa a que et classique
(Lexploration archéologique de Délos 34)
(Paris 1984), 14—19.
For the hoplitodromos race, see Kyle 1987,
181-82.
254
20 Compare the suggestion (JG I? 823; CEG
no. 26 5; an d Kr um ei ch 19 97 , 18 1- 84 ) th at
Phayllos’ dedication might not be a victor
statue but rather a marble Athena.
2 Lal The statue’s feet were attached to the base by
deep dowel holes under the heels and shal-
low, rectangular cuttings under the balls of
the feet (as illustrated by Korres 2000, Fig. 18,
no. 5). Parallels for the rectangular cuttings
may be seen on the bases for two colossal
bronze Apollos dedicated at Delphi soon af-
ter 480. One was dedicated by the people
of Peparethos and signed by the Athenian
sculptor Diopeithes — Marcadé 1953-1957,
1.26 and pl. VI —and the other was dedicated
by the Greeks after the battle of Salamis — A.
Jacquemin and D. Laroche, “Une base pour
PApollon de Salamine 4 Delphes,” BCH 112
(1988) 235-46. The Roman marble warrior
from Tivoli identified as a copy of Epichari-
nos statue by E. Minakaran-Hiesgen, “Zum
‘Krieger’ in Tivoli,” in Tainia (Festschrift R.
Hampe) (Mainz 1980), 181-95, is a figure
standing at rest and does not match its pose,
as evidenced by the holes on top of DAA
no. 120.
22 Discus thrower (NM 661s): de Ridder 1896,
no. 757; I. Konstandinou, Pu@yo? Kivrjceav
Kai Aofai otdoeis eis Tv apxaloTepav
eAANviKhv TAaotikry (Athens 1957), 37-
41; Niemeyer 1964, 27-28; and Thomas
1981, 32-33. Possible discus thrower, runner,
or wrestler (NM 6614): de Ridder 1896,
no. 750; Niemeyer 1964, 26-27 and pl. 21
(discus thrower); Thomas 1981, 26—27 (run-
ner); and J. Neils, “Who's who on the Berlin
Foundry cup,” in C. C. Mattusch, A. Brauer,
and S. E. Knudsen, eds. From the Parts to
the Whole, 1, Acta of the Thirteenth In-
ternational Bronze Congress (/RA Supple-
mentary Series no. 39) (Portsmouth, R. I.,
2000), 79 (wrestler). Head of a small bronze
athlete: A. Spetsieri-Choremi, “X@Axivo xe-
para aBANTH amd thv AxodtroAn,” AAA
18 (1985) 173-79. Compare U. Sinn, “Die Vo-
tivgabe eines Athleten in Olympia,” in H.-U.
Cain, H. Gabelmann, and D. Salzmann, eds.
FestschriftftirNikolaus Himmelmann (Mainz
1989), 67—68, who suggests that bronze stat-
uettes of athletes may have been dedicated by
athletes as prayer offerings before the games
rather than as thank-offerings for victory.

23 In fa vo r of an early date, see Pliny (HN
34.17 = Wycherley 1957, no. 271). See, in
general, S. Brunnsaker, The Tyrant-Slayers of
Kritios and Nesiotes, A Critical Study of the
Sources and Restorations, 2nd ed. (Stockholm
1971) and Taylor 1991.
24 C. La ndwehr, in Die antiken Gipsabgiisse
aus Baiae (Berlin 1985), 27-47, argues for a
later date on the evidence of Roman plaster
casts of the Tyrannicides from Baiae. Small
stylistic details of the cast of Aristogeiton’s
head that do not exactly match renderings
seen in Roman marble versions of the group
are used to support the attribution of the
cast to Antenor’s version rather than Kritios
and Nesiotes’. According to this argument,
Antenor’s group closely resembled the later
version and should be dated only 10 years
earlier rather than 30. But cf. the convincing
arguments in favor of an early date by J. F.
McGlew, Tyranny and Political Culture in An-
cient Greece (Ithaca 1993), 150-56; C. H. Hal-
lett, “Kopienkritik and the works of Polyk-
leitos,” in Moon 1995, 123; Krumeich 1997,
57-58; and D. Castriota, “Democracy and art
in late sixth- and fifth-century B.c. Athens,”
in Morris and Raaflaub 1997, 206-15, esp.
213-15.
Zz ~ According to Arist. Rhetorica 1368a (Wycher-
ley 1957, no. 259); on this aspect of the
Tyrannicides, see T. Hélscher, “Images and
political identity: the case of Athens,” in
Boedeker and Raaflaub 1998, 158-63.
26 Pausanias (6.10.2) saw a bronze chariot group
commemorating Kleosthenes of Epidamnos’
victory in 516 (Ebert 1972, no. 4); with-
out a preserved base, though, we cannot be
sure of the dedication’s date (Amandry 1957,
69 and 73-75). The chariot group by Age-
ladas at Olympia (Paus. 6.8.4) could also be
Late Archaic. For bronze chariot groups, see
Korres 2000.
27 The pose s of Krit ios and Nesi otes ’ Tyr ann i-
cides may have inspired scenes of Theseus in
Attic red figure vase painting (Taylor 1991,
36-63).
28 See esp. Amandry 1957, 69 and Stewart 1990,
51-53.
29 For the tra nsl ati on, see Wy ch er le y 195 7,
no. 304.
30 Tra nsl ate d by J. H. Vin ce; see als o Wy ch er le y
1957, no. 706.
Nores ‘ro Pacss 173-178
31 For the Marathon group at Delphi, see Paus.
10.10.1; Gauer 1968b, 65-70; C. C. Mat-
tusch, “The eponymous heroes: the idea of
sculptural groups,” in Coulson 1994, 73-74;
E. B. Harrison, “Pheidias,” in Palagia and
Pollitt 1996, 23-28; and Krumeich 1997, 93—
102. For the Phocian dedication of ca. 490,
which is the earliest known example of this
type of statue group at Delphi, see Krumeich
1997, 191-93.
32 See esp. Gauthier 1985, 92—103 and 120-28.
On the contrast between fifth- and
fourth-century honors, see also R. Kru-
meich, “Namensbeischrift oder Weihin-
scrift? Zum Fehlen des Miltiadesnamens bei
Marathongemilde,” AA (1996) 43-51. For
restraint in fifth-century Athens, see I. Mor-
ris, “Everyman's grave,” in A. L. Boegehold
and A. C. Scafuro, eds. Athenian Identity and
Civic Ideology (Baltimore/London 1994), esp.
ome
3) IGP 31 and E. J. Morrissey, “Victors in the
Prytaneion decree,” GRBS 19 (1978) 121-25.
34 Hero izat ion of athletes: J. Fontenrose,
“The hero as athlete,” CSCA 1 (1968) 74-
104. E Bohringer, in “Cultes d’athlétes en
Gréce classique: propos politiques, discours
mythique,” REA 81 (1979) 5-18, rightly
stresses that fifth-century athletes were hero-
ized not as an honor, but at the behest of the
Delphic oracle or as a result of supernatural
occurrences.
35 Rouse 1902, 313-14 and Jacquemin 1999, 222.
Cf. Krumeich (1997, 90-91 and 200-05),
who downplays the importance of athletic
victory as a motive for fifth-century portrai-
ture.
a7 See L. Kurke, “The politics of &Bedouvn
in Archaic Greece,” CA 11 (1992) 111-12 and
Kurke 1993, 149-50.
38 L. Kurke, The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and
the Politics ofSocial Economy (Ithaca 1991),
207-08 and D. T. Steiner, “Pindar’s ‘Oggetti
Parlanti’,” HSCP95 (1993) 166.
Base for portrait of Lysimache: /G ID’ 3453
and CEG 2 no. 757; see also Kron 1996,
143-44. Syeris: Paus. 1.27.5 and JG II’
3464.
40 P. Faure, “Les dioscures 4 Delphes,” AntCl
54 (1985) 56-65 and Jacquemin 1999, 172.
Lazzarini (1984-1985, 90-91) and D. San-
sone, in “Cleobis and Biton in Delphi,”
255
NorTes TO PAGEs 178-182
Nikephoros 4 (1991) 121-32, emphasize their
Olympic victories as an important factor
contributing to the commemoration with
portrait statues.
41 Lysimachos’ portrait was reinscribed as a
portrait of the Roman consul of a.p. 64
(IG II 4189 and Blanck 1969, no. B41).
For another fourth-century statue dedicated
by an individual saved by the gods, see /G
II? 4908 (CEG 2, no. 771). In Renaissance
Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici’s survival of an
assassination attempt in 1478 was celebrated
by the dedication in a church of three life-
size wax votive portraits made by Andrea
del Verrochio; see A. Butterfield, The Sculp-
tures of Andrea del Verrochio (New Haven
1997), 5.
For the relative rarity of nonathletic portraits
in the fifth century, see Lazzarini 1984-1985
and Jacquemin 1999.
43 See A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K. J.
Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucy-
dides IV, Books V 25—VII (Oxford 1970),
324-25.
Portraits of the Deinomenid tyrants: Gauer
1968a, 155-59 and Krumeich 1997, 27—49; cf.
the Kypselid dedication of a golden statue
of Zeus in the temple of Hera at Olympia
(Paus. 5.2.4 and Page 1981, 397-98).
4 Raubitschek 1939, 155; cf. Krumeich 1997,
mn"
63-64.
46 Hippias altar of Pythian Apollo is in-
scribed as a mnema (memorial) of Hippias’
archonship, and Hipparchos’ herms as mne-
mata of Hipparchos.
47 For summaries of scholarship on the prob-
lem, see Richter 1965, 97-99; Ridgway 1970,
99-100; H. Sichtermann, “Der Themistokles
von Ostia, seine Wirkung in fiinfundzwanzig
Jahren,” in Fittschen 1988, 302-36; and Frost
1998, 165-66. Krumeich (1997, 71-89) dates
the original for the Ostia herm ca. 480-470
but dissociates it from the portrait in the
temple of Artemis Aristoboule; cf. Metzler
1971, 192—207.
48 For Themistokles’ temple, see J. Threpsi-
ades and E. Vanderpool, “Themistokles’
sanctuary of Artemis Aristoboule,” ADelt
19 (1964) 26-36. It was rebuilt in the third
quarter of the fourth century by Neoptole-
mos of Melite, who also gilded the altar of
Apollo Patréos in the agora and dedicated
256
a votive relief there; see EF W. Mitchel, Lyk-
ou rg an At he ns (C in ci nn at i 19 70 ), 19 7; Da vi es
19 71 , 39 9- 40 0; Pa rk er 19 96 , 24 8; B. Hi nt ze n-
Bo hl en , Di e Ku lt ur po li ti k de s Eu bu lo s un d de s
Lykurg, Die Denkmiiler- und Bauprojekte in
Athen zwischen 355 und 322 v. Chr. (Berlin
1997), 50-51; and Frost 1998, 164—65.
AD For the ins cri pti on, see Ebe rt 197 2, 69- 71, no.
16; LSAG? 342, no. 19; and CEG no. 399. For
further discussion of Euthymos portrait and
the identity of the sculptor Pythagoras, see
J. P Barron, “Pythagoras’ Euthymos: some
thoughts on Early Classical portraits,” in
R. Mellor and L. Tritle, eds. Text and Tra-
dition, Studies in Greek History and Historio-
graphy in Honor of Mortimer Chambers
(Claremont, Calif. 1999), 37-59. Lazzarini
(1984-1985, 89-91) associates the introduc-
tion of the term ezkon with the origins of
physiognomic portraiture.
50 For etkon and agalma in Herodotus, see
Hermary 1994, 21-29; for a fourth-century
example of eikon from the Acropolis, see
CEG 2, no. 762.
5 “Stand
= and look” formulas at Olympia: Ebert
1972, no. 12; Kurke 1993, 146—47; and Steiner
1994, 97. On Archaic Attic gravestones: CEG
nos. 27 (base for the Anavyssos kouros) and
28 (monument for Thrason).
The portrait statues in the Daochos group at
Delphi are notable fourth-century examples
(Borbein 1973, 79-84; Schanz 1980, 21-29;
and Léhr 2000, 18—23, no. 139).
For other examples of speaking statues from
Olympia, see Ebert 1972, no. 1 (fifth cen-
tury) and Paus. 6.9.3 (Philon of Corcyra).
Though stylistically similar to the Acropolis
scribes, the (funerary?) seated male figure
from Knidos published by R. Ozgan, “Ein
neuen archaisches Sitzbild aus Knidos,” in
Festschrift fir Nikolaus Himmelmann (Mainz
1989), 47-51, is not a scribe.
s “) Compare Trianti 1994, Trianti 1998, and
Krumeich 1997, 7 7 — ?
Considering Acr.
no. 629 apart from the base, Shapiro (2001,
94~—96) dates it earlier (ca. 520-510) and sug-
gests that it might represent a sage such as
Onomakritos, the oracle-monger_patron-
ized by Peisistratos and his sons. There is
very little evidence for portraits of such fig-
ures before the fourth century other than
the statue group at Olympia dedicated by

Mikythos, which included statues of Homer
and Hesiod (Eckstein 1969, 33—42). See also
Zanker 1995, 158-64 and A. Connolly, “Was
Sophocles heroised as Dexion?” JHS 118
(1998) 18.
56 Davies 1971, 11-12; see also T. J. Figueira,
“The ten Archontes of 579/8 at Athens,”
Hesperia 53 (1984) 454: “It is reasonable to
conclude that Eupatrides on a tombstone
assigns its recipient to some segment of the
anti-tyrannical elite.”
57 Co mp ar e McGowan 1997, 218-20.
58 For the adjective, see W. Donlan, The Aris-
tocratic Ideal and Selected Papers (Wauconda,
Ill., 1999), 3-4 and 32, and G. I. C. Robertson,
“Evaluating the citizen in Archaic Greek
lyric, elegy and inscribed epigram,” in L.
Mitchell and P. J. Rhodes, eds. The Develop-
ment of the Polis in Archaic Greece (London/
New York 1997), 153-54.
59 Com par e Dick ins 1912, 34, who interpreted
Acr. no. 629 (before Raubitschek’s associ-
ation of it with the base DAA no. 6) as a
self-representation dedicated by a secretary
(grammateus) employed by the Athenian
state. W. V. Harris, in Ancient Literacy (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1989), 50 and no. 23, cited Acr.
no. 629 and the other two scribe statues (Acr.
nos. 144 and 146) as evidence for professional
scribes in fifth-century Athens. H. A. Cahn,
in “Dokimasia,” RA (1973) 3-22, identified
the scribes as katalogeis, officials elected by
the Boule for the purpose of judging the
fitness of the cavalry and their horses as
described by Arist. Ath. Pol. 49.
60 For metagraphy, see Blanck 1969, 66-67.
6 ~ See IGP 850; JG II* 4168 (Roman period in-
scription); and Blanck 1969, 80-81, no. B30.
6 NS) Blanck 1969, 99-105.
63 DA A 460 .
64 For a late r Acr opo lis stat ue base reus ed at
least three times, with at least two different
statues, see A. P. Matthaiou, “Two new Attic
inscriptions,” in Osborne and Hornblower
1994, 175-82.
6 wn Blanck 1969, 98; Blanck 1969, 77, no. B24
is a statue group of Apollo and Artemis
reinscribed as portraits of two members of
the Julian family. Pausanias (1.2.4) saw a members, see also U. Koehler, “Attische In-
statue of Poseidon on horseback fighting the
gia nt Pol ybo tes in At he ns rei nsc rib ed as an
hon ori fic por tra it, but doe s not say of wh om .
Nores To PaGEs 182-191
66 For the connection with Thasos, see J. Pouil-
loux, “Trois notes thasiennes, I: Hasard
ou rencontre prosopographique?” BCH 75
(1951) 96-99. He and Gauer (1968a, 123~24)
both misinterpret DAA no. 121 as a joint
dedication by Hegelochos and Ekphantos.
67 Fo r po no s in Cl as si ca l At he ns, see S. Johns-
tone, “Virtuous toil, vicious work: Xeno-
phon on aristocratic style,” CP 89 (1994)
219-40. Herodotus (6.114) used the term in
his description of the death of the Athenian
polemarch Kallimachos at Marathon.
68 As noted by Gauer 1968a, 140-41.
69 Ma tt us ch 19 80 . :
7O Harrison 1985, 40—41.
7 lanl DAA 117; IG P 833; IG II? 4147; and Blanck
1969, 78-79 no. B27. For drawings of the
base, see Korres 1994, 90-91 no. MB13.
72 See Davies 1971, 43-47 and Develin 1989, 175.
73 DAA no. 94, if it is judg ed by its dowe l holes ,
could have supported either a large-scale
Athena Promachos figure or an attacking
warrior; it is the joint dedication of two men
from the same deme, Aristion and Pasias
of Lamptrai, but it was not reinscribed as
an honorific portrait. For a possible fourth-
century example of a reinscribed warrior por-
trait from the Acropolis, see 7G H* 3882/4117
(Blanck 1969, no. B37; the base was reused
at least twice).
Us The uninscribed base for a similar group dat-
ing to either the fifth or the fourth century
was found reused as building material in late
repairs to the opisthodomos ofthe Parthenon
(Korres 1994, 86-87, no. MBio). Korres sug-
gests this might be the base for the group of
Erectheus and Eumolpos seen by Pausanias
(1.27.5). For another example of a pair of
fighting warriors with only one reinscribed
as an honorific portrait, see Blanck 1969, no.
Bs5 (Megara).
75 Lohr 2000, 79-80 no. 89. CEG 2, no. 746 is
another possible example of a statue dedica-
tion on the Acropolis intended as a memorial
for a deceased relative, in this case the dedi-
cator Diopeithes’ uncle Strombichides, who
was killed by the 30 tyrants in 404/3 B.c. For
this and other portraits dedicated by family
schriften des ftinften Jahrhunderts,” Hermes
31 (1896) 150-53 and Borbein 1973, 88—90; cf.
Schweitzer 1963, 189-90.
Nores To PAGES 192-195
76 See also B. D. Meritt, “Two Attic epigrams,”
Hesperia 16 (1947) 287-89.
WH Co mp ar e St ew ar t 19 79 , 124 .
78 For the posthumous honorific portrait of
Demosthenes set up in 280/79, see Wycher-
ley 1957, nos. 1177 and 697~99 and Zanker
1995, 83-89.
79 Com par e Gau er 1968 a; J. Dor ig, “Qu elq ues
remarques sur l’origine ionnienne du portrait
grec,” in Eikones, Studien zum griechischen
und romischen Bildnis (Bern 1980), 89-95;
Ridgway 1981, 179; and Lazzarini 1984-1985,
93-94, who place the origins of the Athenian
practice of portraiture in Ionia.
80 F. Felten, “Weihungen in Olympia und
Delphi,” AM 97 (1982) 79-97.
8 Pausanias’ (1.27.6) mention of portraits of
—_
the fifth-century general Tolmides and his
seer together on the same base has some-
times been taken to imply that the previous
statues Pausanias mentions, a group show-
ing Erechtheus fighting either Eumolpos or
his son Immarados, stood on the same base
as Tolmides and his seer (e.g., by Ioakimi-
dou 1997, 262-73). Krumeich (1997, 109-11)
attributes the portraits of Tolmides, an Athe-
nian general of the mid-fifth century, and
his seer to Tolmides’ lifetime, but Aeschines
(2.75) also mentions Tolmides, and fourth-
century interest in the Pentecontaetia and
its generals was strong; see D,. M. Lewis,
“Mainland Greece,” in CAH* V, 117-19 and
B. Hintzen-Bohlen, “Retrospektive Tenden-
zen im Athen der Lykurg-Ara,” in M. Flashar,
H.-J. Gehrke, and E. Heinrich, eds. Retro-
spektive, Konzepte von Vergangenheit in der
griechisch-rémischen Antike (Munich 1996),
100-02. Compare M. Nouhaud, “Sur une al-
lusion d’Eschine (Ambassade, 75) au stratége
athénien Tolmidés,” REG 99 (1986) 342—46,
who thinks Aeschines’ reference to Tolmides
was inspired by his statue on the Acropolis.
82 An example of a fourth-century family statue
group is the dedication by Pandaites and
Pasikles (JG HI? 3829), which included five
family members — see Stewart 1979, 124;
C. Habicht, “Sthennis,” Horos 10-12 (1992—
1998) 21-26; and Lohr 2000, 139-42, no.
161.
8 es) For the problem of Kresilas’ Perikles, see
Richter 1965, 102-04; T. Hélscher, “Die
Aufstellung des Perikles-Bildnisses und ihre
258
Bedeutung,” in Fittschen 1988, 377-91;
B. Cohen, “Peri kles’ port rait and the Riac e
bronzes, new evidence for ‘schinocephaly’,”
Hesperia 60 (1991) 465-502; and Krumeich
1997, 114-25.
84 Compar e G. M. A. Ri ch te r, Gr ee k po rt ra it s
IV. Iconographical studies: A few suggestions
(CollLatomus 54) (Brussels 1962), 12-16 and
Krumeich 1997, 116-18.
85 Ri dg wa y 198 4, 55- 56; cf. Ga ue r 196 8a, 142 -43
and Metzler 1971, 215-22 (name label) and
H. Schrader, “Drei Bildnisse aus dem 5. J. v.
Chr.,” Die Antike 2 (1926) 114-19 (Perikles as
dedicator).
86 A. E. Raubitschek, “Zur Periklesstatue des
Kresilas,” ArchCl 25-26 (1973-1974) 620-21.
87 Kresi las’ sign atur e in the seco nd line cann ot
be used to fix the length of the dedicator’s
name in the first line of the inscription, be-
cause Kresilas used a different formula for
his signature on each of the other four statue
bases he signed; he may have included his
ethnic before his name on DAA no. 131b as
he did on DAA no. 133, where the signa-
ture reads “The Kydonian Kresilas made it.”
For Kresilas’ other signatures, see Marcadé
1953-1957, 1.62-64.
88 Because the statue of Dieitrephes described
by Pausanias shows him dying of his wounds,
it must have been dedicated after his death.
The inscription on DAA no. 132 reads “Her-
molykos son of Dieitrephes, as an aparche
(first-fruits). Kresilas made it.” Although the
strategos Dieitrephes could have had a son
named Hermolykos who dedicated his por-
trait at some unknown date after 411/0, most
scholars wish to date the sculptor Kresilas
Horuit earlier, in the third quarter of the fifth
century, e.g., E. B. Harrison, “Two Pheid-
ian heads: Nike and Amazon,” in Kurtz and
Sparkes 1982, 81-85 and Harrison 1985, 53—
55. The only possible solutions are to date
Kresilas’ work later — the solution I favor — or
dissociating DAA no, 132 with Dieitrephes’
portrait. The two very shallow holes on the
top of DAA no. 132 cannot be dowel holes for
a bronze statue, and thus the base provides
no archaeological evidence as to the type
of statue it supported. For the problem of
Dieitrephes’ portrait and the date of Kresi-
las, see Jameson 1953, 148-54; E. Vanderpool,
“New Ostraka from the Athenian agora,”

Hesperia 37 (1968) 118-19; Krumeich 1997,
140-44; and Lohr 2000, 53-55.
89 As argued by Ridgway 1998.
90 For retrospective honorific monuments, see
Zanker 1995, 58.
9 Co
_ mp ar e Gauer 1968a, 143: “Das Bildnis
des Perikles ist, wie jedes Strategenbildnis,
im héchsten Grade ein politisches Denkmal
gewesen, auch wenn es auf eine persénliche
Bildnisweihung zuriickgeht.”
92 For the strategostype, see esp. D. Pandermalis,
Untersuchungen zu den klassischen Strate-
genkopfen (Diss. Freiburg 1969); Metzler 1971,
227-30; G. Dontas, “Bemerkungen iiber
einige attische Strategenbildnisse der klassis-
chen Zeit,” in Festschrift ftir Frank Brommer
(Mainz 1977), 79-92; N. Himmelmann,
Ideale Nacktheit in der griechischen Kunst
(Berlin/New York 1990), 86-101; Zanker
1995, 63-67; and Krumeich 1997, 199-200.
S,we For small bronze statuettes of this type, see
E. Bielefeld, “Bronzestatuette des Wads-
worth Atheneums in Hartford/Connecti-
cut,” AntP 1 (1962) 39-41 and Richter 196s,
104 and Figs. 446-447.
94 Comp are Krume ich 1997, 148-5 0.
95 For the inve ntor y (JG II* 1498-1501A), see
Harris 1992, esp. 644-45, and Krumeich
1997, 147-48. Hoplitodromos: IG Il 1500A,
1. 16. Statue lacking its shield: JG II’ 1500A,
I. 21; statue with a small helmet: /G II*
1498B, 1. 61; figure with a leather cap and
helmet crest: JG II’ 1498B, 1. 75. If these
and other bronze male figures included in
the inventory were portraits, then Harris’
(1992, 641) suggestion to restore the heading
agalmata instead of anathemata at the top
of the list of statues cannot be correct: in
the late fourth century, agalmata would have
been used in such a context to refer only
NorTeEs TO PaGEs 195-198
to statues representing gods and heroes, not
portraits.
96 T. Schafer, in “Gepickt und versteckt. Zur
Bedeutung und Funktion aufgerauhter
Oberflichen in der spitarchaischen und
frithklassischen Plastik,” Jd/ m1 (1996) 25-
74, presents evidence that some Archaic
funerary kouroi from Attica, including the
Aristodikos kouros, were originally equipped
with bronze helmets.
97 NM 64 46, excavated in July 1886 near the
Propylaia: T. Sophoulis, “XaAkf, Kepadr)
apxaikfis téxvns,” ArchEph 4 (1887), cols.
43-48; de Ridder 1896 no. 768; Hausmann
1977, 65-66; and Mattusch 1988, 91-94.
Compare the association of this head with the
Aeginetan school by C. Rolley, La sculpture
grecque I, Des origines au milieu du Ve siécle
(Paris 1994), 277 Figure 191. The other pre-
served fifth-century bronze is the half-life-
size head of a youth (NM 6590) with a
hairstyle similar to that of the marble Kritios
Boy: de Ridder 1896, no. 767 and Mattusch
1988, 94-95 and Figure 5.5.
98 Portraits of Phormis of Mainalos at Olympia
dedicated by Lykortas of Syracuse: Eckstein
1969, 43-48 and Krumeich 1997, 185-89.
Py One example is the Early Classical marble
“Leonidas” from the sanctuary of Athena
Chalkioikos in Sparta; O. Palagia, in “An
Athena Promachos from the Acropolis of
Sparta,” in Palagia and Coulson 1993, 167—
75, reconstructs this as a single figure, not
part of a fight group. Late Archaic marble
warriors have been found on the Acropo-
lis (Schuchhardt 1939, no. 307), at Didyma
(K. Tuchelt, “Einige Neufunde archaischer
Skulpturen aus Didyma,” in Kyrieleis 1986,
31-34), and on Samos (Freyer-Schauenburg
1974, 158-62, no. 78A—C).
 4s ee Te T= T
AA taster we band -
; barrie remaresam ay “a _
Baten apap archos
7 | ®t are* roe oe wey
ip iat, Ata
, ai ella f<tyeaS Yes
Desn
om <7 ie oul 7

(ir pares
stave P = ‘

Aleshire, S. B. 1989. The Athenian Asklepieion,
The People, Their Dedications, and the In-
~ ventories. Amsterdam.
Alroth, B. 1989. Greek Gods and Figurines. Aspects
of the Anthropomorphic Dedications, Boreas
18, Uppsala.
Alroth, B. 1992. “Changing modes in the repre-
sentation of cult images,” in R. Hagg, ed.
The Iconography of Greek Cult in the Archaic
and Classical Periods, Kernos Supplement 1,
Athens/Liége, 9-46.
Amandry, P. 1957. “A propos de Polycléte: statues
d’Olympioniques et carriére de sculpteurs,”
in K. Schauenburg, ed. Charites, Studien zur
Altertumswissenschaft. Bonn, 63-87.
Amandry, P. 1991. Guide de Delphes, le Musée.
Paris.
Anderson, C. A. 1995. Athena’s Epithets: Their
Structural Significance in Plays of Aristo-
phanes. Suuttgart/Leipzig.
Angiolillo, S. 1997. Arte e cultura nell’ Atene di
Pisistrato e dei Pisistratidi. Bari.
Arafat, K. 1992. “Pausanias’ attitude to antiqui-
ties,” BSA 87, 387-409.
Barber, R. 1990. “The Greeks and their Sculp-
ture, Interrelationships of Function, Style,
and Display,” in E. M. Craik, ed. ‘Owls
to Athens, Essays on Classical Subjects Pre-
sented to Sir Kenneth Dover. Oxford, 245-
59.
Beazley, J. D. 1946. Potter and Painter in Ancient
Athens. London.
Beazley, J. D. 19 56 . At ti c Bl ac k- Fi gu re
Painters. Oxford.
Beazley, J. D. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters,
2nd ed. Oxford.
Biers, W. R. 19 92 . Ar t, Ar te fa ct s, an d
in Cl as si ca l Ar ch ae ol og y. Lo nd on /N ew
Blamir e, A. 19 89 . Pl ut ar ch , Li fe of Ki mo n, BI CS
Supplement 56, London.
Blanck, H. 1969 . Wi ed er ve rw en du ng al te r St at -
uen als Eh re nd en km ii le r be i Gr ie ch en
Romern. Rome.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boardman, J. 1959. “Chian and Early Ionic
architecture,” The Antiquaries Journal 39:
170-218.
Boardman, J. 1962. “Two Archaic korai in Chios,
Chios Museum 225, 226,” AntP 1: 43-45.
Boardman, J. 1972. “Herakles, Peisistratos and
sons,” RA: 57-72.
Boardman, J. 1974. Athenian Black Figure Vases.
London.
Boardman, J. 1975. Athenian Red Figure Vases, The
Archaic Period. London.
Boedeker, D. and K. A. Raaflaub, eds. 1998.
Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-
Century Athens. Cambridge, Mass.
Borbein, A. H. 1973. “Die griechische Statue
des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., formanalytische
Untersuchungen zur Kunst der Nachklas-
sik,” JdI 88: 43-212.
Borrmann, R. 1888. “Stelen fiir Weihgeschenke
auf der Akropolis zu Athen,” /d/ 3: 269-85.
Bothmer, B. v., H. de Meulenaere, and W. Miiller
1960. Egyptian Sculpture of the Late Period,
The Brooklyn Museum 1960-1961. Brooklyn,
NVY:
Bowie, E. L. 1996. “Past and present in Pausa-
nias,” in Pausanias historien, Entretiens
Fondation Hardt XLI, Geneva, 207-39.
Bradeen, D. and M. FE McGregor, eds. 1974.
Phoros, Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt. Lo-
cust Valley, N. Y.
Brinkmann, V. 1994. Beobachtungen zum for-
malen Aufbau und zum Sinngehalt der Friese
Va se - des Siphnierschatzhauses, Studien zur antiken
Malerei und Farbgebung I, Munich.
Brommer, F. 1986. “Gott oder Mensch,” /d/ 101:
37-53.
Ch ro no lo gy Brooke, D. 1921. “The terracottas,” in S. Casson,
Yo rk . ed. Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum,
vol. I. Cambridge, 317-433.
Brouskari, M. 1974. The Acropolis Museum: A De-
scriptive Catalogue. Athens.
un d Brulé, P. 1987. La fille d’Athénes, La religion
des filles a Athénes a lépoque classique:
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mythes, cultes et société, Annales littéraires de Dunst, G. 1972. “Archaische Inschriften und
l'Université de Besancon 363, Paris. Dokumente der Pentekontaetie aus Samos,”
Brulotte, E. L. 1994. The Placement of Votive Of AM 87: 99-163.
ferings and Dedications in the Peloponnesian Eaverly, M. A. 1995. Archaic Greek Equestrian
Sanctuaries of Artemis, Diss. University of Sculpture. Ann Arbor, Mich.
Minnesota. Ebert, J. 1972. Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger
Buitron-Oliver, D., ed. 1991. New Perspectives in an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen,
Early Greek Art, Studies in the History of Abhandlungen Akademie Leipzig 43.20.
Art 32, Hanover, N. H./London. Leipzig.
Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Eckstein, E. 1969. Anathemata. Berlin.
Mass., trans. J. Raffan. Edmonson, C. N. 1982. “Onesippos'’ herm,” in
Burzachechi, M. 1962. “Oggetti parlanti nelle epi- Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History and Topo-
graphe greche,” Epigraphica 24: 3-54. graphy Presented to Eugene Vanderpool,
Childs, W. A. P. 1993. “Herodotos, Archaic Hesperia Supplement 19, Princeton, N. J.,
chronology, and the temple of Apollo at Del- 48-50.
phi,” /d/ 108: 399-441. Elsner, J. 1996. “Image and ritual: reflections on
Childs, W. A. P., ed. 1998. Reading Greek Art, the religious appreciation of Classical art,”
Essays by Nikolaus Himmelmann. Princeton, CQ 46: 515-31.
N. J. Fittschen, K., ed. 1988. Griechische Portraits.
Collon, D. 1995. Ancient Near Eastern Art. Darmstadt.
London. Floren, J. 1987. Die griechische Plastik I.
Congdon, L. O. K. 1981. Caryatid Mirrors ofAn- Die geometrische und archaische Plastik
cient Greece. Mainz. Munich.
Connelly, J. B. 1989. “Standing before one’s god: Flower, M. A. and M. Toher, eds. 1991. Georgica,
votive sculpture and the Cypriot religious Greek Studies in Honour ofGeorge Cawkwell,
tradition,” BiblArch 52: 210-218. BICS Supplement 58, London.
Cook, R. M. 1987. “Pots and Pisistratan propa- Fornara, C. W. 1971. The Athenian Board of Gen-
ganda,” /HS 107: 167-69. erals from sor to 404, Historia Einzelschrift
Coulson, W. D. E. et al., eds. 1994. The Archaeo- 16, Wiesbaden.
logy of Athens and Attica under the Demo- Freyer-Schauenburg, B. 1974. Bildwerke der ar-
cracy. Oxford. chaischen Zeit und des strengen Stils, Samos
Davies, J. K. 1971. Athenian Propertied Families, XI, Bonn.
600-300 B.C. Oxford. Frost, E1998. Plutarchs Themistocles, A Historical
Day, J. W. 1994. “Interactive offerings: early Commentary, rev. ed. Chicago.
Greek dedicatory epigrams and ritual,” Gauer, W. 1968a. “Die griechischen Bildnisse
ASCP 96: 37-74. der klassischen Zeit als politische und
de Cesare, M. 1997. Le statue in immagine, studi personliche Denkmiler,” /d/ 83: 18-79.
sulle raffigurazioni di statue nella pittura vas- Gauer, W. 1968b. Weihgeschenke aus den Perser-
colare greca. Rome. kriegen, IstMitt Beiheft 2, Tiibingen.
Develin, R. 1989. Athenian Officials, 684-321 B.c. Gauthier, P. 1985. Les cités greques et leur bienfai-
Cambridge. teurs, Vve-ler siécle avant J.-C., BCH Sup-
Dickins, G. 1912. A Catalogue of the Acropolis plement 12, Athens/Paris.
Museum Sculptures I, Archaic Sculpture. Geagan, D. 1996. “Who was Athena?” in M.
Cambridge. Dillon, ed. Religion in the Ancient World:
Dinsmoor, W. B. 1942. “The correlation of New Themes and Approaches. Amsterdam,
Greek archaeology with history,” in Stud- 145—64.
ies in the History ofCulture. Menasha, Wis., Goldhill, S. and R. Osborne, eds. 1994. Art
185-216. and Text in Ancient Greek Culture. Cam-
Ducat, J. 1971. Les kouroi du Ptoion. Paris. bridge.
Ducat, J. 1976. “Fonctions de la statue dans la Goldhill, S. and R. Osborne, eds. 1999. Per-
Gréce archaique. Kouros et kolossos,” BCH formance Culture and Athenian Democracy.
100: 239-51. Cambridge.

262

Gruben, G. 1997. “Naxos und Delos, Studien zur
archaischen Architektur der Kykladen,” /d/
112: 261—416.
Habicht, C. 1984. “Pausanias and the evidence of
inscriptions,” CA 3: 40-56.
Habicht, C. 1998. Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient
Greece, 2nd ed. Berkeley/Los Angeles.
Hagg, R., N. Marinatos, and G. Nordquist, eds.
1988. Early Greek Cult Practice. Stockholm.
Hansen, P. A. 1983. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca
saeculorum VIII-V a. Chr. n. Berlin/New
York.
Hansen, P. A. 1989. Carmina Epigraphica Graeca,
Saeculi IV a. Chr. n., CEG 2 Berlin/New
York.
Harris, D. 1992. “Bronze statues on the Athenian
Acropolis: the evidence of a Lycurgan inven-
tory,” AJA 96: 637-52.
Harris, D. 1995. The Treasures of the Parthenon
and Erechtheion. Oxford.
Harrison, E. B. 1965. Archaic and Archaistic Sculp-
ture, The Athenian Agora XI, Princeton,
I as
Harrison, E. B. 1985. “Early Classical sculp-
ture: the Bold style,” in C. G. Boulter, ed.
Greek Art, Archaic into Classical. Leiden,
52-65.
Hartmann, J. B. 1976-1980. “La fanciulla con
fiore,” Colloqui del Sodalizio 6: 179-205.
Hartswick, K. J. and M. C. Sturgeon, eds. 1998.
STE@ANOS. Studies in Honor of Brunilde
Sismondo Ridgway. Philadelphia, 1-13.
Hausmann, U., ed. 1977. Der Tiibinger Waf-
fenlaiifer. Tiibingen.
Herdejiirgen, H. 1968. Untersuchungen zur thro-
nenden Géttin aus Tarent in Berlin und zur
archaischen und archaistischen Schriégmantel-
tracht. Waldsassen-Bayern.
Herdejiirgen, H. 1969. “Bronzestatuette der
Athena,” AntK 12: 102-10.
Hermary, A. 1994. “Les noms de la statue
chez Hérodote,” in EYKPATA, Mélanges
offerts a Claude Vatin. Aix-en-Provence,
21-29.
Higgins, R. A. 1967. Greek Terracottas. London.
Hoepfner, W., ed. 1997. Kult und Kultbauten auf
der Akropolis, Symposium Berlin 1995. Berlin.
Holloway, R. R. 1992. “Why Korai?,” O/A 1:
267-74.
Houser, C. 1987. Greek Monumental Bronze Sculp-
ture of the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.c.
New York.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hurwit, J. M. 1985. The Art and Culture ofEarly
Greece, 1100-480 B.c. Ithaca, N. Y.
Hurwit, J. M. 1989. “The Kritios Boy: discovery,
reconstruction, and date,” AJA 93: 41-80.
Hurwit, J. M. 1999. The Athenian Acropolis, His-
tory, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Ne-
olithic Era to the Present. Cambridge.
Hyde, W. W. 1921. Olympic Victor Monuments
and Greek Athletic Art. Washington, D.C.
Immerwahr, H. R. 1990. Attic Script, A Survey.
Oxford.
loakimidou, C. 1997. Die Statuenreihen griechis-
cher Poleis und Biinde aus spitarchaischer und
klassischer Zeit. Munich.
Jacob-Felsch, M. 1969. Die Entwicklung griechis-
cher Statuenbasen und die Aufstellung der
Statuen. Waldsassen, Bavaria.
Jacquemin, A. 1999. Offrandes monumentales a
Delphes, BEFAR 304, Athens/Paris.
Jameson, M. H. 1953. “Inscriptions of the Pelo-
ponnesos,” Hesperia 22: 148-71.
Jeffery, L. H. 1962. “Inscribed gravestones of Ar-
chaic Attica,” BSA 57: 115-53.
Jeffery, L. H. and A. W. Johnston. 1990. Local
Scripts ofArchaic Greece, 2nd ed. Oxford.
Keesling, C. M. 1999. “Endoios’ painting from
the Themistoklean Wall: a reconstruction,”
Hesperia 68: 509-48.
Keesling, C. M. 2003. “Rereading the Acropolis
dedications,” in D. Jordan and J. Traill, eds.
Lettered Attica. Toronto.
Kienast, H. J. 1992. “Topographische Studien im
Heraion von Samos,” AA, 171-213.
Kinney, D. 1997. “Spolia: Damnatio and Renova-
tio Memoriae,” MAAR 42: 117-48.
Kissas, K. 2000. Die attischen Statuen— und
Stelenbasen archaischer Zeit Bonn.
Kokkorou-Alewras, G. 1995. “Die archaische nax-
ische Bildhauerei,” AntP 24: 37-138.
Kolb, FE. 1977. “Die Bau-, Religions-, und Kultur-
politik der Peisistratiden,” Jd/ 92: 99-
138.
Korres, M. 1994a. “Recent discoveries on the
Acropolis,” in Acropolis Restoration, the
CCAM Interventions. London, 174-79.
Korres, M. 1994b. Study for the Restoration of
the Parthenon, Vol. 4 The West Wall ofthe
Parthenon and Other Monuments. Athens.
Korres, M. 2000. “AvoOnuatike Kal TILNTIKE
TeOpittta otnv Adthva Kar Tous
AcAgous,” in A. Jacquemin, ed. Delphes
cent ans apres la grande fouille, essai de
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
bilan, BCH Supplement 36, Paris/Athens,
293-329.
Kostoglou-Despini, A. 1979. [TpoBArfuata TNs
Traplaviys TAaoTiKTs Tou 5ou aicva Tr.
X. Thessaloniki.
Kozloff, A. PB and D. G. Mitten. 1988. The
Gods Delight. The Human Figure in Classical
Bronze. Cleveland.
Kroll, J. H. 1982. “The ancient image of
Athena Polias,” in Studies in Athenian
Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography Pre-
sented to HomerA. Thompson, Hesperia Sup-
plement 20, Princeton, N. J., 65-76.
Kron, U. 1996. “Priesthoods, dedications and eu-
ergetism: what part did religion play in the
political and social status of Greek women?,”
in P. Hellstr6m and B. Alroth, eds. Re/i-
gion and Power in the Ancient Greek World,
Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1993.
Uppsala. 139-82.
Krumeich, R. 1997. Bildnisse griechischer Herrs-
cher und Staatsmanner im 5. Jahrhundert v.
Chr. Munich.
Kunze, E. 1961. “Kleinplastik aus Bronze,” in
Olympia. VII Bericht tiber die Ausgrabungen
in Olympia. Berlin, 138-80.
Kurke, L. 1993. “The economy of kudos,” in C.
Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds. Cultural Poet-
ics in Archaic Greece. Cult, Performance, Pol-
itics. Cambridge, 131-63.
Kurtz, D. and B. Sparkes, eds. 1982. The Eye
of Greece, Studies in the Art of Athens.
Cambridge.
Kyle, D. B. 1987. Athletics in Ancient Athens,
Mnemosyne Supplement 95, Leiden.
Kyrieleis, H., ed. 1986. Archaische und klassische
griechische Plastik, Akten des internationalen
Kolloquiums vom 22.-25. April 1985 in Athen.
Mainz.
Kyrieleis, H. 1995. “Eine neue Kore des Cheram-
yes,” AntP 24: 7-36.
Kyrieleis, H. 1996. Der grosse Kuros von Samos,
Samos X, Bonn.
Lang, M. 1990. Ostraka, The Athenian Agora
XXYV, Princeton, N. J.
Langlotz, E. 1920. Die Zeitbestimmung der streng-
rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei und der gleich-
zeitigen Plastik. Leipzig.
Langlotz, E. 1939. “Die Koren,” in H. Schrader,
ed. Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der
Akropolis. Frankfurt am Main, 3-184.
264
Langlotz, E. 1975. Studien zur nordostgriechischen
Kunst. Mainz.
Lawton, C. L. 1995. Attic Document Reliefs: Art
and Politics in Ancient Athens. Oxford.
La zz ar in i, M. L. 19 76 . Le fo rm ul e del le de di ch e
votive nella Grecia arcaica, MemLinc Ser. 8,
no. 19, ii, Rome.
Lazzarini, M. L. 1984-1985. “Epigrafia e statua
ritratto: alcuni problemi,” Asti e Memorie
dell’Academia Patavina 97: 83-103.
Lazzarini, M. L. 1989-1990. “Iscrizioni votive
greche,” ScAnt 3—4: 845-59.
Lechat, H. 1903. Au Musée de l’Acropole. Etudes
sur la sculpture en Attique avant la ruine de
l’Acropole lors de linvasion deXerxés, Annales
de l Université de Lyon X, Paris/Lyon.
Lindenlauf, A. 1997. “Der Perserschutt der
Athener Akropolis,” in Hoepfner 1997, 46—
15.
Lohr, C. 2000. Griechische Familienweihungen.
Untersuchungen einer Repriisentationsform
von ihren Anfangen bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs.
v. Chr. Rahden, Westphalia.
Mansfield, J. M. 1985. The Robe of Athena and
the Panathenaic Peplos, Diss. University of
California at Berkeley.
Marcadé, J. 1953-1957. Recueil des signatures de
sculpteurs grecs. Paris.
Matthaiou, A. P. 1990-1991. “’Emrypagés
“AxpotréAgws,” Horos 89: 9-14.
Mattusch, C. C. 1980. “The Berlin Foundry cup:
the casting of Greek bronze statuary in the
early fifth century B.c.,” AJA 84: 435-44.
Mattusch, C. C. 1988. Greek Bronze Statuary from
the Beginnings through the Fifth Century B.c.
Ithaca.
McGowan, E. P. 1997. “The origins of the Athe-
nian Ionic capital,” Hesperia 66: 209-33.
Meiggs, R. 1966. “The dating of fifth-century At-
tic inscriptions,” /HS 86: 86—98.
Meiggs, R. and D. M. Lewis, eds. 1988. A Selection
ofGreek Historical Inscriptions to the End of
the Fifth Century B.c., rev. ed. Oxford.
Metzler, D. 1971. Portrat und Gesellschaft. Uber
die Entstehung der griechischen Portriits in der
Klassik. Miinster.
Moon, W., ed. 1995. Polykleitos, the Doryphoros,
and Tradition. Madison, Wis.
Morgan, C. 1990. Athletes and Oracles. The Trans-
formation of Olympia and Delphi in the
Eighth Century B.c. Cambridge.

Morris, I. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure
in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge.
Morris, I. and K. Raaflaub, eds. 1997. Democracy
2500° Questions and Challenges. Dubuque,
Iowa.
Morris, S. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek
Art. Princeton, N. J.
Mossman, J. 1991. “Plutarch’s use of statues,” in
Flower and Toher 1991, 98-119.
Neumann, G. 1965. Gesten und Gebdrden in der
griechischen Kunst. Berlin.
Niemeyer, H. G. 1964. “Attische Bronzestatuet-
ten der spatarchaischen und friihklassischen
Zeit,” AntP 3: 7-31.
Oakley, J., W. D. E. Coulson, and O. Palagia, eds.
1997. Athenian Potters and Painters. Oxford.
Osborne, M. J. and S. G. Byrne. 1994. Lexi-
con of Greek Personal Names, Vol. II Attica.
Oxford.
Osborne, R. 1985. “The erection and mutilation
of the Hermai,” PCPS 211: 47-73.
Osborne, R. 1994. “Looking on — Greek style:
does the sculpted girl speak to women,
too?,” in I. Morris, ed. Classical Greece:
Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies.
Cambridge, 81-96.
Osborne, R. and S. Hornblower, eds. 1994. Rit-
ual, Finance, Politics. Athenian Democratic
Accounts Presented to David Lewis. Oxford.
Overbeck, J. 1868. Die antiken Schrifiquellen
zur Geschichte der bildenen Kiinste bei den
Griechen. Leipzig.
Page, D. L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams.
Cambridge.
Palagia, O. 1990. “A new relief of the Graces and
the Charites of Socrates,” in M. Geerard, ed.
Opes Atticae. Miscellanea Philologica et His-
torica Raymondo Bogaert et Hermanno Van
Looy Oblata. The Hague, 347-56.
Palagia, O., ed. 1997. Greek Offerings: Essays on
Greek Art in Honour of John Boardman.
Oxford.
Palagia, O. and W. D. E. Coulson, eds. 1993.
Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia. Oxford.
Palagia, O. and J. J. Pollitt, eds. 1996. Personal
Styles in Greek Sculpture, Yale Classical Stud-
ies 30, Cambridge.
Parke, H. W. 1984. “Croesus and Delphi,” GRBS
25: 209-32.
Parke, H. W. 1985. “The massacre ofthe Branchi-
dae,” JHS tos: 59-68.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Parker, R. 1996. Athenian Religion, A History.
Oxford.
Payne, H. and G. Mackworth-Young 1950.
Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis.
London.
Pedley, J. G. 1971. “The Archaic favissa at
Cyrene,” AJA 75: 39-46.
Postgate, N. 1994. “Text and figure in ancient
Mesopotamia: match and mismatch,” in
C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, eds.
The Ancient Mind, Elements of CognitivAr
e-
chaeology. Cambridge, 176-84.
Pulleyn, S. 1997. Prayer in Greek Religion Oxford.
Raubitschek, A. E. 1938. “Zur Technik und
Form der altattischen Statuenbasen,” Bul-
letin de l'Institut Archeologique Bulgare 12:
132-81.
Raubitschek, A. E. 1939. “Leagros,” Hesperia 8:
155-64.
Raubitschek, A. E. 1939-1940. “Early Attic votive
monuments,” BSA 40: 17-37.
Raubitschek, A. E. 1949. The Dedications of the
Athenian Akropolis. Cambridge, Mass.
Raubitschek, A. E. 1968. “Das Denkmal-
Epigramm,” in Lepigramme grecque, Entre-
tiens Fondation Hardt XIV, Geneva, 3-36.
Rhodes, P. J. 1981. A Commentary on the Aris-
totelian Athenaion Politeia. Oxford.
Richter, G. M. A. 1961. The Archaic Gravestones
of Attica, 2nd ed. London/New York.
Richter, G. M. A. 1965. The Portraits ofthe Greeks,
I. London.
Richter, G. M. A. 1968. Korai, Archaic Greek
Maidens. London/New York.
Richter, G. M. A. 1970. Kouroi, Archaic Greek
Youths, 3rd. ed. London/New York.
Ridder, A. de. 1896. Catalogue des bronzes trouves
sur |’Acropole d’Athénes, BEFAR 74, Paris.
Ridgway, B. S. 1970. The Severe Style in Greek
Sculpture. Princeton, N. J.
Ridgway, B. S. 1981. Fifth Century Styles in Greek
Sculpture. Princeton, N. J.
Ridgway, B. S. 1984. Roman Copies ofGreek Sculp-
ture: The Problem ofthe Originals. Ann Ar-
bor, Mich.
Ridgway, B. S. 1985. “Late Archaic sculpture,” in
C. G. Boulter, ed. Greek Art, Archaic into
Classical. Leiden, 1-18.
Ridgway, B. S. 1990a. “Birds, ‘meniskoi’, and
head attributes in Archaic Greece,” AJA 94:
583-612.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ridgway, B. S. 1990b. “Metal attachments in
: tHis-
Greek marble sculpture,” in MarbleAr
torical and Scientific Perspectives on Ancient
Sculpture. Malibu, 185-206.
Ridgway, B. S. 1992. “Images of Athena on the
Akropolis,” inJ.Neils, ed. Goddess and Polis,
The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens.
Princeton, N. J., 119-42.
Ridgway, B. S. 1993. The Archaic Style in Greek
Sculpture, 2nd ed. Chicago.
Ridgway, B. S. 1998. “An issue of methodology:
Anacreon, Perikles, Xanthippos,” AJA 102:
717-38.
Robertson, M. 1985. “Greek art and religion,”
in PE. Easterling and J. V. Muir, eds.
Greek Religion and Society. Cambridge,
155-90.
Robertson, N. 1996. “Athena’s shrines and festi-
vals,” in J. Neils, ed. Worshipping Athena.
Panathenaia and Parthenon. Madison, Wis.,
27-77:
Robinson, D. M. and E. J. Fluck 1937. A Study of
the Greek Love-Names. Baltimore, Md.
Roccos, L. J. 1995. “The Kanephoros and her festi-
val mantle in Greek art,” AJA 99: 641-66.
Romano, I. B. 1980. Early Greek Cult Images, Diss.
University of Pennsylvania.
Rouse, W. H. D. 1902. Greek Votive Offerings.
Cambridge.
Schachter, A. 1994. “The politics of dedication:
two Athenian dedications at the sanctuary
of Apollo Ptoieus in Boeotia,” in Osborne
and Hornblower 1994, 291-306.
Schanz, H. L. 1980. Greek Sculptural Groups, Ar-
chaic and Classical. New York.
Schauenburg, K., ed. 1957. Charites, Studien zur
Altertumswissenschaft. Bonn.
Scheibler, I. 1979. “Griechische Kiinstlervotive
der archaischen Zeit,” Mii/b 30: 7-30.
Schneider, L. A. 1975. Zur sozialen Bedeutung der
archaischen Korenstatuen. Hamburg.
Schneider, L. A. and C. Hocker 1990. Die Akro-
polis von Athen, Antikes Heiligtum und mod-
ernes Reiseziel. Cologne.
Schuchhardt, W.-H. 1939. “Rundwerke ausser
den Koren, Reliefs,” in H. Schrader, ed. Die
archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis.
Frankfurt am Main, 187-342.
Schweitzer, B. 1963. “Studien zur Entstehung des
Portrats bei den Griechen,” in Ausgewahlte
Schriften, I: Tiitbingen, 115-67.
Serwint, N. J. 1987. Greek Athletic Sculpture from
266
the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.c.: An Icono-
graphic Study, Diss. Princeton University.
Shapiro, H. A. 1988. “The Marathonian Bull on
the Athenian Akropolis,” AJA 92: 373-82.
Shapiro, H. A. 1989. Artand Cult under the Tyrants
in Athens. Mainz.
Shapiro, H. A. 2001. “Zum Wandel der attis-
chen Gesellschaft nach den Perserkriegen
im Spiegel der Akropolis-Weihungen” in
D. Papenfuss and V. M. Strocka, eds. Gab es
Greichische Wunder? Griechenland zwischen
dem Ende des6.und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhun-
derts v. Chr. Mainz, 91-100.
Siedentopf, H. B. 1968. Das hellenistische Reit-
erdenkmal, Waldsassen, Bavaria.
Small, D. B., ed. 1995. Methods in the Mediter-
annean, Historical and Archaeological Views
on Texts and Archaeology. Leiden/New
York/Cologne.
Snodgrass, A. M. 1980. Archaic Greece, The Age of
Experiment. London.
Sokolowski, F. 1955. Lois sacrées de l’Asie Mineure.
Paris.
Sokolowski, F. 1962. Lois sacrées des cités grecques,
Supplément. Paris.
Sokolowski, F. 1969. Lois sacrées des cités grecques,
and ed. Paris.
Sotiriadhi-Sedgwick, R. 1939. “Attik& mirjAiva
elSadA 1a apyaikns eTrox Hs. Athens.
Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1995. ‘Reading’ Greek
Death, to the End of the Classical Period.
Oxford.
Steiner, D. T. 1994. The Tyrants Writ, Myths and
Images of Writing in Ancient Greece. Prince-
ton, N. J.
Stevens, G. P. 1936. “The Periclean entrance court
of the Acropolis of Athens,” Hesperia 5: 443-
520.
Stevens, G. P. 1946. “The Northeast corner of the
Parthenon,” Hesperia 15: 1-26.
Stewart, A. F 1979. Attika, Studies in Athenian
Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, Society for
the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supple-
mentary Paper no. 14, London.
Stewart, A. E 1986. “When is a kouros not
an Apollo? The Tenea ‘Apollo’ revisited,” in
M. del Chiaro, ed. Corinthiaca: Studies in
Honor of D. Amyx. Columbia, Miss., 54—70.
Stewart, A. F. 1990. Greek Sculpture, An Explo-
ration. New Haven, Conn.
Stieber, M. 1996. “Phrasikleia’s lotuses,” Boreas 19:
69-99.

Stoddart, S. and J. Whitley 1988. “The social
context of literacy in Archaic Greece and
Etruria,” Antiquity 62: 761-72.
Studniczka, F. 1887a. “AyoAydatia ’AOnvas ek
This TaV “A@nvay “AxpotréAews,” ArchEph
5: 133-47.
Studniczka, F. 1887b. “Antenor der Sohn des Eu-
mares und die Geschichte der archaischen
Malerei,” JdJ 2: 135-48.
Sutton, R. E Jr. 1981. The Interaction between Men
and Women Portrayed on Attic Red-Figure
- Pottery, Diss. University of North Carolina.
Taylor, J. W. 1991. The Tyrant Slayers: The Heroic
Image in Fifth c. B.c. Athenian Art and Poli-
tics, 2nd ed. Salem, N. H.
Thomas, Renate 1981. Athletenstatuetten der spat-
archaik und des strengen Stils. Rome.
Thomas, Rosalind 1992. Literacy and Orality in
Ancient Greece. Cambridge.
Tolle-Kastenbein, R. 1986. “Friihklassische Pep-
losfiguren. Typen und Repliken,” AvP 20.
Télle-Kastenbein, R. 1992. “Die Athener
Akropolis-Koren. Ort, Anlasse und Zeiten
ihrer Aufstellung,” AntW 23: 133-48.
Trianti, I. 1994. “Tlapatnproeis o€ 5U0 onddes
yAuTttav Tou TéAous Tou Gou a1adva aTrd
thv AxpdtroAn,” in W. D. E. Coulson et
al., eds. The Archaeology ofAthens and Attica
under the Democracy. Oxford, 83-91.
Trianti, I. 1998. “La statue 629 de l’Acropole et la
téte Ma 2718 du Musée du Louvre,” MMAT
67: I-33.
Tuchelt, K. 1970. Die archaischen Skulpturen von
Didyma. Berlin.
Tuchelt, K. 1986. “Einige Uberlegungen zum
Kanachos-Apollon von Didyma,” /d/ tor:
75-84.
Turner, J. A. 1983. Hiereiai: Acquisition of Femi-
nine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece, Diss. Uni-
versity of California, Santa Barbara.
van Straten, E 1992. “Votives and votaries in
Greek sanctuaries,” in Le sanctuaire grec, En-
tretiens Fondation Hardt XXXVI, Geneva,
247-84.
van Straten, F. T. 1995. Hiera Kala, Images ofAni-
mal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece.
Leiden.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vickers, M. 1985. “Early Greek coinage, a reassess-
ment,” NC 145: 1-44.
Villing, A. 1998. “Athena as Ergane and Proma-
chos: the iconography of Athena in Archaic
East Greece,” in N. Fischer and H. van
Wees, eds. Archaic Greece: New Approaches
and New Evidence. London, 147-68.
Viviers, D. 1992. Recherches sur les ateliers de sculp-
teurs et la cité d'Athénes a Vépoque archaique.
Endoios, Philergos, Aristokles. Brussels.
Wagner, C. 2000. “The potters and Athena,
dedications on the Athenian Acropolis,” in
G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag, and
5 A. M. Snodgrasss, eds, Periplous, Papers on
Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir
John Boardman. London. 383-87.
Walter, H. 1990. Das griechische Heiligtum, dar-
gestelt am Heraion von Samos. Stuttgart.
Walter, O. 1923. Beschreibung der Reliefs im
Kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen. Vienna.
Webster, T. B. L. 1972. Potter and Patron in Clas-
sical Athens. London.
Whitehead, D. 1977. The Ideology of the Athenian
Metic, Cambridge Philological Society Sup-
plementary vol. 4, Cambridge.
Willemsen, F. 1963. “Archaische Grabmalbasen
aus der Athener Stadtmauer,” AM 78: 105—
53.
Winters, T. FE. 1995. “The dates of the dedications
from the Athenian Akropolis,” ZPE 107:
282-88.
Wiinsche, R. 1979. “Der Gott aus dem Meer,” /dI
94: 77—IIl.
Wycherley, R. E. 1957. Literary and Epigraphi-
cal Testimonia, Vhe Athenian Agora II,
Princeton, N. J.
Yon, J. 1974. Un depot de sculptures archaiques,
Salamine de Chypre V, Paris.
Yon, M. 1989. “Coré aux narcisses ou le parfum
de la dame en noir,” in R. Etienne, M.-T.
le Dinahet, and M. Yon, eds. Architecture et
poésie dans le monde grec, Hommage a Georges
Roux Lyons, 255-62.
Zanker, P. 1995. The Mask ofSocrates. The Image
ofthe Intellectual in Antiquity, Berkeley/Los
Angeles, trans. H. A. Shapiro (Sather Clas-
sical Lectures 59).
267
 L 7
"ea
ae a be ; a
‘2S
L a cor Ol a,

e
Redan it’rea hA
Gettien
‘e m? =
$0 a fT
“+ aul. te -_ ¢, = ae % “a Mi i -_ Piem a

adie
aI amy 129 = a 7 : Px ~~
; } . n 7 Macias . big) Ae
‘
: ‘ Acie Aes
7* é
: » “ ce
{ j ag!
7 7
® s = -

bl
,

- 7

:

Acropolis, Athens
Archaic buildings, 40, 129
Artemis Brauronia, 12, 15, 139
cult statues, 81-82, 124, 144, 149, 156-58
inventories, 76, 113, 127-28, 156, 196
Parthenon, 12, 14, 15, 144, 145-46
Persian sack, 49-50
placement of statues, 12-15
Propylaia, 12, 14, 15
temples, 14, 27, 81-82, 134
Acropolis Museum
Acropolis Potter Relief (DAA no. 70), 69-70, 73,
119
Angelitos’ Athena (Acr. 140 and DAA no. 22),
127, 128, 129-30
Antenor’s kore (Acr. 681 and DAA no. 197),
43-45, 56-59; 975 132, 160, 213
Euthydikos’ kore (Acr. 686 and DAA no. 56),
3-4, 31, 78, HII, 134-36
Kallimachos’ dedication (Acr. 690 and DAA no.
13), §3-54, 55, 67, 69, III, 211, 217 n.32
Kritios Boy (Acr. 698), 49, 254 n.18
Moschophoros (Acr. 624 and DAA no. 59), 117,
181, 182
Peplos kore (Acr. 679), 135-39, 142
Pig sacrifice relief (Acr. 581), 119-20, 134, 142
Rampin rider (Acr. 590), 89-90
Red Shoes kore (Acr. 683 and DAA no. 292),
9-10, 106
agalma (plural agalmata), 10, 90, 108-09, 113,
I15—16, 128, 139, 156, 158, 181, 184-85,
199
Agora, Athens, 15, 174, 192, 195
Altar of the Twelve Gods, §2, 55
Eion herms, 25-26, 42, 176
Monument of the Persian War epigrams (IG P
503/4), 24
Alexander the Great, 93
Amyklaian Apollo, 155-56
anathema (pl ura l ana the mat a), 3-5, 11, 40- 42
aparche (first-fruits), 6-10, 58, 91-92
archaios, 128
Aristeas of Pro con nes os, 178 , 218 n.4 7
INDEX
aristocrats, 40-41, 65-69, 75, 86, 89—91, 108
arrhephoroi, 100-01, 115, 121
Artemis, 135-39
Aristoboule, 139
Brauronia, 12, 15, 139
Leukophryene, 139, 179
Asklepieion, Athens, 76, 118
Athena, see also statuettes, bronze and korai
cult epithets, 12
cult statues, 156-58
Ergane, 75
korai as representations of, 122-26, 129-35,
148, 201
statues, 12, 14, 15, 27-28, 81, 127-35, 156-58,
165-66
athletic victors, 21, 29-30, 66—67, 89, 101, 117-18,
168-75, 177-79, 181, 195-96
Epicharinos (DAA no. 120), I5, 29, 66, 170,
171-72, 196
Euthymos of Locri (Olympia), 181
Phayllos of Croton (DAA no. 176), 66, 171
Theagenes (Thasos), 252 n.112
banausoi (manual laborers), 43-46, 56-59, 63,
69-75, 86, 90-92, 108
Berlin Foundry Cup, 80, 189-90, 196-97
Bégazkéy Cybele, 153-54
Boiotians and Chalcidians monument (DAA nos.
168 and 173), 14, 53) 545 55> 57> 81, IL, 175
Brauron, sanctuary of Artemis, 118
bronzes, see also statuettes, bronze and tripods and
bronze vessels
Acropolis, 50, 78-85, 127-28
Samian Heraion, 41
chronology, 37-40, 42—61 passim
fixed points, 37-38, 46-50, 50-55
Kleisthenic “bulge”, 42-46, 59-61
Peisistratid “gap”, 39-40, 44-45
potter dedications, 71-72
relative, 37-39, 56-61
statue bases, 50-55
statues, 38, 46—50
269
INDEX
context, 21, 99-102, 123-29, 149, 168, 197-98,
200—O1
craftsmen, see banausoi (manual laborers)
Croesus of Lydia, 7, 23, 25
cult statues, 14, 124, 155-58, 200
Cyprus, Archaic sculpture, 147-48, 182, 242-43
n.73
dedicators
Alkimachos (Acr. 629 and DAA no. 6), 67,
182-85, 210-12, 229 n.26
Alkmeonides (DAA no. 317), 66, 171
Chairion (DAA no. 330), 67, 182-85
Epicharinos (DAA no. 120), 15, 29, 66, 170,
I7I-72, 196
Hegelochos (DAA no. 121), 186-90, 196, 230
n.32
Hermolykos (DAA no. 132), 7, 14, 67; 195, 238
n.133
Kallias (DAA no. 136), 14, 27, 67, 139
Kallias son of Didymias (DAA nos. 21 and 164),
66, 68, 171
Kallias son of Hipponikos (DAA no. 111), 67, 68,
170-71
Karkinos (DAA no. 127), 228 n.8, 238 n.140
Kynarbos (DAA no. 79), 114-15
Lysias and Euarchis (DAA no. 292), 7-10, 106
Naulochos (DAA no. 229), 110-14
Nearchos (DAA no. 197), 7; 43, 56-59, 71-72, 88
Phayllos of Croton (DAA no. 176), 66, 171
Pronapes (DAA no. 174), 66, 171
sons of Themistokles, 29, 139, 179-80
Telesinos (DAA no. 40), 67, 90-91
Thrasyllos and Gnathios (DAA no. 112), 67, 190,
196
Timarchos (DAA no. 236), 5—6, 90, 92, 111
Timotheos (DAA no. 47), 67
dekate (tithe), 6-10, 46, 91-92, 119
Delos, sanctuary of Apollo
cult statue, 137, 156, 161
korai, 106, 151
Naxian Apollo, 137, 155
Nikandre’s kore, 99-100, 136, 243 n.86
Delphi, sanctuary of Apollo, 42, 89, 155
Alkmeonid temple, 47—48, 57-59, 152-53
Croesus of Lydia, 7, 23, 25, 155-56
Eurymedon monument, 26
Marathon dedication, 177, 192
Plataia serpent column, 7, 25
Siphnian Treasury, 46-47, 144, 145, 157
democracy, 36-37, 45-46, 175
Demosthenes, 176-77, 192, 196
270
Didyma, sanctuary of Apollo
Apollo Philesios, 138, 156
Archaic sculpture, 105-06, 181
Branchidai, 21, 105, 181-82
Chares statue, 18, 19, 102—05, 181
disjunctive representation, 16—21, 77, 116-17, 167,
184
etkon (portrait), 181, 191
equestrian monuments, 12, 66, 89—91, 182, 189
funerary monuments, 22-23, 68, 76-77, 89, 91, 99,
146—47, 148—49, 150-51, 168, 198
gigantomachy, 135
hand-held attributes, 144-161 passim
bow, 136-38, 155-56
branches, 146
doves, 146
flowers, 146-48
“Hittite pose”, 154-55
lost, 159-60
phiale, 156-57, 159
pomegranates, 146, 148-49
spears, 129-30, 133, 139-40, 146, 155-56
wreaths, 147—48
Harrison, E. B., 43, 125, 190
Herodotus, 10, 14, 16, 23, 25, 39-40, 46-49, 116,
155-56, 175, 178, 181, 232 n.60
Holloway, R. R., 77, 88, 92
horses, see equestrian monuments
iconography, 30, 121, 122-23, 126, 139-40, 150,
169, 192
inscriptions
erasure, 24—25
formulas, 69—71, W1—-12, 114—15
honorific, 29-30, 101, 167—68, 180, 185-87,
191-92
“Ich-Rede” formula (oggetti parlanti), 19-20
joint dedications, 7-10, 76
letter forms, 31, 50-55
meter, 7, 10, 33, 184—85, 187
name forms, 64, 69-70, 76
name labels, 20—21, 103-04, 109, 120, 167,
192, 194
placement, 31-34, 117-18, 212
reading, 34-35, 167
reinscription (metagraphy), 25, 30, 185—91
sculptors’ signatures, 23, 29, 33-34, 208-09
“speaking statue” formula, 17-21, 102-03, 181
 INDEX

“stand and look” formula, 181 Olympia, sanctuary of Zeus, 14, 29, 66, 79, 80, 83,
votive, 6—7,.16, 22-24, 28-31, 84, 114, 124, 89, 170, 171, 181, 192, 197
167-68, 180-81, 184-85, 192, 194 Osborne, R., 108, 150, 239-40 n.17
ostraka, 68, 226-27 n.74, 227 n.82
kalos names, 68
kanephoroi, 100-01, 113, 126, 143 Panathenaia, 50, 66, 100, 15, 171
kerameus, 58, 69, 71-72 Pausanias, 13—I5, 22, 26-30, 46—48, 61, 127, 128-29,
Kimon, 25-26, 42, 92-93, 176 139, 156, 167-68, 171, 193-194, 195, 197, 200,
Klaros, sanctuary of Apollo, 106 202, 205—07
Kleisthenes, 24, 36-37, 38, 41, 43-46, 53, 173, 175 Peisistratos and Peisistratids, 36, 38, 43-44, 47-48,
Kleobis and Biton, 178 52-53) 54-55, 58, 139, 183-84, 211, 237 n.116
kneeling figures, 116, 150 chronology, 39-40
Konon, 15, 67, 166, 176, 192, 196, 227 n.94, 253 n.6 Hipparchos son of Charmos, 68, 179
korai, 39, 44-45, 47, 49-50, 77, 85-88, 92, 97-161 Hipparchan herms, 52-53, 54
passim Pythion altar of younger Peisistratos, 52—53,
bases for, 78 545 55
clothing and jewelry, 97—98, 125, 127, 130-31, 133, pentekosiomedimnoi, 67, 183
138, 140-44 Perikles, 15, 26, 193-96
extended forearm gesture, 98, 107-108, 123-125, Perserschutt, 49-50
136, 143, 144-61 passim Piombino Apollo, 159—6o
hand-held attributes, 98, 129-30, 136, 138-40, portrait statues, Is—16, 29-30, 89-90, 165—98
144—49, 150, 157-61 Passim, 202-03
headgear, 130-36, 140-44 Anacreon ofTeos, t5, 168, 195
hybrid kore/Athenas, 123, 129-35, 139-40 Archaic, 180-85, 191
identities, 98, 107—15, 123, 140, 144, 160—61, 201 Dieitrephes (DAA no. 132), 195
meniskoi, 131-34 family groups, 102—06, 119-20, 192
“Naxian”, 140—41, 146 family members, 182-185, 187—90, 191-92,
terminology, 107, 110-13 193-95, 198, 202-03
kouroi, 89, 99, 101-02, 106-07, 10, 117, 122-23, honorific, 15, 25-26, 61, 121, 166—68, 170, 175-77,
150, 168, 171, 178, 181-82, 216 n.31 181, 185-87, 189, 191-92, 194-96
Kroll, J., 156-57 Kylon, 30, 163, 167-68, 177
Lysimache, 101, 169, 178
Langlotz, E., 39, 43, 47 Perikles (DAA no. 131b), 15, 193-96
Lechat, H., 107, 109-10 “physiognomic”, 168-69
Livadhostro Poseidon, 80 retrospective, 171, 177, 195
Louvre Museum, Paris self-representation, 175-80
La Dame d’Auxerre, 150-51 strategos type, 195-96
Napir-Asu, 17-19, 115 Syeris, 27, 30, 101, 178
Tolmides, 258 n.81
Mantiklos’ Apollo, 137 “warrior” type, 189-91, 195-98
“Megakles” stele (Brother and Sister stele), New Xanthippos, 15, 168, 195
York Metropolitan Museum, 221-22 n.7 Poseidon, 112
Meleso’s Athena, see also statuettes, bronze, 81-82, potters and vase painters, 71-74
141-42 Andokides Painter, 47
metics, 69-70, 187-88 Euphronios (DAA no. 225), 72, 74
mnema (plural mnemata), 22-23, 25, 26, 91, 111, Kriton, 73
187-88, 198-99, 219 n.14 Mnesiades and Andokides (DAA no. 178), 72
Mummiuus, L., 218 n.63, 219 n.15 Nearchos, see dedicators
Onesimos (DAA no. 217), 73
Naxos, Archaic sculpture, 40—41 signatures, 73-74
Nikai, 144, 153, 236 n.114 Tleson and Ergoteles, 56-58
nymphs, 113, 125 priestesses, LOI, 115, 121, 178

271
INDEX

prosopography, 63—65 sculptors’ signatures, see inscriptions

Pto6n, sanctuary of Apollo, 55, 59, 60, 106-07, 129, seated figures, 105, 124, 124, 125-27, 130, 153
236 n.112 Snodgrass, A., 1, 37, 244 n.2
statue bases, 11-13, 78, UI
quadrupeds, 90 statuettes, bronze, 3, 76, 81-85, 114-15, 124-28,
132-35, 172-73
Raubitschek, A. E., 42-43, 54-58, 72-73, 186, 194, Athena Promachos type, 81-85, 114-15, 122,
210-11, 229 nn. 27 and 28 124-25, 126—28, 134, 137, 141-43, 188-89,
Richter, G. M. A., 98, 194, 221-22 n.7 201
riders, see equestrian monuments Palladion type, 81, 83, 127-28
Ridgway, B. S., 125, 131-33, 144, 157, 159 “smiting god” type, 82~83
Roman copies, 169, 193-94, 202 Stewart, A., 101-02, 222 n.19
sumptuary laws, 41-42
sacred law, 12, 42
sacrifice, 117, 120, 158—61 tekton (carpenter), 74, 90
Salomon, N., 108, 150 terracotta figurines, 125-27, 140
Samian technique, 79-81, 104 Themistokles, 113, 139, 156
Samos, Heraion Tolle-Kastenbein, R., 44—45, 241 n.49
Aiakes dedication, 240 n.33 tripods and bronze vessels, 3, 10, 66—67, 73, 171
Archaic sculpture, 41, 59-60, 97, 129, 146, Tyrannicides (Harmodios and Aristogeiton), I5,
223 n.23, 234 n.85 49-50, 58, 172-77, 190, 196, 198
bronzes, 79, 104 tyranny, 36, 40—42
Cheramyes dedications, 104, 154
cult statue, 155 Ugento Zeus, 80
Geneleos group, 19-20, 21, 101, 103-04, 105, 106,
119, 150, 175, 181-82, 192, 217 n.38 Vickers, M., 48, 73
kouroi, 104-05 victors, see athletic victors
statue bases, 63 “visiting gods”, 139
Schneider, L., 44, 77, 108 votaries, 99, I1s—21, 148, 150-52, 160, 170, 175,
scribe statues, 181, 185, 210-12 181-82
sculptors votive offerings, 3-10, I-12, 22-23, 61-62, 76-77,
Antenor, 172-174 9I—93, 115-17, 167, 198
Demetrios of Alopeke, 169, 237 n.121, 242 n.68 votive reliefs, 118—21, 150
Endoios, 27, 33, 129, 153, 156-57, 225 n.53 vow, 4—6, 90-92, 185
Kalamis, 14, 139
Kresilas, 14, 193-94 women
Kritios and Nesiotes, 15, 29, 127, 170-75, 186-91, dedications by, 75-77, 99, 117-21
220 n.30 representations of, 117—21, 122-23, 140-44,
Lykios, 197 150
Onatas, 80, 90, 111 status, 108-109
Pheidias, 12, 15, 29, 124, 139, 161, 165, 246 n.25
Pythis, 33, 129-30 Xenokrateia relief, 119, 187

aia)
\.
 CATHERINE KEESLING is Associate
Professor of Classics at Georgetown
University. A recipient of a Fulbright
grant, she has also received fellowships
from the Mellon Foundation, the Amer-
ican School of Classical Studies in
Athens, and the Archaeological Institute
of America.

Jacket illustration: Kore. Greek, Archaic Period.

Acropolis Museum, Athens, Greece. Copyright
Nimatallah/Art Resource.

Jacket design by Holly Johnson

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University

Press, Cambridge
 '

CAMBRID
UNIVERSITY PRE
www.esha a
86-A
wn 00 ul ine)9

I M
052 |