Studies in Athenian Architecture

HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT XX
STUDIES IN ATHENIAN ARCHITECTURE

SCULPTURE AND TOPOGRAPHY
*~ p IAl
PRESENTED TO
HOMER A. THOMPSON
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
1982
HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT XX
STUDIES IN ATHENIAN ARCHITECTURE
SCULPTURE AND
TOPOGRAPHY
PRESENTED TO
HOMER A. THOMPSON
PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
1982
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Studies in Athenian architecture, sculpture, and to-
pography
(Hesperia. Supplement; 20)
"Bibliography of Homer A. Thompson": p. vii-xii
1. Art, Greek-Greece-Athens. I. American School
of Classical Studies at Athens. II. Series: Hesperia
(Princeton, N.J.). Supplement; 20.
N5650.S8 709'.38'5 81-14994
ISBN 0-87661-520-3 AACR2
ended
rv
HOMER A. THOMPSON
ETH FEFONOTI
iTENTE KAI EBAOMHKONTA
XAPIXTHPION Y1TOTHE
EN AGHNAIX AMEPIKANIKHE
IXOAH1 KAA7XIKQN IXTOYAQN
APETHX ENEKEN
SEPTEMBER 7, 1981
These papers are offered by members of the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens who have been students and colleagues of Homer A. Thompson. Contributions
toward the cost of publication have been generously provided by the following:
Anna S. Benjamin
William R. and Jane C. Biers
Judith P. Binder
Alan L. Boegehold
Oscar Broneer
Alison Frantz
Virginia R. Grace
Dorothy Kent Hill
Evelyn B. Harrison
Richard H. Howland
Sara A. Immerwahr
Mabel L. Lang
Merle K. Langdon
James R. and Marian M. McCredie
Malcolm and Marguerite McGregor
The Meriden Gravure Company
Benjamin D. and Lucy S. Meritt
Stephen G. and Stella G. Miller
Fordyce W. Mitchel
Charles H. Morgan
James H. Oliver
Jerome J. Pollitt
Henry S. and Rebecca W. Robinson
Carl A. and Mary C. Roebuck
Robert L. and Louise C. Scranton
T. Leslie and lone M. Shear
Evelyn Lord Smithson
Brian A. Sparkes
Dorothy B. Thompson
Margaret Thompson
Stephen V. Tracy
Eugene Vanderpool
Emily T. Vermeule
Michael B. Walbank
Paul W. Wallace
Saul S. and Gladys D. Weinberg
Frederick E. Winter
Nancy A. Winter
William F. Wyatt
R. E. Wycherley
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HOMER A. THOMPSON ..................................... vii
NANCYBooKIDIS: Attic Terracotta Sculpture, Acropolis
30 ...................... 1
JoHN McK. CAMP II: Drought and Famine in the 4th Century B.C. ..... ......... 9
WILLIAM B. DINSMOOR, JR.: The Asymmetry of the Pinakotheke-For the Last
Time . ...................................................... 18
ALISON FRANTZ: The Date of the Phaidros Bema in the Theater of Dionysos ...... 34
EVELYN B. HARRISON: A Classical Maiden from the Athenian Agora ..... ........ 40
SARA A. IMMERWAHR: The Earliest Athenian Grave ........... ................ 54
FRANCES F. JONES: An Athenian Stele in Princeton ........... ................ 63
JoHN H. KROLL: The Ancient Image of Athena Polias .......... ............... 65
GERALD V. LALONDE: Topographical Notes on Aristophanes ........ ............ 77
Lucy S. MERITT: Some Ionic Architectural Fragments from the Athenian Agora ... 82
STELLA G. MILLER: A Miniature Athena Promachos .......... ................ 93
STEPHEN G. MILLER: Kleonai, the Nemean Games, and the Lamian War .......... 100
ISABELLE K. AND ANTONYE. RAUBITSCHEK: The Mission of Triptolemos ..... ...... 109
BRUNILDE S. RIDGWAY: Of Kouroi and Korai, Attic Variety ..................... 118
T. LESLIE
SHEAR,
JR.: The Demolished Temple at Eleusis ...................... 128
EVELYN L. SMITHSON: The Prehistoric
Klepsydra. Some Notes ................... 141
DOROTHY B. THOMPSON: A Dove for Dione
.................................. 155
MARGARET THOMPSON: Reflections on the Athenian Imperial Coinage ..... ....... 163
EUGENE VANDERPOOL: EHI UPOYXONTI KOACNCI, The Sacred Threshing Floor
at Eleusis
................................................... 172
CHARLES K. WILLIAMS, II: Zeus and Other Deities. Notes on Two Archaistic Piers .. 175
R. E. WYCHERLEY: Pausanias and Praxiteles
................................. 182
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HOMER A. THOMPSON
1932
"Syrian Wheat in Hellenistic Egypt," Archivfur Papyrusforschung 9, pp. 207-213
(with K. Kourouniotis) "The Pnyx in Athens," Hesperia 1, pp. 90-217
1933
"Activities in the American Zone of the Athenian Agora, Summer of 1932," AJA 37,
pp. 289-296
"Terracotta Lamps," Hesperia 2, pp. 195-215
(with K. Kourouniotis) "The Athenian Pnyx," AJA 37, pp. 652-656
1934
"Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery," Hesperia 3, pp. 311-480
1935
"The Topography of the West Side of the Agora," AJA 39, p. 114
1936
"Pnyx and Thesmophorion," Hesperia 5, pp. 151-200
1937
"Buildings on the West Side of the Agora," Hesperia 6, pp. 1-226
1938
"Additional Note on the Identification of the Pottery of the Salaminians at Sounion,"
Hesperia 7, pp. 75-76
"The Metal Works of Athens and the Hephaisteion," AJA 42, p. 123
(with N. Kyparisses) "A Sanctuary of Zeus and Athena Phratrios Newly Found in
Athens," Hesperia 7, pp. 612-625
1940
"A Golden Nike," HSCP, Suppl. I, Athenian Studies Presented to W. S. Ferguson, Cam-
bridge, Mass., pp. 183-210
The Tholos of Athens and its Predecessors, Hesperia, Suppl. IV, Princeton
(with Dorothy B. Thompson) "The Golden Nikai of Athens," AJA 44, pp. 109-110
1942
"The Pnyx in the Fourth Century," AJA 46, p. 123
viii HOMER A. THOMPSON
1943
(with R. L. Scranton) "Stoas and City Walls on the Pynx," Hesperia 12, pp. 269-283
1946
"The Influence of Basketry on Attic Geometric Pottery," AJA 50, p. 26
1947
"The Excavation of the Athenian Agora, 1940-46," Hesperia 16, pp. 193-213
1948
"Excavation of the Athenian Agora, 1947," Hesperia 17, pp. 149-196
"Greek and Roman Societies' Joint Meeting, Oxford, 3-10 August, 1948," Phoenix 2,
pp. 88-89
1949
"An Archaic Gravestone from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, Suppl. VIII, Commem-
orative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear, Baltimore, pp. 373-377
"The Athenian Agora: 1949 Season," Archaeology 2, pp. 184-188
"Decouverte sur l'agora d'Athenes d'un edifice du Ve siecle av. J.-C. qui pourrait avoir
appartenu au Poecile," resume of a letter in Comptes Rendus de l'Academie
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, p. 182
"Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1948," Hesperia 18, pp. 211-229
"Head of Nike from the Athenian Agora," Archaeology 2, pp. 17-19
"The Pedimental Sculpture of the Hephaisteion," Hesperia 18, pp. 230-268
"Stoa of Attalos," Archaeology 2, pp. 124-130
1950
"Agrippa's Concert-Hall in the Athenian Agora," Archaeology 3, pp. 155-157
"The Odeion in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 19, pp. 31-141
1951
"The 15th
Campaign
in the Athenian
Agora: 1950,"
AA [JdI
66],
cols. 141-151
1952
"The Altar of Pity in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 21, pp. 47-82
"Excavations in the Athenian
Agora: 1951," Hesperia 21, pp.
83-113
1953
"The Athenian Agora, Excavation and Reconstruction," Archaeology 6, pp. 142-146
"Athens and the Hellenistic Princes," ProcPhilSoc 97, pp.
254-261
"Excavations in the Athenian Agora, 1952," AJA 57, pp. 21-25
"Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1952," Hesperia 22, pp.
25-56
BIBLIOGRAPHY ix
1954
"Classical Congress in Copenhagen," Archaeology 7, pp. 249-250
"Rebuilding the Stoa of Attalos, Progress Report, Spring 1954", Archaeology 7, pp.
180-182
1955
"Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1954," Hesperia 24, pp. 50-71
1956
1957
"The Athenian Agora. A Sketch of the Evolution of its Plan," Acta Congressus Mad-
vigiani. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Classical Studies I,
Copenhagen, pp. 341-352
1958
1959
"The Athenian Agora, 1959," Archaeology 12, pp. 284-285
"Athenian Twilight, A. D. 267-600," JRS 49, pp. 61-72
The Stoa of Attalos II in Athens, Athenian Agora Picture Book, No. 2, Connecticut
1960
"Odeion of Agrippa or Sanctuary of Theseus?" Revue Archeologique, pp. 1-3
"The Panathenaic Festival," resume in Proceedings of the Classical Association 17, p. 26
1962
The Athenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavations and Museum, Athens
"Itinerant Temples of Attica," Abstract of Paper read at General Meeting, 1962, AJA
66, p. 200
"The Sculptural Adornment of the Hephaisteion," AJA 66, p. 339-347
1963
Review of V. Scully, The Earth, the Temple and the Gods, New Haven and London 1962,
Art Bulletin 45, pp. 277-280
x HOMER A. THOMPSON
1964
"A Colossal Moulding in Athens,"
Xaptror-pIo
Eus 'AaoraTa'o-ov K. 'OpX&v8o)' I,
Athens, pp. 314-323
"Some Consequences of the Worship of Heroes in Ancient Athens" (in modern
Greek), Scientific Yearbook of the Philosophical Society of the University of
Athens, pp. 275-284
1965
"A Note on the Berlin Foundry Cup," Marsyas, Suppl. I, Essays in Honor of Karl Leh-
mann, New York, pp. 323-328
Review of A. N. Oikonomides, The Two Agoras in Ancient Athens, Chicago 1964, Arch-
aeology 18, pp. 305-306
1966
"Activity in the Athenian Agora 1960-1965," Hesperia 35, pp. 37-54
"The Annex to the Stoa of Zeus in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 35, pp. 171-187
"Classical Lands," ProcPhilSoc 110, pp. 100-104
"Some Libraries in Ancient Athens," Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin, pp. 2-9
Review of A. N. Oikonomides, The Two Agoras in Ancient Athens, Chicago 1964, JHS
86, p. 273
1967
Review of J. M. Cook and W. H. Plommer, The Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos,
London 1966, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 26, pp. 217-
220
1968
"Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1966-1967," Hesperia 38, pp. 36-72
1969
(with Alison Frantz and John Travlos) "The 'Temple of Apollo Pythios' on Sikinos,"
AJA
73,
pp.
397-422
1971
"Lucy Talcott (1889-1970)," Gnomon 43, pp.
104-105
1972
Review of H. H. Busing, Die griechische Halbsdule, Wiesbaden 1970, Art Bulletin 54, pp.
537-539
"Sir John Beazley (1885-1970)," Year Book of the American Philosophical Society, pp.
115-121
(with R. E. Wycherley) The Agora of Athens: the History, Shape and Uses of
an Ancient
City Center, Princeton
BIBLIOGRAPHY xi
1973
"Gisela M. A. Richter (1882-1972)," Year Book of the American Philosophical Society,
pp. 144-150
Review of P. W. Lehmann, Samothrace, Volume 3: The Hieron, Princeton 1969, Arch-
aeology 26, pp. 228-229
1974
"Some Recent Developments in the Excavation of the Athenian Agora," Transactions
of the Royal Society of Canada, ser. 4, 12, pp. 249-251
"William Bell Dinsmoor (1886-1973)," Year Book of the American Philosophical Society,
pp. 156-163
1975
Review of J. A. Bungaard, The Excavation of the Athenian Acropolis, Copenhagen 1974,
AJA 79, pp. 378-379
Review of P. Bernard et al., Fouilles d'Ai Khanoum I, Memoires de la Delegation Archeolo-
gique
Francaise
en Afghanistan XII, Artibus Asiae 37, pp. 249-254
1977
"Dionysos among the Nymphs in Athens and in Rome," Journal of the Walters Art
Gallery 36, pp. 73-84
1978
"A Golden Victory," A Portfolio honoring Harold Hugo for his Contribution to Scholarly
Printing, Essay No. 3, Meriden, Connecticut
"Some Hero Shrines in Ancient Athens," Athens Comes of Age: from Solon to Salamis,
Papers of a Symposium sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of Amer-
ica, Princeton chapter, and the Department of Art and Archaeology, Prince-
ton University, Princeton, pp. 96-106
Review of Georges Vallet, Francoise Villard, and Paul Auberson, Megara Hyblaea, I,
Le quartier de l'agora archadque, Paris 1976, Classical World 72, pp. 122-123
Review of J. A. Bungaard, Parthenon and the Mycenaean City on the Height, Copenhagen
1976, AJA 82, pp. 256-258
Review of R. E. Wycherley, The Stones of Athens, Princeton 1978, Archaeology 31, pp.
63-65
1980
"In Pursuit of the Past: The American Role 1879-1979," AJA 84, pp. 263-270
"John J. McCloy," ASCS Newsletter, Fall, p. 10
"Stone, Tile and Timber: Commerce in Building Materials in Classical Athens,"
Exc-
pedition 22, pp. 12-26
"The Tomb of Clytemnestra Revisited," From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Memo-
rial Symposium for Rodney S. Young (University Museum Papers I), Phila-
delphia, pp. 3-15
xii HOMER A. THOMPSON
1981
"Athens Faces Adversity," Hesperia 50, pp. 343-355
"The Libraries of Ancient Athens.," The St. John's Review 32, pp. 1-16
"The Pnyx in Models," Hesperia, Suppl. XIX, Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, and
Topography, Princeton, pp. 133-147
1982
"Architecture as a Medium of Public Relations among the Successors of Alexander,"
Studies in the History of Art X, Washington, pp. 173-189
ATTIC TERRACOTTA SCULPTURE: ACROPOLIS 30
(PLATE 1)
T HE SUBJECT for this article grew out of a recent conversation with Mr. Thomp-
son which centered on the function of terracotta sculpture.' The subjects of the
conversation were the terracotta statuette recently discovered in the Athenian Agora
and the freestanding dedications from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth.2
The question raised was whether a city like Athens with a ready source of marble would
have modeled statues in clay for any purpose but that of architectural decoration. The
question implied a contrast with Corinth where marble was lacking and where clay was
used for both architectural and freestanding sculpture. Given this hypothesis, the fol-
lowing Attic piece raises interesting problems.
A fragmentary statue modeled in Attic clay was found in the early excavations of
the Athenian Acropolis, was published in 1906 by W. Deonna,3 and subsequently was
neglected. The statue preserves the lower part of a draped figure roughly from the
thighs to the plinth. It is approximately one-half life-size or slightly larger. Deonna
identified it as a standing figure and, undoubtedly having the korai in mind, considered
it to be freestanding.
The statue is mended from many joining fragments and partially restored in plaster.
Left side and back are most complete; the right side breaks off shortly above the hem.
The left foot is intact except for the tips of the toes. The right is missing but can be
restored. Now 0.325 m. in height as preserved, the statue is estimated to have been
0.70 to 0.75 m. in height.4
With more parallels now from which to draw, we can see that Deonna's identifica-
tion was incorrect. The figure is not standing but seated. It is seated with feet drawn
II wish to express my warm thanks to Mr. G. Dontas, Ephor of the Acropolis, for giving me permis-
sion to publish this piece, and my special gratitude to Mrs. M. Brouskari, Director of the Kanellopoulos
Museum, for greatly facilitating my study of it.
2T. L. Shear, Jr., "The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1972," Hesperia 42, 1973, pp. 401-402, pl. 75:
a, b. For previous finds, R. Nicholls, "Architectural Terracotta Sculpture from the Athenian Agora," Hes-
peria 39, 1970, pp. 115-138. For the Corinthian material, R. S. Stroud, "The Sanctuary of Demeter and
Kore on Acrocorinth, Preliminary Report II: 1964-1965," Hesperia 37, 1968, p. 325, pl. 95:c, e; N. Booki-
dis, J. E. Fisher, "The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth, Preliminary Report IV: 1969-
1970," Hesperia 41, 1972, p. 317, pl. 63:a-d. The Corinthian material will be treated more fully in a forth-
coming study on technique.
3Acropolis 30. W. Deonna, Les statues de terre-cuite en Grdce, Paris 1906, pp. 48-51, with references to
previous publication. Deonna cites a small drapery fragment, 0.18 m. by 0.13 m., which I did not see.
4In greater detail, dimensions and preservation are as follows: P. H., left front, 0.305-0.31; back, 0.24;
right side, 0.06 m. The left leg breaks off for 0.14 m. above the knee, while the preserved edge of the
upper torso begins 0.21 m. from the knee, breaking off shortly thereafter. The plaster restorations are
especially extensive on the left side near the back where the upper torso breaks off. The restored curvature
visible in side and back views is probably excessive.
2 NANCY BOOKIDIS
back so that knees and toe tips are on the same frontal plane. The feet are spread apart
and turned slightly outwards. The left thigh, the outer surface of which has split away to
expose the underlying core, is not quite horizontal but rises very slightly from the knee
toward the hips. The beginning of the erect upper torso is preserved at the back upper
break. Along the outside of the left thigh the body wall appears to thicken considerably
at the point where the outer surface of clay breaks off.5 While the coarse clay curves up
and in to block out the nearly horizontal thigh, the outer layer appears to continue
vertically. Although it is possible that this divergence is due to something which once
rested on the lap, it is more likely that it relates to the position of the left arm. The arm
may have been poised above the leg and slightly to one side but connected to it by a
fall of drapery. Excepting the placement of the feet, the position can be paralleled in the
Late Archaic marble seated statue from Plateia Eleutherias, now in the National Muse-
um in Athens.6
The figure wears a chiton which is visible between the lower legs (PI. 1:a). A few
surface ripples, more apparent to the touch than to the eye, stretch from leg to leg to
give the material texture. The remaining details are not modeled but only painted. A
broad black stripe defines the paryphe of the chiton a little to the proper right of the
central axis. A narrower black stripe with thin outer reserved line decorates the hem.
Where the paryphe and hem meet is a painted, double zigzag fold. The remainder of
the chiton is a light red brown.
The himation hangs down the axis of the left leg in a series of modeled, stacked
zigzag folds. They end just above the left ankle in a tassle. On the proper left side three
shallowly incised lines curve up and back from the calf towards the lap (P1. 1:b). Too
little is preserved of the left side behind this point or of the right to know whether the
remaining surface was modeled. The back is not. The black and reserved border of the
hem curves down over the ankle and chiton to encircle the entire base of the statue.7
On the right side the border begins to curve upward toward the missing right ankle as if
to meet a similar fall of stacked folds on the right leg. The himation is a darker shade of
red brown than the chiton.8
The preserved anatomical modeling is confined to the left foot and is quite
skill-
fully done. Traces of red painted straps on the first two toes and
possibly
over the
instep
suggest that the feet were sandaled. The foot is slender
through
the
instep (W. 0.048
m.), widening through the ball with a pronounced convex curve (W.
0.073
m.). The
toes are parallel to each other, including the little one,
and the
big
toe
may
be
very
slightly longer. They are
long, slender and
bony.
There is some
modeling
of the meta-
5This break is plastered and cannot be fully examined.
6W. H. Schuchhardt, "Sitzender Dionysos," AntP VI, 1967, pp. 7-20.
7Deonna, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), p. 50, thought that the hem of the chiton continued around the
statue. It is clear, however, that above the right ankle the himation covers the chiton. The border is largely
obliterated around the back but can be followed.
8Munsell Soil Color Charts, Baltimore 1973, slightly redder than lOR 3/2. The surfaces of both gar-
ments are worn, and it may be that the present differences in color were not originally so obvious.
ATTIC TERRACOTTA SCULPTURE: ACROPOLIS 30 3
tarsal bones. In profile the foot makes a continuously descending line from the ankle to
near the missing toe tips. The surface of the foot is well polished.
Surrounding the statue is a thin solid plinth ca. 0.01-0.02 m. in thickness with
plain vertical edge (P1. L:c).9 The plinth projects 0.01 m. beyond the back of the statue,
0.03-0.033 m. beyond the sides, and was probably flush with the toes. It is 0.308 m.
from side to side, 0.324 m. front to back. The surface of the plinth is rough and un-
painted. In the preserved portions there are no nail holes for attachment to another
surface.
With the exception of the solid foot, the statue is hollow (P1. L:d). The walls are
extremely thin (Th. 0.015-0.025 m.). Although the interior surface and floor are cov-
ered with plaster and can no longer be examined, it is unlikely that the piece was
thrown on a wheel, as Deonna thought.10 In plan the statue is not circular but more
horseshoe-shaped, with flattened sides and front face." It was undoubtedly built up by
hand by means of long strips and wads of clay, the joints of which were smoothed
thereafter and covered on the exterior with fine clay. How the plinth was handled with-
in the body cavity cannot now be determined. Most likely, the bottom of the statue was
either entirely open, or largely so, in order to facilitate circulation of air during firing.
The two colors, red brown and black, combined with reserved ground to give a three-
color system, were applied before firing.
The clay from which the statue was modeled is coarse at the core with a dense
admixture of dark inclusions and has fired a rosy to purplish red.12 The basic modeling
of the form is executed in this clay. Over it is a coat of fine clay without inclusions
which varies in thickness from a thin skin to 0.005 m. It has fired to a gray buff.13 The
fine clay is employed for the modeling of finer surface details. As Deonna also re-
marked, the clay is Attic.
The general appearance of the statue is extremely simple. What little modeling
there is, is concentrated on the front face. Paint is used as a short cut to modeling, as
exemplified by the treatment of the paryphe as well as of the hem of both garments. On
the proper left side the drapery rises to expose the entire foot, yet the foot is only
modeled from the instep forward. It is as if the sculptor originally had intended to
represent the himation draping over the foot, as is more customary, but then painted in
90f the plinth the front half of the right side, most of the front, and the back left corner are missing.
The plinth has been mounted on a plaster slab for better support, but the underside can no longer be
examined.
10Deonna, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), p. 50. Because of the plaster technical observations are limited.
This is regretable with regard to the problem of interior struts. Terracotta statues were generally built
without an armature, but not infrequently in the Archaic period a thin clay wall was built from front to
back up the center of the statue in order to prevent the walls from collapsing. Such a wall occurs in the
Zeus-Ganymede from Olympia and might be expected in the Acropolis piece.
"In the view from above (PI. 1:d) the statue looks oval but the restoration of the proper left back is
misleading.
1210R 4/3, an approximate reading since the surfaces were difficult to approach.
13A fresh chip in the knee is ca. 10YR 5-6/4.
4 NANCY BOOKIDIS
the hem at a higher level, thereby creating a plain stretch of body wall extending down
to the plinth. The statue, moreover, is extremely compact. The plinth is almost square.
The sides of the statue are about flush with the edge of the plinth. The feet are turned
out to fill the front corners of the plinth.
Large-scale seated statues are uncommon in terracotta, possibly because they are
more complex structurally than standing figures. Apart from the seated statues which
rested on the ridge cover tiles of early Etruscan buildings,"4 three examples are known,
and all three are from the Greek West. The first from Grammichele in Sicily, 0.73 m. in
height, is that of a very simply executed woman on a large block seat which has flaring
ends.15 The second, 0.98 m. in height, from the same site and also female, is elaborately
enthroned and attired, indeed too much so for useful comparison with our piece.16 The
third was found at Paestum and represents a draped and bearded man, 0.905 m. or more
in height. Although the arrangement of the drapery is different from ours, the oblique
placement of the lower legs is similar, as is also the general spareness in the rendering of
details. The Paestum statue has been dated on stylistic grounds to ca. 530 B.C."7
Terracotta sculpture as a category is rather difficult to date in absolute terms.
Bronze affords the best comparisons, but large-scale bronze statues are rare in the 6th
century B.C. While clay exhibits the general tendencies of stone work in this period, it
tends to be simpler in execution. Such is clearly the case when the treatment of the
drapery of our statue is compared with examples in marble from the Acropolis.18 The
amount of surface detail is much less. There is little attempt to distinguish one garment
from another and virtually no attempt to indicate the anatomy beneath the drapery.
Nevertheless, since stone sculpture is more abundant, we must look to it for parallels in
the execution of specific details.
As we noted in the beginning, the pose of our statue resembles that of the marble
figure from Plateia Eleutheria, dated to ca. 530-525 B.C., more particularly when
viewed in profile. It differs from the more common pose of the statue from Grammi-
chele, in which lower and upper legs are at right angles to each other. A further like-
ness between the two statues can be found in the way in which the feet of both are
modeled. The contours are similar, as is the treatment of the toes. The terracotta feet
141. Edlund Gantz, "The Seated Statue Akroteria from Poggio Civitate (Murlo)," Dialoghi di archeolo-
gia 6, 1972, pp. 167-235.
15p. Orsi, "D'una citta' greca a Terravecchia presso Granmichele in provincia di Catania," MonAnt 7,
1897, cols. 217-220, pl. III.
16p. Orsi, "Anathemata di una citta' sicula-greca," MonAnt 18, 1908, cols. 136-145, pls. IV, V.
17p. C. Sestieri, "Statue fittile di Posidonia," BdA 1955, pp. 193-202. Feet and base are missing.
Found near the north side of the "Neptune" Temple, the statue was tentatively identified as a cult statue.
In view of the elaborate and unusual architectural terracottas that have been found at Paestum in recent
years, one cannot overlook the possibility that the statue belonged on a roof. Cf. P. C. Sestieri, "Terrecotte
Posidoniati," BdA 1963, pp. 212-220.
"8H. Schrader, E. Langlotz, W. H. Schuchhardt, Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis, Frank-
furt 1939, pp. 107-116, 207-212. The closest, if any may be so-called, is Acropolis 655, p. 107, no. 57, figs.
63-64, a statuette identified as Cybele. The chiton has a double stacked fold, while the himation falls
symmetrically over both legs. It is dated to ca. 550 B.C.
may have a sharper inclination in profile. The stacked zigzag folds of the himation can
be paralleled in a terracotta statue of a standing draped male from Corinth, dated to
about the same time as the marble piece.19 A date in the late third or early fourth
quarter of the 6th century is also in keeping with the color scheme, the use of predomi-
nantly coarse clay, and with the consistently thin walls, if Corinthian standards apply.
We come to the question of the statue's function. It could have served as a free-
standing votive, as Deonna had suggested, a freestanding cult image, or an architectural
element. Seated votive statues in marble are not uncommon on the Acropolis. Thirteen
fragments are listed by Langlotz. Our statue, however, shows a major difference when
compared with those. The seat or stool on which our figure sat is not represented. We
understand the pose from the position of the legs, and we must assume that the seat is
covered by the continuous hem of the himation.20 Indeed, when compared to all other
seated statues, large and small, in marble, limestone and terracotta, our statue remains
unique in this respect.21 This omission is disturbing in a freestanding dedication which
would have been subject to closer scrutiny. It implies that what was required was a
simple outline of the pose without the accouterments. It is clear from the handling of
the foot, moreover, that our sculptor was not unskillful. He simply took short cuts.
A technical observation may also be revealing, although too little is as yet known
about the specific practices of terracotta modeling to be certain of its validity. Corinthian
freestanding statues of this period are made in one with a hollow box plinth open on
the bottom. Examples of such can be seen in the Warrior and the Athena groups from
Olympia.22 The thin, solid, slab plinth of our seated figure differs and is to be paralleled
in a specific kind of architectural sculpture, as we shall see below.
The shorthand iconography, then, combined with the structure of the base, argues
against Deonna's interpretation and against the possibility of a venerated cult image.23
We return to our initial query and to the subject of architectural decoration.
Despite the excellent parallels provided by the seated Zeus and Hera in the Intro-
duction pediment from the Acropolis, it is unlikely that our statue stood in a pediment.
In the Archaic period, group compositions in clay were worked in units of several fig-
'9R. S. Stroud, loc. cit. (footnote 2 above).
20To suggest that the figure is merely squatting is to disregard the postion of the thighs and to call to
mind bodily functions not befitting a sanctuary.
2ITo give a corpus of seated statues is beyond the limits of this article. Useful references to late Archa-
ic examples are in B. S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton 1977, pp. 121-139; J.
Boardman, Greek Sculpture, The Archaic Period, London 1978; W. Fuchs, Die Skulptur der Griechen, Munich
1979, pp. 248-258. For figurines, F. Winter, Die Typen
derJfigirlichen Terrakotten I, Berlin 1903. Even the
limestone kourotrophos from Megara Hyblaia, which might be described as overridingly frontal, is seated
on a block seat. Cf. G. V. Gentili, "Megara Hyblaia," NSc 8, 1954, p. 99, fig. 24.
22E. Kunze, "Terracottaplastik," OlBer V, Berlin 1956, pp. 114-127, pis. 74, 75; E. Kunze, "Terracot-
taplastik," OlBer VI, Berlin 1958, pp. 169-188, pls. 77, 78.
23Before leaving the subject of freestanding sculpture, we should note a reference of Pausanias (i.2.5)
to clay statues depicting Amphiktyon feasting with Dionysos and other gods, which stood in an oikema in
the Kerameikos. Although the citation is tantalizing, the statues, if such they were and not large reliefs,
were undoubtedly not Archaic and need not have been of Attic manufacture.
6 NANCY BOOKIDIS
ures which stood, again, on the hollow box plinth. We have mentioned the Warrior and
Athena groups from Olympia. Even more fitting an analogy is the Amazonomachy
pediment from Corinth which unites at least three figures of nearly two-thirds life-size
on a single box plinthY14
A self-contained statue on a thin slab plinth would not be out of place as an acrote-
rion but probably not as an apex acroterion.Y5 Few Archaic buildings preserve evidence
for the workings of the apex. Two which do, however, are the later Temple of Aphaia
at Aigina26 and the Temple of Apollo at Karthaia, Keos.27 On both buildings the acrote-
rion is carved in one with, or fitted onto, a gabled plinth which, in turn, fits into a
cutting in the roof. At Karthaia the cutting in the roof beam also slopes gently to both
sides. Gabled plinths also can be found in clay, as on the Zeus-Ganymede from Olym-
pia,28 and on a fragmentary Nike from Corinth. The plinth of the latter rises at an angle
of ca. eleven degrees.29 In other words, we should expect the plinth of an apex acrote-
rion to slope.
We are thus left with a corner acroterion. Structurally, this works out well. A terra-
cotta sima from Kalydon provides us with a good example of the technique.30 Behind
the corner lion-head spout is a rectangular base with sunken floor into which is set the
flat plinth of the acroterion. The Kalydon slab plinth which is still leaded into place
preserves the four paws of a sphinx.
A quick survey of other such bases for acroteria shows that there is no fixed rule
about their size. Ours is unusual in that it is square and therefore massive. Its maxi-
24R. Stillwell, "A Terracotta Group at Corinth," Classical Studies Presented to Edward Capps, Princeton
1936, pp. 318-322. S. S. Weinberg, "Terracotta Sculpture at Corinth," Hesperia 26, 1957, pp. 306-307,
no.
8.
251 regret that the dissertation of Marilyn Goldberg, Types and Distribution of Archaic Greek
Akroteria,
diss. Bryn Mawr College 1977, was unavailable to me. For an earlier treatment, cf. K. Volkert, Das Akroter
in der Antiken besonders der griechischen Baukunst, I, Archaische Zeit, Frankfurt 1932.
26A. Furtwingler, Aegina, Munich 1906, pp. 274-295, pl. 47. The predecessor of this temple, from the
first half of the century, shows a different system. The acroterion is a large palmette plaque which becomes
the apex of the sima. Cf. E. L. Schwandner, "Der iltere Aphaiatempel auf Aegina," Neue Forschungen
in
griechischen Heiligtimern, TUbingen 1976, p. 111, fig. 8. A marble floral acroterion from the Athenian
Acropolis is cut at the bottom to fit either onto the sima or onto a gabled base, T. Wiegand,
Die archaische
Poros-architektur der Akropolis zu Athen, Cassel 1904, p. 182, fig. 191. Finally, a diagonal cutting
in the peak
of the Siphnian Treasury is mentioned but not described fully. Cf. P. de la Coste-Messeliere,
Ch. Picard,
FdD IV, ii, Paris 1928, p. 165.
27AEXT, 1963, XpovLKa (19651, pp. 281-282, pl. 327:c.
28Kunze, OlBer V (footnote 22 above), pp. 103-114, pls. 57-62. The
Zeus-Ganymede
has been identi-
fied both as a freestanding group and as an acroterion. Most recently as an acroterion,
cf. A. Mallwitz,
Olympia und seine Bauten, Munich 1972, p. 36.
29S. S. Weinberg, op. cit. (footnote 24 above), p. 312, no. 27.1, pl. 69, who did not note that the plinth
actually slopes. If we are correct in assuming that apex acroteria in the Archaic period had gabled plinths,
then compositions such as the Silene and Maenad from Olympia, originally placed at the apex, must be
relegated to the angles, cf. G. Treu, Olympia, III, Die Bildwerke von Olympia in Stein und Thon, Berlin 1897,
pp. 35, 37-40, pls. VII.2, 3, VIII.1, 2.
30K. Rhomaios, KEapao
rrjc KaXv&Cvoo, Athens 1951, pp. 73-74, figs. 52, 53. E. Dyggve, Das Laph-
rion, Copenhagen 1948, p. 173, figs. 177-180, pl. XXII:C.
mum length, however, is no greater than that of several other acroteria and much
smaller than the horse-and-rider group from the Athenian Treasury at Delphi.3"
Vitruvius (iii.5.12) recommended that angle acroteria equal the height of the tym-
panum while central acroteria should exceed it by one eighth. If such a canon existed in
the Archaic period,32 then we should expect to find a small building with a pedimental
height of ca. 0.70 to 0.75 m. for our statue, or about the size of the Red Triton and
Hydra pediments from the Acropolis. If there was no such relation, then the building
could have been even larger. Given the date and material of our statue, we should also
associate it with a sima of the so-called black-figure "Wellensima" type in terracotta.
Regrettably the examples of this type from the Acropolis are extremely fragmentary.33
No direct attributions can be made. If Schuchhardt is correct in associating the series of
small marble simas with the small decorated poros pediments,34 then our statue can
belong with none of the latter. We are left with an unknown small structure of the
second half of the 6th century.35
We have not discussed the identity of the figure, a problem perhaps as elusive as
the building on which it stood. Although parallels exist for seated men who wear chiton
and himation, our statue is undoubtedly female. This is suggested by the short draping
of the himation which does not completely cover the upper legs but falls open to expose
the chiton. The difference is apparent when one compares the statue from Paestum or
the Zeus from the Introduction pediment with any of the seated females from the
Acropolis.
Our statue could represent Athena who is often depicted sitting. Without some
attribution, however, this can only be a supposition. More important is the question of
whether her stance is significant. The customary position for a seated figure is with legs
and feet together or closely set. Some of the later Milesian statues show legs parted,
presumably to allow more room for elaboration of the drapery.36 The spread of our
statue's legs is greater and is accentuated by the outward turn of the feet and by the
31A few comparative measurements are as follows: Kalydon, 0.164 x 0.245 m., Dyggve, op. cit. (foot-
note 30 above); Aigina, Temple of Aphaia, 0.25 x 0.33 m., Furtwdngler, op. cit. (footnote 26 above);
Megarian Treasury, ca. 0.18 x 0.255 m. The best preserved of the acroteria from the Athenian Treasury is
at least 0.80 m. long, 0.30 m. wide and 0.95 m. high. Cf. P. de la Coste-Messeliere, FdD IV, iv, Paris 1957,
pp. 182-187.
32For a discussion of this question, P. Lehmann, Samothrace, 3, The Hieron I, Princeton 1969, p. 351
and note 183, p. 386 and note 235.
33E. Buschor, Die Tonddcher der Akropolis, I, Die Simen, Leipzig 1929, pp. 16-19.
34W. H. Schuchhardt, "Archaische Bauten auf der Akropolis von Athen," AA (JdI 78), 1963, cols.
797-822. It is interesting to note that none of the corner pieces appears to preserve any evidence for the
attachment of an acroterion.
35For the most recent summary of the problems of the small buildings, S. Bancroft, Problems Concer-
ning the Archaic Acropolis at Athens, diss. Princeton University 1977, University Microfilms 7920425, pp.
46-57. Discussions of the Acropolis buildings generally do not take into account the terracotta simas pub-
lished by Buschor, op. cit. (footnote 33 above).
36K. Tuchelt, Die archaischen Skulpturen von Didyma, Berlin 1970. Among the later statues with spread
feet are his K60, p. 90, pl. 59; K63, p. 92, pl. 61; L95, L96, L99, L100, pls. 85, 86.
8 NANCY BOOKIDIS
faint horizontal ripples of the chiton. It calls to mind the stance of a mature or elderly
woman. It is tempting, moreover, to think that the pose is determined by something
held in the lap, such as a child, and to view the statue as a representation of a kourotro-
phos. Kourotrophos is a fitting subject for the Acropolis. Pausanias (i.22.3) mentions a
Sanctuary of Ge Kourotrophos which stood near the entrance to the Acropolis, and,
according to a late source, Erichthonios decreed that all sacrifices must be preceded by a
sacrifice to Ge Kourotrophos.37
There are two problems with such an identification. Such conscious characterization
of maturity is unusual in Archaic art. It is further unlikely that an Archaic baby placed
on an Archaic lap would cause the legs to spread and the drapery to pull. Our primary
large-scale example, the limestone kourotrophos from Megara Hyblaia, is interesting in
this respect.38 Although she nurses two babies, her legs could be those of any simple,
seated figure. The emphasis is on her breasts.
If the explanation is not iconographic-and we have not exhausted the possibili-
ties-it could be stylistic. The. sculptor chose the composition in order to give an im-
pression of bulk and massiveness. At the same time, he could give the superstructure a
broad, firm foundation while keeping the thin body walls which fire more easily.
We are still left with the question of why a seated figure should have been placed
on the roof of a building on the Acropolis. We generally associate acroteria with move-
ment, strength or action. Thus, we have winged figures and animals or scenes of rape
and combat. We do not think of passive representations. It may be that the reason for
our subject is to be sought in the realm of Athenian cults and in the topography of the
Acropolis, a separate study in itself.
The answer to our opening query may well be no, as Mr. Thompson suggested.
Archaic Athenians, unlike Archaic Corinthians, may have used clay only for architec-
tural decoration. Having answered that question, however, we must still find a
place for
our statue.
NANCY BooKIDIS
CORINTH EXCAVATIONS
37Eitrem, s. v. Gaia, RE VII, 1910, cols. 467-479. L. Deubner, Attische Feste, Berlin 1966, p. 27, for
sacrifices.
38G. V. Gentili, op. cit. (footnote 21 above). Acropolis 655 (footnote 18 above) is a further case in
point. The attribute, a lion(?), is simply placed on her lap.
PLATE 1
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
-7
a. Front b. Left side
.pg I .* ,, t ed. View from above
NAY B
c. Back
DROUGHT AND FAMINE
IN THE 4TH CENTURY B.C.*
E XCAVATIONS IN THE AGORA have brought to light much information con-
cerning the water supply of Athens, from grandiose fountain houses to the humb-
lest of wells cut into the soft gray-green bedrock which underlies most of the city. The
evidence illustrates the continuous effort and ingenuity required of the Athenians to pro-
vide the large population of Greece's greatest city with a reliable supply of water. As a
result of the excavations in the Agora and elsewhere, it is now possible to reconstruct
the long history of the supply. When viewed against this background, certain periods
stand out as being especially noteworthy; the late 8th century, for instance, when Athens
apparently suffered the effects of a severe drought, and the 6th century, when the Pei-
sistratids provided the city with the famed Enneakrounos and other fountain houses.1
Another period of interest is the 4th century B.C., especially the second and third quar-
ters, when the Athenians paid particularly intense attention to the problem of water
supply, both public and private. The archaeological evidence suggests that during this
period the city suffered the effects of a prolonged dry spell or drought.
PUBLIC SUPPLY
In the Agora, a large fountain house was constructed in the southwest corner. The
building is in a pitiable state of disrepair and its very identification as a fountain house
depends on the great stone aqueduct which brought water to the building from the
east.2 The channel lies underneath the road which runs along the south side of the
Agora and since its discovery in the 1930's has been traced for some 220 meters, from
the fountain house eastward to the limits of the excavated area of the archaeological
zone. The source of the line has never been determined. As preserved, it was built
throughout with large limestone slabs for floor, walls, and cover, and it is the most
substantial water line yet discovered at Athens.3 Of the fountain house it supplied, only
*It is a pleasure to dedicate this to Homer A. Thompson, a mentor and friend for so many years. His
long and varied career began with a study of the ancient grain trade, and I hope that the present piece,
concerned as it is with both grain and the Agora, will be seen as an appropriate contribution to this volume
in his honor.
'For the 8th-century drought: Hesperia 48, 1980, pp. 397-411; for the Peisistratid fountain houses: R.
E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, III, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, Princeton 1957, pp. 137-142,
and Doro Levi, "Enneakrounos," ASAtene 39-40, n.s. 23-24, 1961-1962, pp. 149-171.
2For the fountain and its aqueduct: H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, XIV,
The Agora of Athens, Princeton 1972, pp. 200-201, with earlier references.
3The inner dimensions of the aqueduct are ca. 1.28 m. high by 0.50 m. wide, large enough for a man
to walk through. Water was carried in a channel in the floor ca. 0.30 m. wide by 0.16-0.30 m. deep.
10 JOHN McK. CAMP II
the foundations and a few blocks of the superstructure survive. These, however, are
enough to give some idea of the basic plan of the building. A small square court in the
northwest corner, paved with stone slabs and open to the sky, gave access through a
colonnaded porch of unfluted Doric columns at the south and east to a large drawbasin.
The drawbasin was separated from the porch by a low parapet, over which water could
be drawn. The parapet was supported at intervals by unfluted columns similar to those
used in the exterior colonnade. The drawbasin was L-shaped, with a floor area of just
over 100 square meters. The foundations were of soft yellow limestone, the lower part
of the superstructure, of hard gray Piraeus limestone. Details of construction above the
stylobate are obscure.
Recent excavations by Homer Thompson were carried down to bedrock, and a
small black-glazed bowl was found in the floor packing of the northwest court. It is of a
type generally dated to the middle of the 4th century B.C. or slightly later. Fragmentary
pottery from under the floor in the same area seems also to date to the third quarter of
the century.4
Despite its poor preservation and the lack of any ancient reference to it, the south-
west fountain house represents a significant addition to the Athenian water supply. It
lay in a prominent location near to both the Agora and a major crossroads which lies
just to the southwest. Its dimensions show it to be the largest fountain yet discovered in
Athens. It was clearly an important public project, perhaps to be associated with the
administration of either Euboulos or Lykourgos.5 Combined with its impressive supply
aqueduct, the building is the principal hydraulic undertaking of its era, matching in
scope the Mycenaean fountain and the Peisistratid system of earlier times.6
Just within the city walls, set up against the inner side of the Dipylon gate, there is a
fountain house which first came to light in the 1870's. The entire platform of the build-
ing is preserved, and numerous clamps, dowels, setting lines, and weathering marks on
the upper surface permit a secure restoration of most of the building.7 The fountain
measured 8.00 m. north-south by 11.25 m. east-west. It had an L-shaped basin along the
north and west, supplied by a stone aqueduct which approached the building from the
north. A marble-paved area in the southwest corner gave access to the basin and was
4P 27562: H. 0.035 in., diam. 0.074 m. Complete, mended from several pieces. Small black-glazed
bowl with thick incurved wall and high ring foot. Thin black glaze; very worn, reddish brown clay. Similar
to L. Talcott and B. Sparkes, The Athenian Agora, XII, Black and Plain Pottery, nos. 945-950, dated ca.
350-325 B.C. Also pottery lots, Section K, nos. 346 and 347.
5G. L. Cawkwell has suggested that Euboulos may have served as water commissioner: "Eubulus,"
JHS 83, 1963, pp. 47-67. Lykourgos seems likely on general grounds as the instigator of numerous public
building projects: F. W. Mitchel, Lykourgan Athens, 338-322, Lectures in Memory of Louise
Tqft Semple, 2nd
ser., University of Cincinnati 1970, pp. 34-35, 48-49.
6For the Mycenaean fountain on the Acropolis: 0. Broneer, "A Mycenaean Fountain on the Athenian
Acropolis," Hesperia 8, 1939, pp. 317-433. See footnote 1 above for the Peisistratid hydraulic installations.
7G. von Alten, "Die Thoranlagen bei der Hagia Triada zu Athen," AthMitt 3, 1878, pp. 37-39 and pl.
IV; also G. Gruben, "Die Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos," AA (JdI 79), 1964, p. 407 and idem, "Dipylon
und Brunnenhaus," AA (JdI 84), 1969, p. 39. Final publication by Professor G. Gruben is in progress.
DROUGHT AND FAMINE IN THE 4TH CENTURY B.C. 11
itself entered from the south through a colonnade of three columns. Wear in the floor
suggests places of easy access to the basin or the position of spouts cut through the
parapet. As a result of recent excavations, the fountain house has been dated to the third
quarter of the 4th century B.C., according to the date of the ceramic material.
In addition to these two fountains, literary and epigraphical sources refer to other
hydraulic installations in this period as well. Most striking of all is the monumental
"Acharnian aqueduct".8 This was a large supply line apparently designed to bring water
to Athens from several springs on the lower slopes of Mount Parnes, some 18 kilo-
meters to the north of Athens. Four inscriptions attest its existence. These record water
rights, collecting galleries, and rights of way for the conduit which were sold to the
commissioners of the project. Large sums of money are recorded as having been paid to
property owners, and there is reason to believe that the orator Deinarchos was called in
to argue the commissioners' case against a recalcitrant owner in a lawsuit over the aque-
duct. By plotting the findspots of the four inscriptions it has been possible to show that
the channel ran from the slopes of Parnes along the line of the Kephissos river valley.
Though it is not possible to point to any remains which can with certainty be associated
with the aqueduct, it would presumably have taken the form of a tunnel driven through
bedrock. It must have been an impressive feat of engineering, particularly when one re-
members that at this early period the aqueduct would have been a gravity-flow line
throughout its entire length.'
The career of Deinarchos is confined to the last third of the 4th century, and the
letter forms of the inscriptions point to the same dates It has been suggested that the
project is to be associated with the surge of building activity carried out at the time of
Athens' great financial administrator, Lykourgos (338-326 B.C., footnote 5 above). The
large sums of money paid and the great length of the system both indicate that this was
a major public project of the first order, designed to increase the water supply of the city
in the second half of the 4th century B.C.
Finally, a decree of the year 333/2 B.C. honors one Pytheas of Alopeke for his
performance as water commissioner. He was awarded a gold crown worth 1000 drach-
mas for repairing a fountain at the Amphiareion at Oropos and for building a new
fountain in Athens or Piraeus.10 It is worth noting briefly the prominence of the water
commissioners at this time. The position was one of the very few in the Athenian
democracy which was elective and not allotted (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 43.1); the job was
simply too important to leave to chance. Pytheas and possibly one other commissioner
8The Acharnian aqueduct has been brought to light by Eugene Vanderpool, a friend and teacher also
being honored in 1981 on the occasion of his 75th birthday: "The Acharnian Aqueduct," Xapxr ptowv EL
'AvarTaratov K. 'OpXavov I, Athens 1965, pp. 166-175. On p. 174 he notes Athenian concern over water
supply at this period.
9The earliest pressure line that I am aware of from Athens dates to the second half of the 3rd century
B.C.: Agora inv. no. A 2295, M. Lang, Waterworks in the Athenian Agora, Agora Picture Book No. 11,
Princeton 1968, no. 24.
'01G II2, 338. The fountain was set up in front of a temple of Ammon, but otherwise the location is
not specified.
are the only two known to have been honored, both in the third quarter of the 4th
century B.c."1
PRIVATE SUPPLY
An interesting phenomenon occurs in the pattern of private water supply at this
same time. The bottle-shaped cistern replaces the well as the standard source of supply
in private houses. As the name implies, these cisterns take the form of a bottle or flask,
starting with a vertical round shaft ca. 0.80-0.90 m. in diameter, opening out to 2.50-
5.50 m. across at the bottom. They are anywhere from three to seven meters deep, for
the most part cut through the soft bedrock and lined with a thick coat of waterproof
cement. Often there are arched tunnels leading out of them, some intended to connect
one cistern to another, others simply to provide increased capacity. Such cisterns were
designed to collect and store rainwater off roofs, and with one or two exceptions they
are found in the courtyards of private houses. They are a standard feature of Athenian
domestic architecture throughout the Hellenistic period, and no fewer than 140 have
come to light in the residential districts around the Agora; others are known from
elsewhere in the city.
The nature of their construction (cut into bedrock) and the fact that they were
apparently cleaned out with some regularity make precise dating difficult. A construc-
tion date or even a period of use is consequently often unobtainable; for dates we are
dependent on the material thrown into a cistern at the time it ceased to be used. We
may suppose that a cistern was in use immediately before its abandonment, but there is
no way of determining the length of time it may have been in use. The earliest cisterns
around the Agora seem to have been filled up about the middle of the 4th century B.C.,
and this suggests their use as early as the second quarter of the century.12 They become
increasingly common thereafter, into the Hellenistic period.
This new development is complemented by an interesting pattern among the wells.
'Some 28 wells are known to have been in use in the 4th century B.C. in the area around
the Agora. Only 13 wells have been found which were in use in the 3rd century, how-
ever. The tremendous decrease in the number of wells in use between the 4th and 3rd
centuries, combined with the introduction of cisterns, suggests a radical change in the
"In addition to the decree in honor of Pytheas, a second decree (IG II2, 215) honors one Kephisodo-
ros, son of Kallias, of Hagnous for his performance as water commissioner (? restored), in 346/5 B.C. The
water supply was a matter of considerable importance in earlier times as well, and prominent men con-
cerned themselves with the problem throughout the 5th century: Themistokles (Plutarch, Themistokles 31),
Kimon (Plutarch, Kimon 13), and Perikles (IG I2, 54). In addition to Pytheas and Kephisodoros in the 4th
century, see also footnote 5 above.
'2Four cisterns in the Agora (F 19: 2, L 17: 6, Q 13-14: 1, and R 18: 2) were filled in the years
around
350 B.C. Similar cisterns are reported from Olynthos: D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, XIII,
Do-
mestic and Private Architecture, Baltimore 1946, pp. 307-309, pls. 101 and 123. As only eight were discov-
ered in the more than 100 houses cleared, it seems likely that the cistern was a relatively recent develop-
ment at the time the city was destroyed in 348 B.C.
private water supply of the city. The underground water table ceased to be tapped to the
great extent it had been for centuries, and efforts were made to collect and save rain-
water from the roofs of houses."3 The main implication of this development would seem
to be that water was increasingly difficult to find. This is not a sudden shift but rather a
gradual one, starting in the years around the middle of the 4th century B.C. and continu-
ing throughout the rest of the century.
Thus considerable activity concerning the water supply of the city is apparent in the
4th century B.C., particularly the third quarter. As noted, for the public supply we have
no fewer than four major hydraulic installations at this time: the southwest fountain
house, the Dipylon fountain house, the Acharnian aqueduct, and the fountain built by
Pytheas. These present a concentrated expansion of hydraulic resources unparalleled at
any period in Athens with the possible exception of the 6th century, under the Pei-
sistratids.14 Large new fountains were built and water was brought in from as far away
as Mount Parnes. This public concern is complemented in the private sector by a grad-
ual shift from wells to cisterns during this period. The water table apparently sank too
low to be tapped easily, and whatever rain fell was caught from the roofs and carefully
hoarded.15 The likeliest explanation of these developments is that Athens experienced a
drought in the 4th century B.C.
The archaeological evidence may be supplemented by literary and epigraphical
sources which shed further light on this drought and its effect on the history of Athens
and the rest of Greece. Its origins may well be noted in a passage from Demosthenes
(vs. Polykles, 61):
13Regular rainfall, of course, is required to keep the ground water at an accessible level. During a dry
spell in 1977, the water level in an unused well in the village of Ancient Corinth dropped 2.65 m. between
February and October. In dry areas or during a dry spell much of whatever rain does fall is lost as runoff.
Cisterns are common today in many of the driest islands of the Aegean. The inferior quality of cistern
water was recognized in antiquity: Hippokrates, rEpI a''pwv, v8aaTv, TOrnWV, 8.20, and Vitruvius, viii.6.14.
Note also from this period the huge cisterns in the mining district of Laureion. The care with which
the water was recycled and the highly refined and effective waterproofing of the cisterns indicate the pains
taken to preserve the water so crucial for washing the ore. On the composition of the mortar of the Laurei-
on cisterns (almost 30% lead): K. Konophagos in IHpaKTrKa 49, 1974 [1976], pp. 251-261; K. Konophagos
and H. Badeca, Annales geologiques des pays hellknique, Athens 1975, pp. 328-337, and K. Konophagos, Le
Laurium antique, Athens 1980, pp. 253-273.
14There is no evidence of a drought in the 6th century at Athens. Rather the Peisistratid sytems (foot-
note 1 above) should be considered an innovation, the first attempt to provide the city with a public water
supply, analogous to similar efforts in Corinth, Megara, and Samos at about the same time. Once built,
these Archaic establishments remained the backbone of the public supply throughout the Classical period
until the great expansion of resources-under discussion here-in the latter half of the 4th century B.C.
"Increased population cannot, it seems, be advanced as an argument for increased public efforts to
obtain water. Both Gomme (The Population of Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C., Oxford 1933, p.
26) and Ehrenberg (The Greek State, 2nd ed., New York 1969, p. 31) estimate a steadily declining popula-
tion for Athens throughout the 4th century. Nor, on the other hand, can a decrease in population be used
to explain the drop in the number of wells, for the wells were replaced in their function as private supply
by numerous cisterns.
r) & U)
OVX
07r0o Ttva Kap7rOv
79v11EyKEv,
aXWa KatL To'
iwp 6v
EKEVO)TO)(TJ dEVaVJ, W' 7raves UTTE, EK TWv
OpEa7wv
EarExrEv,
a ,Our,8E XAaxavov yEvEOat Ev a(, Kcr(0.
my land not only produced no crops, but that year, as you all
know, the water even dried up in the wells, so that not a vegetable
grew in the garden.
The date, 361 B.C., corresponds closely to what we have seen concerning the beginning
of the shift from wells to cisterns, in the second quarter of the 4th century. The effects
of the drought continued to be felt, apparently, for in 357, according to Demosthenes
(vs. Leptines, 33), there was a universal shortage of grain (a&xxa Trp rEpvnt
LTrO8Eta4;
rapa
7Tau-tv avOp6ToL' 'yEVot4EvrE).
These difficulties
may
well have been the
impetus
for a change in the nature of private water supply. Activity in public supply seems not
to have been far behind; Demosthenes (Olynth. iii.29) refers to fountains under con-
struction in the city in 349 B.C. Inscriptions refer to intermittent problems with grain
supply in the 330's,16 and Athens suffered a severe famine in the period 330-320 B.C.17
The literary sources paint a grim picture of the city during the crisis:
V1WOV Ot V E To aEl ) aTTEL OLKOVVTE(
8&E"'TpOV^vTO
ra El~m )v 7s
cb&"O, 01 8'E TV, Hapast El TO) mexpLt) EXaC43aVOV Kar'
6,8oXov
roMv apTOVs Kcat EMT
T71s liaKpa'
0-oaq Ta aX'tra, sa'
rquAEKToP
,~~~~~~~ra
ra aXLa a
,.E7
,AETpOVtuVOL
Ka KaTa7raTolVvoL.
(Demosthenes, vs. Phormio, 37)
Those of you who dwelt in the city were having their barley meal
measured out to them in the Odeion, and those who dwelt in
Peiraeus were receiving their loaves bit by bit in the dockyard and
in the long stoa, having their meal measured out to them a twelfth
of a medimnos at a time and being nearly trampled to death.
Epigraphical sources shed further light on the shortage in the form of honorary decrees
for foreigners who brought grain to the city. Here, too, specific reference is made to
famine.18 Individuals were honored for providing grain at a low price and often the
amounts are surprisingly small, as little as 3000 medimnoi. Together with the literary
sources these inscriptions show that Athens received grain
from the Black
Sea,
from Asia
16G II2, 408 (335/4 B.C.) and IG II2, 342 (332/1 B.C.). Also Plutarch, Moralia 851B.
"7For the extensive material on the famine: A. Jarde, Les cereales dans l'antiquite grecque I, Paris 1925,
pp. 43-47; F. Heichelheim, s. v. Sitos, RE Suppl. VI, cols. 819-892; M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions
II, Oxford 1948, no. 196 and commentary; M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic
World I, Oxford 1941, pp. 94-98, 168; J. Pec'irka, The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions,
Prague 1966, pp. 70-72; S. Isager and M. H. Hansen, Aspects of Athenian Society in the Fourth Century B.C.,
Odense 1975, pp. 17-19 and 200-208. Hitherto the famine has been seen as an economic problem rather
than as the result of drought: H. Michel, The Economics of Ancient Greece, 2nd ed., Cambridge 1957, p.
275; M. Rostovtzeff, op. cit., pp. 97-98; W. W. Tarn, CAH VI, Cambridge 1927, pp. 448-449; and W. L.
Westermann, "New Historical Documents in Greek and Roman History," American Historical Review 35,
1929, pp. 16-19.
18IG II2, 360, lines 8-9: Ev rjj Travoo-iL and IG II2, 398, line 11: arav~wz [orov yEvopEv7~1. For
similar language in the literary sources, Aristotle, Oikonomika 1352a:
Xquovi
yEvogEvov Ev Tots aXXoL9
TO7rOL9 0fxo8pa.
Minor, from Cyprus, from North Africa, and from Sicily.19 Though the city was never
self-sufficient in grain, the unusual concentration of honorary inscriptions and the specific
references to a shortage suggest an especially crucial period of supply in the 320's.
It is of interest to note also that the famine was not a local Athenian problem but
rather seems to have been widespread throughout Greece at this time. An important
inscription from Cyrene records that huge amounts of grain were supplied to no fewer
than 41 cities in central Greece, the Peloponnese, and the Aegean islands in the years
around 335-325 B.C.20 The opening phrase reads as follows:
['IapIEvq lwoLaq Kak[XAa]8a
[fHI[o-os cr701 E&8KE a Iroxv
ova aTO8EL'a EyE'VETO
Ev Tat' TEka8
The priest Sosias the son of Kalliades. The city gave the following
amounts of grain when there was a famine in Greece.
This is followed by a list of cities with the amounts contributed to each one. In all,
805,000 medimnoi were made available by Cyrene to the Greek poleis. Such a wide-
spread failure of the crops suggests a general problem, more severe than Athens' peren-
nial failure to provide for herself. The likeliest explanation is that not only Athens but
also much of the rest of Greece suffered the effects of a drought in the third quarter of
the 4th century which culminated in the severe famine of the 320's.
The evidence from several sites perhaps reflects the effect of this drought else-
where in Greece. The systematic excavations of Corinth have shed much light on the
history of that important city; though the full story of the water supply has not yet been
written, there are indications of concern for the supply in the second half of the 4th
century. The Sacred Spring, for instance, underwent several modifications in its long
19The most complete document is IG 112, 360, honoring Herakleides of Salamis in Cyprus for his
benefactions during this period. Other decrees of a similar nature are IG II2, 363, 398, 400, 401, 407, 416,
and possibly 423 and 499; also Hesperia 8, 1939, pp. 27-30, no. 7; Hesperia 9, 1940, pp. 332-333, no. 39;
Hesperia 43, 1974, pp. 322-324, no. 3; and Hesperia 49, 1980, pp. 251-255, no. 1. Many of the orations of
Demosthenes of this period concern the grain trade as well: xxxii, xxxiv.36 and 39, LVI.9, and xx.32-33.
Also to be dated to this period (325/4 B.C.) is the projected foundation of an Athenian colony in the
Adriatic, with the express intent of securing the grain route: IG II2, 1629, lines 217-220 (M. Tod, op. cit.
[footnote 17 above], no. 200, pp. 284-289). Colonization was a standard response to famine, and it is in-
teresting to note this late revival of the institution.
The fact that most of the kernoi found in the Agora date to the 4th century (J. Pollitt, "Kernoi from
the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 48, 1979, pp. 205-233, esp. pp. 226-227) might be taken as renewed inter-
est in the cult of Demeter because of the drought and subsequent famine. Also related, perhaps, would be
the exensive building program carried out at Eleusis and in the Eleusinion at Athens in the years around
329/8 B.C. as recorded in IG II2, 1672.
20G. Oliverio, Documenti antichi dell'Africa italiana II, i, "La stele dei nuovi comandamenti e dei cerea-
li," Bergamo 1933, pp. 29-94. (Also Tod, op. cit. [footnote 17 above], pp. 273-276, no. 196). The date is
set by grants of grain to Olympias, Alexander's mother, and to Kleopatra, his stepmother. See also Plu-
tarch, Alexander, 25, where it is recorded that after the siege of Gaza (332 B.C.) Alexander sent large
amounts of the spoils home to both women. According to the list, Athens received 100,000 medimnoi of
grain from Cyrene, twice as much as any other city and 13 per cent of the total amount provided.
history. B. H. Hill described the nature of the supply after one of these alterations as
follows: "The amount of water flowing from the lion head spouts must at best have
been very small but it was now very greatly reduced."'" As a result of the most recent
excavations in the area, this phase is dated to the last quarter of the 4th century.22 In
addition, five wells went out of use in or around the third quarter of the 4th century,
and several cisterns appear for the first time.23 A handsome bath southwest of the race-
course also apparently went out of use at about this time.24 Finally one should note the
unusual supply system for the shops of the South Stoa, built during the latter part of
the 4th century.25 Thirty-one of the shops were provided with wells. These wells did not
tap the ground water directly below, however, but were fed by means of a long tunnel
which brought water in from afar. These various examples are not all equally signifi-
cant, perhaps, but, considered against the background of the Cyrene inscription26 and
the evidence from Athens, it seems likely that Corinth also experienced some difficulty
with her water supply in the latter half of the 4th century B.C.
Across the Gulf from Corinth lies the Perachora peninsula, which was provided
with extensive hydraulic installations. A handsome fountain house and several immense
cisterns were constructed late in the 4th century.27
A third site, recently excavated, deserves a word. The exploration of Halieis in the
southern Argolid has progressed far enough to show that the site and its environs were
abandoned late in the 4th century B.C.28 No compelling reason has yet been put forward
to explain this abandonment, and it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the site
became uninhabitable as a result of drought. The Cyrene inscription suggests that the
area as a whole was affected; Argos, Kythera, Troizene, and Ermione were all provided
with grain. With better sources of water supply these cities were able to last out the
drought; perhaps Halieis was not so fortunate.29
21B. H. Hill, Corinth, I, vi, Peirene, Sacred Spring, Glauke, Princeton 1964, p. 177.
22C. K. Williams, II, Hesperia 38, 1969, pp. 36-63.
23G. R. Edwards, Corinth, VIII, iii, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery, Princeton 1975, pp. 198-212. Wells
nos. 17, 20, 21, 24, and 43, cisterns nos. 22, 23, 37, 39, and 40.
24Centaur Bath: C. K. Williams, II, Hesperia 45, 1976, pp. 109-116 and idem, Hesperia 46, 1977, pp.
51-52.
260. Broneer, Corinth, I, iv, The South Stoa, Princeton 1954, pp. 59-65.
26Corinth (line 9) received 50,000 medimnoi of grain, the third largest amount after Athens and
Olympias.
27R. A. Tomlinson, "Perachora: the Remains outside the Two Sanctuaries. Description of the Water-
works of the Upper Plain," BSA 64, 1969, pp. 195-242.
28M. Jameson, Hesperia 38, 1969, pp. 311-342, esp. pp. 328-329; W. Rudolph, Hesperia 43, 1974, pp.
105-131, esp. pp. 130-131, and T. Boyd and W. Rudolph, Hesperia 47, 1978, pp. 333-355.
29At Halieis, right by the shore, the wells may have gone brackish if the water table fell at all. There
are both wells and cisterns reported from the 4th-century houses at the site. For abandonment as a gradual
process as a result of drought, see Aristotle, Meteorologica, 351b. Pausanias (ix.38.9) records the abandon-
ment of Aspledon in Boiotia because of a lack of water. Note also the Athenian colony planned at about
this time (above, footnote 19).
I should like to thank the following colleagues for reading earlier versions of this
paper
and making
useful suggestions for its improvement: A. L. Boegehold, W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr., R. Townsend, S. Rotroff,
and T. L. Shear, Jr.
In conclusion, the archaeological evidence, taken with the literary and epigraphical
sources, provides a coherent picture. Great efforts in the public sector and innovation in
the private sector show that Athenian response to adverse climatic conditions in the 4th
century was both imaginative and extensive. Impressive efforts were made to secure a
reliable water supply during what seems to have been a period of drought. At the same
time, the evidence would seem to suggest that this drought was the cause of a wide-
spread famine which afflicted not only Athens but also much of the rest of Greece in
the 2nd half of the 4th century B.C.
JoHN McK. CAMP II
ATHENIAN AGORA EXCAVATIONS
THE ASYMMETRY OF THE PINAKOTHEKE
FOR THE LAST TIME?*
V rARIOUS REASONS have been proposed for the asymmetry of the openings in
the window wall of the Pinakotheke. The first one published was in 1912 by
George W. Elderkin, secretary of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens
from 1908 to 1910.1 He pointed out that the west face of the east anta of the tristyle-in-
antis colonnade aligned with the east side of the east window of the window wall, and
that the position of the anta was fixed by a triglyph above.2 He believed, however, in
the now disproved theory of a Classical zigzag road leading up to the Propylaia.3 He
determined the position and direction of his uppermost zigzag by theorizing that it had
to follow a line from which both the windows and the doorway could be seen through
the intercolumniations of the colonnade of the Pinakotheke,4 and finally posited that,
from the aesthetic viewpoint along "that last stretch of the zigzag road, an asymmetric
arrangement of door and windows was absolutely necessary."5 G. Stevens, in 1946,
thoroughly accepted Elderkin's idea.6 He re-expounded it and added an observation that
the open space between the east anta and the eastern column is greater than the actual
intercolumnar spacings (he did not mention that the width of these spaces was automat-
ically controlled by the triglyph frieze). Enlarging upon this observation, he went on to
say that "the shifting of the door eastward and the spreading of the space [between the
east anta and eastern column] undoubtedly eased the circulation from the central por-
tion of the Propylaea into the 'Picture Gallery'." W. B. Dinsmoor, in 1950, took into
consideration the canted Classical retaining wall which allowed a straight, ramped road
some 22 meters in width. He believed, however, that only a portion of this ramp was
*H. A. Thompson has a keen interest in, and an innate understanding of, ancient Greek architecture
and its many problems. It is to be hoped that he will appreciate my solution to one of the strangest
of
architectural enigmas. The solution presented here appears also in tabulated form at the end of this article.
1
Problems in Periclean Buildings, Princeton 1912.
2Ibid., p.
1.
'There are two preserved stretches of the almost straight retaining wall of the 11-meter wide Archaic
ramp which led up some 80 meters towards the early entrance to the Akropolis (see A. Keramopoullos,
To
HIEXapytKov, TO 'AcOKcXrlet1ov, at' 68ot at ava'yovoat 7Tpo' r Ha'poIratau, 'ApX'EO,
1934-1935
[1936],
p.
87 and pi. I). These are now dated to 566 B.C. (E. V anderpool,
"The Date of the Pre-Persian City-Wall
of
Athens," 1OPOL. Tribute to B. D. Meritt, D. W. Bradeen and M. F. McGregor, edd., Locust V alley,
New
York 1974, pp. 156-160). Although the upper or eastern stretch was known, and dated as 6th century
B.C.
by W. Wrede (Attische Mauern, Athens 1933, p. 9, no. 20) and by W. Judeich (Topographie von Athen,
2nd
ed., Munich 1931, pp. 213-215), it was not recognized by them as being part
of a
straight ramp.
The cant-
ed wall further north retained the Classical successor to this straight ramp, doubling
its width. It should be
concluded, therefore, that no zigzag approach existed after the middle of the 6th century
B.C.
40p. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 2.
5Ibid., p. 5.
6"Architectural Studies," Hesperia 15, 1946, pp. 87-89.
THE ASYMMETRY OF THE PINAKOTHEKE-FOR THE LAST TIME? 19
executed and that it had to be supplemented by an unsymmetrical winding path at the
upper level.7 He shunned the Elderkin-Stevens theory for the asymmetry of the window
wall and considered the off-centering of the doorway to be merely for easier access from
the Central Building, the same reasoning which he also used for the shortening in
width, in the planning stages, of the Pinakotheke itself (see below).
In 1930, F. Franco evolved the imaginative idea that a higher, wider door than the
present one, centered on its facing intercolumniation and without its attendant win-
dows, was originally planned;8 in a later scheme the present windows, less high than the
doorway, were added symmetrically about the door. The door was then lowered to the
height of the windows to be, he said, in the linear spirit of Doric architecture, necessi-
tating, for the sake of proportions, a reduction in its width. He suggested that the east-
ern jamb had already been partially erected by this time, and it was therefore too late to
make another change in order to allow symmetry.
J. A. Bundgaard, in 1957, suggested that the openings copied the theoretical placing
of those of Archaic Building B, which he considered to have occupied the same space as
the Pinakotheke and to have been dismantled to allow for the erection of the latter.9 H.
Riemann refuted this theory on the ground that since the central, interior row of columns
of apsidal Building B was not reproduced in the Pinakotheke, there is no reason to believe
that the hypothetically off-centered location of the door of Building B was copied either.10
In 1964, C. Tiberi tried to explain the design of the Propylaia and the reason for
the off-centered door as evolving from a complicated geometric composition of over-
lapping squares and triangles." For a sound refutation of this idea, see the comments of
P. Hellstr6m.12
J. Travlos, in 1971, wrote: "The entrance to the Pinakotheke was shifted off axis
... so that dining-couches could be installed." "When the door is off-centre [it allows]
for a normal arrangement of dining-couches.""3 For the refutation of this idea see again
P. Hellstr6m."4
Finally, in 1975, we have the explanations of P. Hellstr6m for the asymmetry of the
window wall.15 He stresses a proportionate relationship of the lengths of the sections
'Architecture of Ancient Greece, London 1950, p. 198.
8"Le asimmetrie della Pinacoteca dei Propylei sull'Acropoli d'Atene," ASAtene 13/14, 1930/31 [1933],
pp. 9-25.
9 Mnesicles, a Greek Architect at Work, Copenhagen 1957.
"0Review of Bundgaard, Gnomon 31, 1959, pp. 309-319. For my argument that Building B did not
occupy this space at all, see W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr., The Propylaia to the Athenian Akropolis, I, The Predeces-
sors, Princeton 1980, p. 2, note 10, and see also footnote 27 below.
1
Mnesicle, I'architetto dei Propilei, Rome 1964.
12"The Asymmetry of the Pinacotheca-Once More," OpusAth 11, 1975, p. 87.
"3Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London 1971, p. 482.
14
Op.
cit. (footnote 12 above), pp. 87-89. In addition, the Pinakotheke never received a marble floor,
as employed elsewhere in the building, since the face of the toichobate course against which it would have
abutted was not finished. Many of the toichobate blocks still retain lifting bosses. For the support of di-
ning-couches one would expect a solid masonry floor.
l51bid., pp. 87-92.
20 WILLIAM B. DINSMOOR, JR.
0
a
- : , : - ?
? -
~~~~~I LI Il6t @
-~~~~~~~~ I ~~~~~~~~~0
co
II ~ ~ ~~21 (U
ie~~~~
1 -
r vz~wst
lj
I * I o t-- --|0~I L I1$**
| |N l
4
;961t1 szlz 4 *x|ZZ slSS < 8 l l~~~~~~l
I Hl 14 Zz - + zZ + - 1? v |I
- 9 6 -
4~~~~~~~~U~
21
I U.
-- i
a,?
u l.," E
I
1*
_ , _ =:= 8 0
-.2. | j / 0
2~~~- . 9 - U) t giE
_.__~~~~~ 11- J
- z ;
0
'0
II I
co
f~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_
$-c
w
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
o~~~~~~~~~
LL. -
0 0
of wall on either side of the windows, no two of which are the same length. There exists
no vantage point, however, from which this phenomenon could be appreciated in that
one must stand within the area of the porch to see the wall in its entirety, without visual
obstruction by the colonnade, and there is no place within the porch that is far enough
removed from the wall to allow an all-encompassing view of it within an angle of vision
of 60?. Hellstrom's subtle proportions of A:B as D:C for the wall segments would be
totally lost through perspective distortion. He does make valid points, on the other hand,
when he iterates the often-made observation that the block distribution in the wall was
carefully worked out, and when he observes that this block distribution prevented the
doorway from being centered between the windows, and that the inner window pilasters
(i.e. those nearest the door) "appear" to be centered under the fourth and eighth tri-
glyphs of the frieze, counting from the west. Hellstrbm, however, who unfortunately
had to use Bohn's and Bundgaard's measurements, has barely scratched the surface of
his idea. Now, by combining his observation of the pilaster-triglyph arrangement and W.
B. Dinsmoor's highly believable concept of the various stages in the planning of the
Propylaia, the reasons for the asymmetry of the window wall seem to fall into place.
We must first consider the building in its entirety. Unlike other structures of this
and earlier periods, which were relatively simple, Mnesikles boldly planned a monu-
mental, multi-unit gatehouse composed of five distinct elements embodying three
different architectural scales. The design had to be worked out carefully to create har-
mony between the various parts. The subordinate West Wings and East Halls of the
complex were planned to emphasize the predominant Central Building. It will be shown
how, after starting with an initial simplified and symmetrical sketch, Mnesikles was
slowly forced into his final scheme by the interrelated modular units and proportions
which he used, and it will be shown that the development of his architectural design
was evolved completely on the "drawing board", not only for the plan but also for the
elevations, since he had a keen three-dimensional grasp of his project.
In the
planning
stages, Mnesikles had to work back and forth between plan and elevations as he corre-
lated the design of his friezes to the design of the plan, and vice versa. The
plan
uti-
lized the entire width of the Akropolis from the northern to the southern walls, thereby
effectually enclosing the site except for controlled passage through the
gates.16
By working in reverse sequence from the present dimensions of the
complex,
and
by taking into consideration the preparations
which were made for the unfinished com-
ponents, i.e. the East Halls, Dinsmoor was able to reconstruct what must have been
Mnesikles' first preliminary sketch for the
project,
a
symmetrical building
with its
great-
est dimensions 208 D.F. north-south and 96 D.F. east-west
(Fig. 1).17
In this
very
first
16There has been considerable controversy as to how much "drawing-board" planning was done by a
Classical Greek architect (literally chief mason). See, for instance, J. A. Bundgaard (footnote 9 above) and
J. J. Coulton, Greek Architects at Work, London 1977. This article has been written, in part, to dispel a
common belief that the architect's role was considerably less than it is today.
17Doric feet, sometimes referred to as Attic feet, varied fractionally from building to building, with a
length of 0.32723 m. in the Propylaia. See now W. Koenigs, "Zum Entwurf dorischer Hallen," IstMitt 29,
in the sequence of schemes, as the planning evolved in the "drawing-board" stage, the
various chambers of the Propylaia were thought of in whole foot units, the rectangle
enclosing the colonnades of the Central Building being 64 x 74 D.F., the East Halls
being 44 x 72 D.F., as measured from the enclosing rectangle of the Central Building,
and the West Wings 37 x 48 D.F. The Halls were to form a symmetrical cross with the
Central Building, the north-south axes all aligning (Fig. 1).
The modular size of the wall blocks throughout, except for the block lengths of the
west and north walls of the Pinakotheke (3 53/64 D.F.) and of the gate wall of the
Central Building (4 D.F.), was determined by the unfinished Northeast Hall. All except
two of the blocks of the top course of the Hall's west wall are extant and the exact
original location of each one is known. These blocks are slotted through from top to
bottom to receive the ends of the never-erected roof rafters. At each fifth slot, set into
the top of the epikranitis course below this uppermost course, there is a special rectan-
gular anchorage cutting for the rafter which would have aligned with an interior col-
umn, and these are 18 D.F. on center. The five wall blocks which compose each of
these intervals are therefore 3 3/5 D.F. (1.178 m.) in length, which became the basic
unit for the building.18 The center of the first, southern, cutting occurs 14 D.F. from
the rectangle enclosing the colonnades of the Central Building, and since, as at the
West Wings, the Northeast Hall would have had a hipped roof, in this case at the
north, with hip rafters at 450 to the walls as seen in plan, the length of the Hall can
readily be determined as having been planned with a length of 14 + 18 + 18 + 22
72 D.F., fitting snugly within the limit of the Akropolis wall. Mnesikles then discovered
that his initially planned width of 44 D.F. for the Halls needed to be increased to 44 7/8
D.F. in order to allow his modular frieze units of 3 3/5 D.F. to work properly, with 12
metopes and 13 triglyphs.19 It was therefore from these unfinished walls of the East
Halls that the width, as well, of the wall blocks of the Propylaia was automatically deter-
mined, in that at the never-built north wall 11 normal blocks of 3 3/5 D.F. left 5 1/4
D.F. surplus, which had to be divided evenly at either end for the corner returns of the
1979, pp. 209-237, for a listing of buildings with Doric feet of 0.325 to 0.32765 m. in length. The foot was
divided into 16 dactyls, and dimensions were possible to as small an amount as 1/192 D.F., which equals
1/12 dactyl, or 1.7 mm., or more than 1/16 inch. Today, with modular wooden studs, brick, blocks, tiles,
windows, doors, etc., dimensions as small as 1/32 inch (or 1/409 D.F.) occur on architectural drawings.
"8Normally such intervals would be divided into four parts, to provide a canonical exterior frieze of
four triglyphs and metopes per interior inter-axial spacing. This would have produced a module of 4 1/2
D.F. here, resulting in a frieze about 82% as high as that of the Central Building. In order to create better
harmony between the Halls and the predominant Central Building, the somewhat cumbersome unit of 3
3/5 D.F. was employed instead, providing a more modest frieze only two thirds as high as that of the Cen-
tral Building. This division of the interior column spacings into five parts, rather than four, precluded the
possibility of an exterior colonnade beneath the frieze, since alternate columns would have occurred be-
neath a metope rather than a triglyph, and shows that a solid wall was planned instead (see W. B. Dins-
moor, op. cit. [footnote 7 above], p. 204 and fig. 76).
19The increase in width of the Halls by 7/16 D.F. on either side also diminished the dimension from
their east wall to the outer face of the columns of the East Hexastyle of the Central Building from 15 to 14
9/16 D.F., which equates to 4.765 m. vs. 4.757 m. as built.
front and back walls, i.e. 2 5/8 D.F. (0.859 in.) each. The height of the blocks, the only
dimension now lacking, was arbitrarily fixed at 1 1/2 D.F. (0.491 m.).
As more study was given to the inter-relationship of the various parts of the over-
all plan, minor modifications to the initial sketch were necessitated, as invariably
hap-
pens in modular architectural design. The columns of the West Wings were designed to
be two thirds the height of those of the Central Building of 26 11/12 D.F. (8.808 in.),
or 17 17/18 D.F. (5.872 in.). This was slightly modified to 17 7/8 D.F. (5.849 in.)
so
that the soffit of the epistyle would align with a wall joint. From this height of column
Mnesikles arrived at his column spacings by using the accepted proportions for this size
of column of 3:7, or 7 37/56 D.F. (2.507 in.), modified for ease of construction to 7
21/32 D.F. (2.5055 in.). Then, as in the Central Building, the lower column diameter
was determined from the column spacings, again using the proportion of 3:7, as 3 9/32
D.F. (1.074 in.). The column spacings determined the triglyph spacing of the frieze, one
half of 7 21/32 D.F. or an unwieldy 3 53/64 D.F. (1.253 in.); this measurement also
became the new module for the wall blocks of the west and north walls of the Pinako-
theke, since these blocks necessarily had to break joints uniformly with the blocks of
the frieze which rested directly upon them. Of this 3 53/64 D.F., 1 1/2 D.F. (0.491 in.)
was allotted to the triglyphs and the remaining 2 21/64 D.F. (0.762 in.) to the metopes.
On the long west wall of the Pinakotheke these lengths, which as we have seen evolved
ultimately from the 2:3 proportion of the column height to that of the Central Building,
fitted admirably with the originally proposed total length of 48 D.F. at floor level. At
the frieze level, 13 triglyphs and 12 metopes, with even spacings, equal 47 7/16 D.F.
The remaining 9/32 D.F. (0.092 in.) at either end was utilized to enlarge the two end
metopes nearest each corner by one dactyl (0.020 m.) each and to provide for the slope
of the walls and the projection of the antae.
Along the front colonnade of the Pinakotheke, however, a slight adjustment was
necessitated. In the initial symmetrical sketch, the rectangle enclosing the columns of
the Central Building, 74 D.F. deep, projected equally 15 D.F. beyond both the north-
south walls of the East Halls, and the west wall of the West Wings projected
westward
another 22 D.F., giving a total width to the Wings of 37 D.F. (Fig. 1:A).
Mnesikles
now discovered, still in the planning stages, that if he used his initially planned
dimen-
sion of 22 D.F., with his frieze and column spacings, and also his column diameters,
rigidly fixed, the west edge of his third column from the west would fall 3/8 D.F.
be-
hind (i.e. to the east of) the west edge of the columns of the west colonnade of
the
Central Building. This was intolerable, and so he had to increase the westward projec-
tion of the Wings to 22 3/8 D.F. to make the west edges of all the columns align.
I
have already mentioned that the East Halls were increased in width by 7/8 D.F.
of
which half, or 7/16 D.F., was to be gained by encroaching into the area of the
West
Wings. As a result, his even figures
of 22 + 15
=
37 D.F. for the width of the
Pinako-
theke necessarily became 22 3/8 + 14 9/16
=
36 15/16 D.F. (Fig. 1:B). The design
of
the Wing now seemed to be complete, except for the window wall
itself.
The rough opening of the doorway was made interjacent in size between those
of
the smallest
and those of the intermediate doorways of the gate wall of the
Central
ATA0,6 - 6 4-
64
1
0'
2 12 22 12DOR 12 C , No 7 - as -~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~w~ -DJR4 1 96 FEET
SLOPE;
1
6425
i
1642 642
6 12
265
2 _
.
_ _ _ -: . 3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~5
SLOPE
FIG. 3. Window wal as orgnal deind(3 oiue1
[![=]~~~~~~~~~5E 35 5- <
tr W W W 1*~~~r
A
. 5 1 5 i ' ' 1
9
9i 13t t ; 8
s e
l7
D s2 64 i. I lik t
andit anowesow tha the were deige to be th sam wit as th metopes
ofthe frieze, i2e. 2 21/64 DF, while the small antae enframing the windows are the
salmewt exasct triglyphs of th fiz i.e56. 1 1/
DIg,
Ic ftherotr be shown
that the windows and their antae
aligned,
in
straight elevation, with the
metopes and
triglyphs, respectively.20 This last
observation, concerning
the location of the
windows,
201n 1962/63, with an 8-meter ladder, I thoroughly measured the window wall, block by block, with no
thought of correlation to the frieze. The course above the lintels is the only course that is accurately meas-
urable on the south face of the now sadly distorted wall. Its original length was 10.710 m., exclusive of
open joints which now add another 0.141 m. The bottom of the lintel course on the north side is also
accurately measurable. It was originally 10.711 m. long, while open joints now add another 0.128 m. The
east-west dimensions between the bottom of the orthostates, in the line of the wall plane above, are
10.703 + 0.020 (projection of orthostates) = 10.723 m. at the colonnade, and 10.706 + 0.020 = 10.726 m.
is the continuation of Hellstr6m's incipient idea in connection with the placing of the
inner-lying antae of the windows, which, he says, "indicates that the lay-out is actually
a drawing-board product" and "tends to disprove Bundgaard's contention that Mnesic-
les worked without using accurate drawings.""2
As persuasively argued by Dinsmoor, before the symmetrical design was aban-
doned the over-all width of the West Wings was planned to be 1 1/2 D.F. greater than
it now is, or 36 15/16 D.F. from the finished wall plane of the east wall to the west side
of the western anta. Of this, 1/32 D.F. (0.010 m.) was used by the projection of the
anta beyond the west wall, and 2 5/8 D.F. (0.859 m.) was used by the thickness of the
west wall. This left 34 9/32 D.F. for the exposed length of the window wall. For the
windows to have centered exactly under the third and eighth metopes of the frieze over
the colonnade as modularly designed, working from the west, the distance to their
center lines from the inner face of the west wall, at floor level, should have been 7
15/16 D.F. (2.597 m.) and 27 5/64 D.F. (8.861 m.), leaving 7 13/64 D.F. (2.357 m.) for
the remaining distance to the east wall (Fig. 3).22 At sill level, the windows were cer-
tainly planned to have widths equal to the metopes above, 2 21/64 D.F. (0.762 m.).23
With this proposed scheme, with one more triglyph at the east than was actually con-
structed, an additional, or fourth column could have been erected near to where the
eastern anta now stands, and the windows would have been utterly symmetrical with
the colonnade (Fig. 3).24 Between these windows would have been centered the door-
at the north wall; these dimensions allow 10.704 + 0.020 = 10.724 m. at the window wall, which is unmeas-
urable at the bottom. Since the east wall has an eastward slope from its base to the course above the lintels
of 0.042 m. (0.053 m. to the top of the wall), the west wall originally had a slope, also eastward, of 0.056 m.
in this same height (0.069 m. to the top, although further south, in the line of the colonnade, this slope
was
only 0.050 in., a discrepancy which means that the west wall must have been warped slightly; see Fig.
5).
The length of each course was now calculable. The doorway, although now tilted westward, has rigidly
maintained its original top and bottom widths, except for cracks in the sill; these were 2.290 m. and 2.338
m. (R. Bohn's 2.292 m. and 2.355 in.). Since I had the lengths of the jamb blocks, the size and exact loca-
tion of the windows as finally built were accurately determinable. On the south face of the wall the present
dimensions, because of distortions, are 0.824 m. bottom and 0.830 m. top for the western window and 0.820
m. bottom and 0.819 m. top for the eastern. These similar measurements led Bohn, and Dinsmoor,
to think
that the windows originally had vertical jambs, with the same widths top and bottom. In actuality, however,
they were originally tapered, like the doorway, with dimensions of 0.768 m. bottom and 0.737 m. top for the
western and 0.812 m. bottom and 0.790 m. top for the eastern. The center lines of these windows fell west-
ward of the center lines of the third and eighth metopes from the west, as finally built, by only 0.018 m. and
0.0175 in., and even this slight discrepancy was an error on the part of the workmen (see footnote 29 be-
low). It should be noted that Dinsmoor eventually accepted my findings and restoration.
2"Hellstrbm, op. cit. (footnote 12 above), p. 91.
22Actually built as 2.590 m. and 8.885 in., with 1.839 + 0.491 m. (1 1/2 D.F.) = 2.330 m. left over.
230.768 m. and 0.812 m. as built (see footnote 26 below for the increase in width of the eastern
window).
24The center of the western column, in order to have aligned with the center of the third triglyph of
the modular frieze, would have been 5 41/48 D.F. (1.916 m.) from the east face of the west anta,
the
width of which was constructed as 2 5/6 D.F. (0.927 m.). The center of the fourth column, at the east,
would have been slightly closer than this to the face of the east wall, 5 19/64 D.F. distant, from which
would have to be subtracted a small amount for a terminating anta, probably 7/48 D.F. to match the inner
return of the western anta (Fig. 3).
__35
7 -
10v
7
16
19 1 49
SLOPE~~~~~j I 22821 1~225 I 225 3 5 SLOPE k ; j
264 2 64 2 64 2 64 iL SLOPE
I i I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
140y1
w:21
ANTA 16 A
0 10 20 3
W D.,JR- -1980 E39
FIG. 4. Intermediate scheme for window wall after shortening (C on Figure 1)
way, which would have been centered also on the central intercolumniation and on the
corresponding triglyph of the frieze above.
Now, however, Mnesikles made one more change in his design of the Pinako-
theke, that of shortening the width by 1 1/2 D.F. He did this by compressing the entire
west facade of the Propylaia, including all the columns, eastward toward the East
Halls.25 He thereby decreased the width of the passageways to the West Wings between
the end columns and the great antae of the Central Building, and also lost the fourth
25The proof that he made this compression lies in the returns of the entablature on the flanks of the
Central Building. At the east end, which was built as originally planned, the center of the third triglyph
from the corner, on the flanks, lies centered over the great anta below, as it should. At the west end,
however, the center of the corresponding third triglyph lies most unhappily 1 1/2 D.F. too far to the east
of the center of the great anta below, since the entablature and its returns had to move eastward along
with the hexastyle colonnade below it, but the anta itself did not move from its originally planned position.
-
11,586-
P50 , 94 782 490 783 490 759 492 764 490 763 490 760 491 782 492 779 491 994
053
SLOPE
$< SLOPE
u s *,0~~~~~,O15 1 ,135
1
+,0105 j 1.234-
2,5065 2,506 _ 2,549 -2
,069
MSIG
SLOPE _,1
l (1,168) 1 1,190 1,189 1,191 1,185 1,190 1,192 1,157 1 1,246
1,2 20 1 1,177 1,182 1,178 1,177 1 ,8 , 0 1 1,177 f 1,2 39
I~~~~~~3 737 > ,5
2 2,290 ,623 735 790!,904 57
]2,184 76| ,? 1,55
4 D F
1,3314 | 812 | 11,448
4,818 2,338
001'q 860 - 2,590 4 6,295 - 1,839
3,450
ANTA 10,724
10,723+,86+,01=11,593
ATANTA
-
0 1 5 II
M.
WB.D.,JR.- 1980
FIG. 5. Window wall as built
column of the colonnades of the West Wings, which he replaced with the now extant
antae and anta walls (Fig. 1). Otherwise there was no change either of his original
relationship of the columns and of the door and windows of the Pinakotheke to the
frieze, or of the columns of the Wings to those of the Central Building (Figs. 1
[C], 4).
The originally planned wider spacing between columns and great antae at the east end
of the Central Building remained unaffected. One reason for this change was that the
triglyph frieze of the West Wings did not terminate properly at the dividing wall, ending
in a partial metope (Fig. 3); with the reduction, the frieze could end with a more
canonical 1/2 triglyph, as at a re-entrant corner (Fig. 4), and, indeed, this arrangement
was employed at the matching frieze of the north wall. Over the colonnade, however,
an elongated metope was used instead (Fig. 5), reminiscent of the similar treatment
which must have prevailed at the facades of the predecessor to the Propylaia, the old
Propylon.26 Another contributory factor for the reduction of 1 1/2 D.F.
might have
26See W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr., op. cit. (footnote 10 above), p. 52 and p1. 15:B'. The elongated metope of
the West Wings carries upward the width of the anta wall below, thereby visually terminating the triglyph
0 1
2
A L = }
M.
W.B.D.,JR.- 1980
FIG. 6. Entablature on west side of Southwest Wing
been related to his problems with the Southwest Wing, the facade of which had to
balance that of the Pinakotheke. As actually built, the construction of the entablature
on the west side of this stunted adjunct defies credence. The epistyle consists of a
single, narrow beam, centered over the western column of the front colonnade, rather
than being composed of two canonical beams. The frieze above it, however, is com-
posed of two beams, and the inner one, the antithema, projects beyond the narrow
epistyle almost in its entirety, since continuous support for it is lacking (Fig. 6). The
only reason for such a Rube Goldberg construction must have been that Mnesikles was
prohibited from placing this west side of his stunted Wing further west, into the Athena
Nike precinct. In order to support the north end of the epistyle he needed a column,
frieze at the easternmost triglyph. Because of this, Mnesikles now quite naturally enlarged the last two
normal metopes at the east to the same size as the last two metopes at the west, i.e. to 2 25/64 D.F. in-
stead of 2 21/64 D.F. With the change of the eastern metope sizes, and in order to maintain his alignment
of centers of windows to centers of metopes, he increased the distance between centers of windows from
19 9/64 D.F. to 19 15/64 D.F., i.e., to 6.294 m. (6.295 m. as actually built). The alteration in turn de-
creased the space from the center of the eastern window to the east wall by the same 3/32 D.F. to 5 39/64
D.F. (7 13/64 - 1 1/2 - 3/32). He now also increased the width of the eastern window to match the new
enlarged metope above (Fig. 4). The increase in width of the eastern metopes caused the first minor asym-
metry in the window wall, in that the distances from the center of the metopes over the windows to the
center of the triglyph over the door were no longer exactly equal, being off-centered on the triglyph by
3/64 D.F. (Fig. 4).
and he kept this column as far to the west as he possibly could; a slightly more easterly
location would have allowed him to employ a normal, double-beamed epistyle. If his
western column, and the attendant double anta which balances the west wall of the
Pinakotheke, had been moved 1 1/2 D.F. further west, the entablature on the west side
of the structure would have had no support at all, and at the symmetrical Pinakotheke
he would have been unable to re-use the already extant courses at the bottom of the
fan-shaped foundation for the support of its west wall. With the western limit of his
Wings now fixed, he might have moved the Central Building (except for its western
colonnade) and the East Halls (including their western dividing walls) 1 1/2 D.F. fur-
ther east, but he must have been reluctant to do this since the relationship of the posi-
tion and orientation of the limiting Mycenaean wall to the dividing wall between the
Southwest Wing and Southeast Hall would have forced him to reduce the depth of his
already drastically reduced Southwest Wing by approximately another 2 1/3 D.F., or
0.76 m. (Fig. 1). He therefore made the best of an unpleasant situation.
Mnesikles probably thought that his major problems had now been solved and he
started actual construction. We know that work began at the southern end of the west
facade of the Central Building since this stretch of foundation, running north to the
central passageway, has two euthynterias, one placed on top of the other, while the
northern stretch of this same foundation, north of the passageway, is composed of
normal alternating header-and-stretcher courses for its entire height. As construction
progressed further north, and the foundation of the dividing wall between the Pinako-
theke and Northeast Hall was started, there was a period of indecision. Except for the
first sketch which he must have made, in which he wishfully entertained a completely
balanced design, Mnesikles surely realized from the outset that in plan he would be
unable to build his Southwest Wing as a mirror-image of the Pinakotheke, that it would
have to be stunted and made more shallow. His distress over this is evident in that he
stopped construction of the foundation of the east wall of the Pinakotheke at a
point
just beyond what was to be the corresponding limit for the depth of the Southwest
Wing (Fig. 2). Possibly he thought momentarily of stunting the Pinakotheke as well, to
balance completely with the revised Southwest Wing. Up to this point the foundation is
composed of coursed, re-used wall blocks, alternating headers and stretchers both
vertically and horizontally. Then, after this interruption, he continued the foundation
north to the Akropolis wall, evidently with the Northeast Hall uppermost in his
mind,
the never-completed Hall which he must have cherished since he had worked on it so
diligently in the planning stages and had derived his size of wall blocks for the
building
from its dimensions. This continuation is composed of a mishmash of wall
blocks,
geison blocks, blocks with sockets cut for beams, etc. The courses do not
align
either
with the earlier southern section or within the new individual courses themselves.27
27Wall blocks and a lintel block from apsidal Building B had already been used in the foundation under
the West Hexastyle of the Central Building. Now the upper members of the entablature of Building B were
used in this later northern extension of the dividing wall, in reverse sequence to that of demolition. See
W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr., op. cit. (footnote 10 above), p. 2, note 10, for my objection to Building B having
Then, either at this time or slightly later, work on the Pinakotheke proceeded and the
east-west foundations were added; the foundations under the window wall and the
north wall, composed again of coursed, re-used wall blocks, alternating headers and
stretchers like the earlier section of foundation of the dividing wall, do not bond to, nor
course out with, the abutting north-south foundation, except at the euthynteria (Fig. 2).
At some time after he reduced his Wings by 1 1/2 D.F., Mnesikles returned to the
"drawing board" and discovered, of course, that the change produced problems, as all
changes do. The distance from the west wall to the center of the west window remained
unchanged at 7 15/16 D.F., but that from the east wall to the center of the east window
was reduced from an original 7 13/64 D.F. to a much more lopsided 5 39/64 D.F. (see
footnote 26 above). Regardless, the door could have remained centered both between
the windows and on the intercolumniation in front of it except for one thing, the joint-
ing of the blocks (Fig. 4). In Classical architecture, care was normally exercised with
walls of ashlar masonry, with regularly alternating joints, to terminate the ends of each
course with some semblance of symmetry, either with blocks of equal length or with a
full block at one end and a half block at the other. Furthermore, again for aesthetics, a
balanced relationship of vertical wall joints to openings, such as doorways, was desir-
able, and the ends of lintel blocks should fit into the pattern of joints in a symmetrical
manner. In the original scheme, starting from the center of the doorway and proceeding
with blocks of 3 3/5 D.F. in either direction, a fairly symmetrical arrangement of joints
would have been attained (Fig. 3). But with the shortening of the wall, chaos developed
in regard to the lengths of the end blocks, if the original jointing system were to be
maintained (Fig. 4). As a result, Mnesikles changed his jointing pattern and made the
blocks at either end of each course as equal in length as he could, although perfection
was not possible since the side walls of the Pinakotheke both sloped in the same direc-
tion, to the east, creating a trapezoidal elevation for the window wall. In order to fit
symmetrically into the shifted jointing system, the lintel for the door, and therefore the
door itself, had to be shifted as well, although the position of the windows, keyed to the
metopes of the frieze, was considered to be immutable. He then had a choice of mov-
ing his door either to the east or to the west. He chose to move it to the east (by half
of the decrease in length of the wall, or 3/4 D.F.) for better access from the Central
Building.28 By this time the less important windows no longer fitted into the scheme of
jointing since he obstinately maintained their relationship to the frieze, but he obviously
considered this asymmetry of the windows the lesser of the evils (Fig. 5).29 One won-
occupied the site of the Pinakotheke. To this could be added the observation that had Building B stood
here, the material from the superstructure, in order to be utilized after the blocks from the walls below
were re-used, would have had to be stockpiled at first on the Akropolis slope of 18 1/20 in front of the
Pinakotheke.
28As a result, the center line of the door, instead of falling under the center of the sixth triglyph from
the west, as originally planned, was moved to lie under the eastern edge of that triglyph. As constructed,
there was a discrepancy of 0.001 m. (Fig. 5).
291n Figure 4 the frieze is shown as it was redesigned by Mnesikles, still aligning perfectly with the
columns. The columns and the east wall were placed accurately, and the eastern end of the frieze, above
ders how Mnesikles' choice of priority of the jointing system over a symmetrical system
of openings was regarded in his time. One also wonders if the thought ever crossed his
mind to abandon the relationship of openings to frieze, which no longer worked for the
door anyway, and to return to a balanced system. He could have maintained his final
jointing system up to the lintel course. If, above this, he had changed the order of the
joints in the top three courses, if he had moved his door 1 D.F. to the west instead of
3/4 D.F. to the east, and if he had shifted both his windows to the west, he could have
created a totally symmetrical scheme, not only of all the openings to each other but also
of their location in the over-all length of wall (Fig. 7).
TABULATED SUMMARY
1. A first preliminary sketch of the Propylaia was made, using whole Doric Foot (D.F.) dimensions (Fig.
1).
2. The length of the wall blocks was determined during the design of the Northeast Hall (special anchorage
cuttings for every fifth rafter) as 1/5 of 18 D.F. = 3 3/5 D.F.
3. The width of the Northeast Hall was increased from the preliminary 44 to 44 7/8 D.F. to accommodate
a frieze of 12 metopes and 13 triglyphs with the determined modular unit of 3 3/5 D.F. The width of
the Pinakotheke was decreased by 7/16 D.F. because of the widening of the Northeast Hall.
4. The width of the wall blocks was determined by the length of the north wall of the Northeast Hall: i.e.,
44 7/8 D.F.
- 11 wall blocks of 3 3/5 D.F. = 5 1/4 D.F. . 2 = 2 5/8 D.F. at each corner.
5. The width of the Pinakotheke was increased by 3/8 D.F. by moving its west wall and its columns west-
ward so that the west face of its third column from the west would align with the west face of the col-
umns of the Central Building. The planned width now became 37 - 7/16 + 3/8 = 36 15/16 D.F. (Fig. 1).
6. The windows and the window-antae of the Pinakotheke were made to align with, and to be the same
widths as, respectively, the metopes and triglyphs of its frieze; the door was to be centered. A fourth
column was planned. The openings in the window wall would have balanced the colonnade exactly (Fig.
3).
the anta wall, should have been 3 5/64 D.F. (1.007 m.), which is exactly the dimension required for a
normal metope of 2 21/64 D.F. plus a half-triglyph of 3/4 D.F. (Fig. 4). During construction, however, the
elongated metope which was used here instead was shortened by 0.013 m. to 0.994 m. (Fig. 5). This was
an error on the part of the workmen. With only minuscule variations, the remainder of the frieze was built
as designed. Because of the initial mistake, the center lines of the windows actually fell 0.0175 and 0.018
m. too far to the west of the centers of the pertinent metopes, and the centers of the Doric columns fell
from 0.0105 to 0.015 m. too far to the west of the centers of the pertinent triglyphs above them (Fig. 5).
For the variations between planned and actually constructed dimensions (Figs. 4 and 5), see the following
table:
Actual D.F. as Equivalent Difference
in meters planned in meters in meters
Frieze 11.586 35 7/16 11.596 0.010
Window Wall 0.010 1/32 0.010 0
(see the dimensions 0.860 2 5/8 0.859 0.001
at the bottom of 2.590 7 15/16 2.597 0.007
Figures 4 and 5, in 6.295 19 15/64 6.294 0.001
consecutive order). 1.839 5 39/64 1.836 0.003
3.450 10 9/16 3.456 0.006
10.724 32 25/32 10.727 0.003
11.593 35 7/16 11.596 0.003
0 | I I5I 1 0 I
M.
W.B.D.,JR.-1980
FIG. 7. Window wall as it could have been symmetrically built
7. The width of the Pinakotheke and the depth of the western end of the Central Building were reduced
by 1 1/2 D.F. by moving the entire facade of the Propylaia, including the columns of the Pinakotheke,
eastward (the eastern end of the Central Building remained unchanged. Fig. 1). The planned fourth
column of the Pinakotheke was now lost. The reasons for the change were 1. the north and south friez-
es of the Pinakotheke did not work out properly in the greater length (Fig. 3). .2. Mnesikles placed his
West Wings as far to the west as possible, but was limited (a) at the Pinakotheke [by his desire to
utilize the pre-existing lower courses of the fan-shaped foundation for his west wall], and (b) at the
Southwest Wing [in that the western limit of his contracted west side, and therefore the western limit of
the emaciated epistyle which he employed on it, were surely fixed by mandate, and from the epistyle
was determined the position of its northern support, the western column of the colonnade, thus pre-
venting a further western location of the colonnade (Fig. 7); if, on the other hand, he had maintained
the extra 1 1/2 D.F. by expanding the West Wings towards the east, he would have lost 2 1/3 D.F. in
the already shallow depth of the Southwest Wing because of the angle of contact which the Wing made
with the limiting Mycenaean wall (Fig. 1)].
8. Because of the reduction in width of the Pinakotheke by 1 1/2 D.F., Mnesikles shifted the vertical
jointing system of the window wall to the west in order to provide a symmetrical arrangement of blocks
of equal length at the ends of each course (Figs. 4 and 5). To fit into this shifted pattern of vertical
joints, the door and its lintel were moved 3/4 D.F. to the east, thus destroying the symmetrical arrange-
ment of the door to the frieze and to the windows, since the latter rigidly preserved their originally
planned relationship to the frieze.
WILLIAM B. DINSMOOR, JR.
THE DATE OF THE PHAIDROS BEMA
IN THE THEATER OF DIONYSOS
(PLATES 2 and 3)
ONE OF THE MORE CONSPICUOUS of the lesser antiquities of Athens is the
long sculptured frieze that adorned the stage front of the Theater of Dionysos, its
Dionysiac scenes punctuated by crouching silenoi (P1. 2:a, b).1 Only the western half
remains. As now visible it represents the last phase of a long series of remodelings. For
this period the frieze, almost certainly made for the previous, Hadrianic, stage, was cut
down to fit the new proportions. On the top step of the little flight of stairs leading from
the orchestra up to the middle of the stage was carved a metrical dedication by the
archon Phaidros:
(TOt T8E
ETEV~E, qLoXpyLE, f3r'Aa 9ErqIpOV
'Fax8po' Zco~Xov f{3t~o&Xopo' 'Amig8os
&pXd'2
(P1. 3:a, b)
For you, lover of the sacred rites, this beautiful stage has been built
by Phaidros, son of Zoilos, archon of life-giving Athens.
When the stage was first discovered in the 1860's the excavators dated it tenta-
tively about A.D. 300, seeing the persecutions of Diocletian as an opportune moment for
the erection of such a blatantly pagan monument.3 In 1910 W. B. Dinsmoor established
a relative chronology for (1) the destruction of the Monument of Nikias and the Stoa of
'Homer Thompson's preeminence in matters of classical archaeology is universally acknowledged. Less
widely acclaimed is his tolerance in according equal rights to the classical and post-classical, which has set
an example extending far beyond the limits of the Athenian Agora. On behalf of the many scholars of late
antiquity who have reaped the profits of his example this article is gratefully offered.
For a recent study of the frieze, including a convincing argument for its immediate source, cf. M.
Sturgeon, AJA 81, 1977, pp. 31-53.
2IG 112, 5021. Phaidros, son of Zoilos, is otherwise unknown except as the donor of a sundial now in
the British Museum (IG I12, 5208).
G. W. Bowersock has kindly called my attention to the labored archaizing of these two clumsy hex-
ameters: the long alpha in Kako'v and the word
"TEVfE,
both common in Homer; the rare
apxo'
for
apXwv,
also Homeric, and the Ionicizing OE71'pOV. Only one other example of 4X0opyLE
is cited by Liddell and Scott
and that in connection with Aphrodite, not Dionysos, in an epigram of Philodemos (1st century B.C.), Pal.
Anth. x.21. Cf. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: The Garland Qf Philip II, Cambridge
1968, p. 385. 'AOL'8-os more properly refers to Attica than to Athens and perhaps justifies the word 3Lto&.-
Topoc (which appears in the Orphic Hymns).
3'ApX'E0,
1862, pp. 129ff., 131ff., 164-165, 209ff. It has often been thought that the heads, all of
which are missing, were deliberately hacked off by Christian rebuilders. M. Sturgeon, however, has shown
that while the background behind them was cut down to obtain a lower height for the stage, the heads
remained in place, but now reaching up into the cornice (AJA 81, 1977, p. 44). Phaidros' dedication
should dispel any doubt. Following current custom, the term "bema" is used here for Phaidros' contribu-
tion as distinct from the original stage.
THE DATE OF THE PHAIDROS BEMA IN THE THEATER OF DIONYSOS 35
Eumenes on the south side of the Acropolis, (2) the construction of the Beule Gate in
front of the Propylaia, (3) the reconstruction of the stage in the Theater of Dionysos,
and (4) the erection of buttresses against the back wall (then rebuilt) of the Stoa of Eu-
menes, in that order.4 Evidence for exact dating, however, was lacking, so he cautiously
ascribed the whole sequence to a very short time within "late Roman or even Byzantine
times."
Since Dinsmoor wrote, excavation has disclosed the full impact of the attack on
Athens by the Heruli in A.D. 267. This one raid left a great part of the lower city in
ruins, including the buildings on the south side of the Acropolis, thus giving an almost
certain date for the first step in Dinsmoor's sequence.
In 1914 P. Graindor, with Dinsmoor's relative chronology in mind, attempted to
pin down precisely the date of the Beule Gate and the Phaidros bema by introducing a
new element: the large inscribed block which lies on the slope of the Acropolis just
below the Beule Gate5 (P1. 3:c). The inscription records the gift of a gate (or gates) by a
certain Fl. Septimius Marcellinus, evidently a high official
(Xa/,7rptTaTos).
(Z
Z10TTi/uOta
MapKEXXJiVO19 o
ka/i(rpd-aTo)
Kat a1Tro a'ywvo0ETv
EK WeV shiv TOV'
7rvACOvaq
7
FrTOA
On account of its finding place and appropriateness the block has been associated
with the gate ever since the discovery of the latter,7 but their actual physical relation-
ship and date have remained enigmatic. In view of the importance attached by Graindor
to the inscription and its bearing on the Beule Gate and hence the bema, Graindor's
evidence must be reviewed here briefly. He dated the inscription in the 4th century on
the basis of the abbreviation dA',8 and so, by association, the Phaidros bema. Within
the broad limits of the 4th century the threat of invasion by Alaric in 395 seemed to
Graindor the most suitable occasion for the erection of the Beule Gate, so, to fit the
Phaidros bema into the whole scheme, he placed the archonship of the otherwise un-
known Phaidros within the last five years of the 4th century, a period which was unoc-
4AJA 14, 1910, pp. 459-484, with all the complexities of the argument.
5IG 112, 5206. P. Graindor, BCH 38, 1914, pp. 272-295, esp. pp. 286-293. The block is now in two
pieces with the middle section missing, but it was copied several times, while still intact, by early travelers,
beginning with Cyriacus of Ancona (1436). Cf. E. Bodnar, Cyriacus of Ancona and Athens, Collection Lato-
mus XLIII, Brussels 1960, pp. 176-177 for the relevant references and variant readings.
6The earlier reading of
OfkAa
in the first line has now been generally superseded by o
atut. (Bodnar,
op. cit., p. 177).
7Eustratiades, aVEK8. fvXXc'8. II, p. 4, taken up by C. Wachsmuth (Die Stadt Athen im Alterthum I,
Leipzig 1874, p. 704, note 3).
8An even more compelling reason is the appearance of the double gentilicium, Flavius Septimius,
Flavius being bestowed as a designation of rank from the reign of Constantine and continuing through the
4th and 5th centuries (cf. J. G. Keenan, "The Names Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later
Roman Egypt," ZPE 11, 1973, pp. 33-63, and A. Mocsy, "Der Name Flavius als Rangbezeichnung in der
Spdtantike," Akte der IV. internationalen Kongresses fiir griechische und lateinische Epigraphik, Vienna, 17-22
September, 1962, pp. 257-262, for a convenient summary of the subject. I am grateful to J. F. Gilliam for
these references.
36 ALISON FRANTZ
cupied in his archon list.Y Later scholars followed him, and this, with few exceptions,
has stood as the accepted date.'0
The basis of the argument, i.e., the assumption that the Beule Gate was built in
direct response to the threat of invasion in 395, deserves closer examination. The fear
aroused by Alaric's proximity was only the culmination of a mounting preoccupation
with danger in Greece as a whole that had been present since the 3rd century. As early
as the reign of Constantine the cities were taking measures to repair their fortfications,"
and the danger was intensified after the Battle of Adrianople in 378, when bands of vic-
torious Goths roved freely through the Balkan Peninsula and threatened the cities of
Greece, many of whose fortifications had been seriously weakened by the disastrous
earthquake of 375.12 The Marcellinus inscription, as we have seen, could date anywhere
from the reign of Constantine on. But still unanswered is its relationship to the Beule
Gate. Was it part of the original structure or introduced at the time of some later re-
pair? Or was it totally unrelated? That cannot be determined without an exhaustive
study of the whole monument. Until that has been made the investigation of the date
of the Phaidros bema should go on independently of the inscription.1
The dedicatory inscription is of little help in finding a precise date for the construc-
tion of the bema, which would presumably be that of the rehabilitation of the whole
theater. Letter forms in late antiquity are notoriously unreliable criteria, with new forms
accumulating over the centuries but few becoming obsolete. The letters themselves in
the Phaidros inscription can be matched over a long period but the general appearance,
with the cramped spacing and shallow and irregular letters, would be most at home in
the 4th century or later.14
In default of concrete evidence the literary and historical aspects of the question
take on some significance. One of the most important buildings in the civic life of the
Athenians in any period, and the one most frequently mentioned in the 4th century
after Christ, was the assembly place, always referred to by Eunapius as "the theater"
9P. Graindor, Chronologie des archontes atheniens sous l'empire, Brussels 1922, p. 270, no. 187.
10E.g., Kirchner, IG 112, 5021; J. Travlos, 'ApX'E4,
1953/54, p. 309 and Pictorial Dictionary of
Athens,
London 1971, p. 538. M. Bieber, in History of the Greek and Roman Theatre, 2nd ed., 1961, p. 215,
for un-
specified reasons dated the remodeling of the theater ca. 270, although
in her earlier edition she
gave
a
date ca. 300.
"A proconsul "Phosphorios" was honored by the Megarians with a statue for having fortified the city
(IG VII, 96), and the Argives erected a statue of the same man, probably for a similar reason (IG IV,
1608). A persuasive case for the date (318-320) and the identification of "Phosphorios" with Aurelius
Valerius Symmachus has been made by G. Polara in La Parola del Passato 29, 1974, pp. 261ff. I owe this
reference to the kindness of T. D. Barnes.
12E. Groag, Die Reichsbeamten von Achaia in spdtromischer Zeit (Dissertationes Pannonicae,
ser. 1,
no.
14), Budapest 1946, p. 55; Zosimus, iv.31.3; iv.34.3.
"3Travlos (Pictorial Dictionary [footnote 10 above], p. 483) sees the gate as part of the fortifications of
the time of Valerian (253-260). If that is the case the inscription cannot relate to the original
construction.
"4The difficulty is well illustrated by the contrast between the Marcellinus and Phaidros inscriptions,
both of the same century and, if Graindor's reasoning is correct, carved within a decade or so of each
other. Except for the classical form of the omega in Marcellinus, its lettering is very similar to that of the
dedications to Constantius 11 (337-361) over the east and north gates
at
Aphrodisias (P1.
3:d).
(To OEaTpov). There seems to be no doubt that this is not just a loose term for "audi-
torium" but that one of the actual theaters is meant.'5 The Odeion of Perikles, adjacent
to the Theater of Dionysos, the Odeion of Agrippa, in the middle of the Agora, and the
Odeion of Herodes Atticus had all been either completely destroyed or made unusable
in 267. The Theater of Dionysos had suffered some damage during the raid but was not
beyond repair. Moreover, the theater is known from literary and epigraphical sources to
have sometimes served as a meeting place from Hellenistic times and was perhaps the
recognized seat of the Assembly by the 1st century B.C.16 It would have been natural to
follow the precedent.
Two events described by Eunapius, datable to within a few years, provide some il-
luminating landmarks. Although Eunapius arrived in Athens only in 362 and the rele-
vant occurrences took place between about 340 and 346, he had a detailed account from
a reliable eyewitness, Tuscianus, a pupil of the sophist Julian. On the death of Julian,
ca. 340, a fierce struggle broke out for the succession to his chair. As a result, Prohae-
resius, the leading contender, was driven into exile by the proconsul, who had been
bribed by a jealous rival. With the permission of the Emperor, Constans 1,17 Prohaere-
sius returned to Athens where he was defended by a new proconsul. Prohaeresius
himself made a triumphant defense. He "looked around the theater," and, as he con-
tinued to speak, he had the satisfaction of seeing his enemies "trying to slink away and
lose themselves in the crowd seated in the theater." At the end, "the proconsul with
his whole bodyguard escorted him from the theater."'18
The impression given in this account is of a large building, and this impression is
confirmed in the next episode. Shortly after Prohaeresius' return from exile he was
summoned to the Gallic provinces by the Emperor and afterward sent to Rome because
he (Constans) "was ambitious to show what great people he ruled over." Before return-
ing to Athens Prohaeresius was allowed to request a gift of the Emperor: a number of
grain-producing islands for the city. But the gift had to be confirmed by the Praetorian
Prefect, Anatolius, who had recently arrived from Gaul. This was a momentous event,
described by Eunapius as "more formidable than the Persian Expedition." "Almost all
the educated men of Greece" had come to Athens for the occasion, and "the theater
was filled." Anatolius was Prefect of Italy, Illyricum and Africa in 345/6.19
The damage to the Theater of Dionysos in 267 necessitated fairly extensive repairs
before it could be put back into use. It is doubtful that these could be effected in the
'5A clear distinction is made between "the theater" and the lawcourt, always 8tKaoT-ptOV.
'6K. Kourouniotes and H. A. Thompson, "The Pnyx in Athens," Hesperia 1, 1932, p. 138, with
references.
'7During Constans' reign Illyricum was included with Italy and Africa in a single prefecture and subject
to the Emperor in the West. After his death it was transferred to the East as a separate prefecture. Cf. E.
Groag, op. cit. (footnote 12
above), p. 30.
'8Eunapius, v. soph. 488-492 (Loeb ed., pp. 489-511) for both passages.
'9And again of Illyricum alone in 357 or 358 to 360. His visit to Greece must have been during his
first prefecture. By the beginning of his second term of office ten or twelve years would have elapsed since
the imperial grant and Constans had been dead for at least four years.
38 ALISON FRANTZ
still troubled remaining years of the 3rd century. But all the evidence shows that, al-
though little or no major construction was undertaken for a long time after the inva-
sion, a beginning was made at rehabilitating such buildings as were susceptible of repair
in the first quarter of the 4th century. Providing a suitable assembly place would have
had a high priority in such a program. Granted the premise, unproven but probable,
that the Theater of Dionysos had already resumed its role as the official auditorium for
highly placed speakers and was the locale for the events described above, then a termi-
nus ante quem of 345/6 is established for its reconstruction. With the general condition
of Athens almost precluding a date in the 3rd century, a terminus post quem of about
300 may be safely assumed. At what time within those limits it was carried out remains
uncertain.
There is nothing to indicate that the reconstruction was new when Anatolius visited
Athens. Rather the contrary. In Philostratus' time sophists discoursed before large
audiences in the Odeion of Agrippa,20 and the general practice apparently continued in
the post-Herulian period even though the Odeion and the other theaters except the
Theater of Dionysos were beyond repair. That some theater was available is suggested
in two passages in Eunapius, one that "in accordance with Roman law there had to be
at Athens many to lecture and many to hear them";2' again in his description of the
house of the sophist Julian with its "theater of polished marble made after the model of
a public theater but smaller, of a size suitable to a house," followed by a reference to
the fact that on account of the feuds between citizens and students "none of the soph-
ists dared to go down into the city and discourse in public but they confined their utter-
ances to their private lecture theaters and there discoursed to their students."22
Politically speaking, improvement in Athens set in late in the reign of Diocletian,
when the province of Achaia was raised in status by being put under a corrector, who
was presumably a senator. Constantine further upgraded the province by replacing the
corrector with a proconsul.23 On that basis the reconstruction of the Theater of Dionysos
might be as early as about 300, as suggested by the first excavators. The archaeological
evidence; wherever it is available, tends rather toward the reign of Constantine for
general recovery in Athens, but any attempt to arrive at a close date between the limits
of ca. 300 and 345 could only be speculative. On the surface, Constantine's reign
seems
more likely to have provided a congenial atmosphere for such a pagan monument than
those of his militantly Christian sons, Constantius II and Constans I. His interest in
Athens "in word and deed, throughout his whole life" is illustrated by an annual distri-
bution of grain to the city and his enthusiastic acceptance of a statue "with an epigram"
20Philostratus, v. soph. 571 (Loeb ed., p. 192).
21Eunapius, 487 (Loeb ed., p. 487).
22Eunapius, 483 (Loeb ed., p. 468).
23A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, Norman, Oklahoma, 1966 reprint, p.
45 and note
12; pp.
106-107 and note 64. For epigraphical authority for the spelling Achala rather than Achaea, even when
referring to the Roman province, cf. J. H. Oliver, "Achaia, Greece and Laconica," GRBS 21, 1980, p. 77,
note 6.
erected by the Athenians in gratitude.24 Restoration of the theater might conceivably
have been among the benefactions of the proconsul Cervonius which earned the praise
of Himerius,25 or it might be attributed to some unknown benefactor. Further specula-
tion would be unprofitable, and it is best to conclude on terra firma with a terminus ante
quem of 345.
ALISON FRANTZ
Princeton, NJ 08540
24Emperor Julian, Orationes I.6.
25Himerius, Orationes XXXVIII (IV).
PLATE 2
xA_|t*
lob-&
I- AL,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rLi
_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OF_
a. The theater from the Acropolis
8 .~~~~~~~~~~.
. .. A,~4
PLATE 3
a. The center of the bema
A_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A
b. The dedicatory inscription
c. The Marcellinus inscription
d. Inscription over North Gate, Aphrodisias
ALISON FRANTZ: THE DATE OF THE PI-AIDROS BEMA IN THE THEATER OF DIONYSOS
A CLASSICAL MAIDEN
FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA
(PLATES 4-8)
HYPJ HEN THE AMERICAN EXCAVATIONS of the Athenian Agora began in
1931, Homer Thompson, as one of the young Agora Fellows, took charge of
the section directly to the north of the old excavations by D6rpfeld on the west side of
the Agora. On June 16, 1931, in a late Roman deposit above the southwest corner of
the Classical building which was later to be identified as the Stoa of Zeus (H7), he un-
earthed one of the most elegant small sculptures ever to be found in the Agora (P1. 4).1
As a headless torso, it did not claim a place among the outstanding sculptural finds
reported by the excavations' director in Hesperia. Despite its evident beauty, it was and
remains a puzzle. No obvious context or strong connection with other works found in
the excavation gave the key to its use and meaning that might have inspired the publi-
cation which its quality seemed to deserve. The problems of its reconstruction are still
unsolved. By now, however, we have learned enough about a series of important works
with which it is related in style to make it worthwhile to present the statuette for the
consideration of scholars, in the hope that one of them, perhaps Professor Thompson
himself, may find the clues to its identity and the problems of its reconstruction.
DESCRIPrION
The little sculpture is made of fine Parian marble, carved and finished in exquisite
detail. The preserved height of the fragment is 0.30 m.; that of the whole figure would
have been around 0.52 m. The analysis of the draped type leads, as we shall see, to a
date around 430-420 B.C., and the workmanship makes it clear that it is a 5th-century
original. The figure was evidently part of a two-figure group, such as we find frequently
in vase painting and relief in the second half of the 5th century but rarely in sculpture
in the round.2 A quite young girl stands with her weight on the left leg. Her left hand
rests on her hip, while her right arm was raised as if to rest the hand on the shoulder of
another figure. A rather narrow strip of broken surface on the proper right side shows
that our figure was joined to the neighboring one only from the shoulder to a little
below the hip. The rounded outline of the attachment is not easy to read. It might
represent the shoulder and lowered arm of a standing figure or the raised forearm of a
'Inv. S 65.
The following special abbreviations will be used in this article:
Despinis,
EvAuoXr4
= G. Despinis,
Yv,43foXkj
OIr
/.LEET7)
TOt) i'pyov Tov) 'AyopaKpITov,
Athens 1971
Vierneisel-Schlbrb
= B. Vierneisel-Schlbrb, Glyptothek-AMinchen, Katalog der Skulpturen, II, Klassische
Skulpturen, Munich 1979
20n two-figure groups see especially H. Speier in RbmMitt 47, 1932, pp.
1-94.
A CLASSICAL MAIDEN FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA 41
seated one. Also difficult to explain is the indication that some part of the sculpture
came close enough to the right thigh of our figure in front to have caused difficulty in
carving the folds in the lower part of the triangular overfall of the himation. It is possi-
ble that the second figure was seated at an angle to the standing maiden, so that the left
knee of the seated figure overlapped the right thigh of the standing one. That would
imply either a larger scale for the seated figure or a high throne with a footstool. Let us
leave this problem for a moment and look more closely at the surviving fragment.
The head, arms, and legs below the knees are missing. The head was attached by a
dowel for which the hole (ca. 0.004 m. in diameter, 0.013 m. in preserved depth) sur-
vives near the proper right side of the neck; no smoothed joint surface is preserved. A
powdery white substance, probably a cement, has left traces on the broken surface of
the neck to the right of the dowel hole as well as inside the hole. The left arm was
attached just below the shoulder by a dowel of about the same size (the joint surface is
broken here too) and cemented without a dowel to the smooth joint surface at the back
of the hand, which is partly preserved. The presence of cement on the broken surface
of the neck suggests that head and arm were originally worked in one piece with the
statue but were broken off at some time and replaced.3
The right elbow and forearm with part of the sleeve are broken away together with
whatever the arm rested on. Besides the break where the other figure was attached in
front, the whole front is somewhat battered: the point of the right shoulder, both
breasts and some of the drapery ridges. The back is better preserved, with only chips
gone from the higher ridge folds. The unbroken surfaces are beautifully preserved,
unweathered and showing tool and abrasive marks. The whole was very carefully
worked and finished except where the proximity of the other figure prevented it. Rows
of holes made by a stationary drill appear in the deep furrows between the legs in front
and in the undercutting of the triangular overfall. Small drill holes mark the ends of the
furrows of the himation where they were overlapped by the adjoining figure.
DRESS
That the girl is very young can be seen from her small breasts and also from the
drapery of her chiton. It has a very long kolpos reaching almost to the knees (visible
only on the proper left side, where the himation is open, P1. 4:d). This is frequent with
children, whose dresses are long in order to allow room for growth.4 The chiton has no
3For the smooth joint surface without a dowel compare the cutting for a repair of the nose in a 5th-
century head of Parian marble found in the Kerameikos: Riemann, Kerameikos II, Berlin 1940, pp. 87-88,
no. 116, pl. 26; J. Frel, AAA 5, 1972, p. 74, no. 3, figs. 3, 4; A. Delivorrias, Attische Giebelskulpturen und
Akrotere des finften Jahrhunderts, TUbingen 1974, pp. 164-166, pls. 56:b-d, 57. A resemblance in style to
Agora S 429b, the head of a girl attributed to the Theseum, was noted by Frel and confirmed by
Delivorrias.
4Athena wears a long kolpos on the white-ground cup in the British Museum which depicts the cre-
ation of Pandora (Anesidora). Hephaistos there is shown as very young and Athena is probably meant to
be so too (AR V2, p. 869, no. 55, Tarquinia Painter). The long kolpos may also be worn by a grown person
in a very rich dress, whose material is long as well as wide. This is the case with the Basilinna on the Par-
42 EVELYN B. HARRISON
overfall. A very full "sleeve" hangs down from the right arm and overlaps the himation
with a deep loop in back (P1. 4:b). It must have been buttoned all the way down to the
elbow. The left arm, by contrast, emerged bare from under the himation over the left
shoulder. Either there were fewer buttons here or the sleeve was pushed up onto the
shoulder. The first seems more likely, for there is no such mass of material here as on
the right side. If that is so, however, the neck-hole must have been off center, for the
armhole is not deep as it is on the Valentini Ariadne, where the outer buttons of the
left sleeve have been unfastened and the cloth falls down to reveal the flesh below the
arm. The off-center fastening occurs in some figures of children.5
Over her chiton the girl wears an ample himation. One corner, draped over the left
shoulder, is gathered into fine folds which cling closely to the chiton in front and follow
the movement of the body. The tip is caught under the front himation folds crossing
the left hip. In back the himation hangs down in straight folds on the left side to the
second corner, which is broken away. The upper part is drawn diagonally across the
back and under the right arm, where a loop of the chiton hides the upper folds. In front
the third corner is folded over to form a triangular apron whose tip must have fallen
above the left knee. The fourth corner will have hung vertically from the left hand,
which holds the bunched folds flat against the hip. Between the front and back edges a
thin panel of chiton is revealed all the way down on the left side (P1. 4:d).
The scheme of the drapery is unique and at the same time closely related to those
of a series of important works. Although this is a minor piece on a small scale, the
amount of detail in the folds equals that of much larger statues, so that it can easily be
compared with them. The primary ancestor is the "Kore Albani" (P1. 5:a) ,6 but the in-
fluence of the Nemesis of Rhamnous (P1. 5:b)7 is clearly visible. Closest of all in certain
thenon frieze (M. Robertson, The Parthenon Frieze, London 1975, detail 4) as well as with the bride (for-
merly called bridesmaid) in the west pediment at Olympia (B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia,
London
1967, pls. 98, 101, 105). She is identified as the bride not only by her rich dress but by the fact that in the
correct reconstruction she is under the outstretched arm of Apollo (see P. Grunauer,
"Der Westgiebel
des
Zeustempels von Olympia," JdI 89, 1974, pp. 29-48, especially pp. 45-48). Theseus is her rescuer. For
Theseus as rescuer of the bride, see B. B. Shefton, "Herakles and Theseus on a Red-figured Louterion,"
Hesperia 31, 1962, pp. 341-344. Shefton, however, kept the traditional identification of West H as Deida-
meia, explaining that outside Athens Theseus might have been given less prominence.
5See M. Bieber, Griechische Kleidung, Berlin and Leipzig 1928, pl. 12. For full publication and discus-
sion of the Ariadne Valentini, see E. Bielefeld, AntP XVII, Berlin 1978, pp. 57-69, pls.
35-39.
6Helbig4 IV, pp. 316-317, no. 3342 (Fuchs) with selected bibliography. Good pictures of most views in
H. Schrader, Pheidias, Frankfurt-am-Main 1924, figs. 21, 22, 62, 65. Back view in AntP XI, Berlin 1972,
facing p. 20, fig. 2. In a study not yet published I propose to identify the Kore Albani with the Sosandra of
Kalamis on the Athenian Acropolis. Cf. J. Frel, GettyMusJ
1, 1974, p. 57 and note 19. Delivorrias ("Das
Original der sitzenden 'Aphrodite-Olympias'," AthMitt 93, 1978, pp. 17-18) seems to accept the identifica-
tion of the Kore Albani with the Sosandra of Kalamis, as well as its close affinity with the seated Olympias
type and the architectural sculptures of the Theseum but does not take the step of attributing the latter to
the school of Kalamis as I would do. Vierneisel-Schlbrb (pp. 114, 165-166) is against the identification
with Sosandra. The text of the present article was already written when Vierneisel's impressive work ap-
peared. I do not attempt here to argue in detail all the points of disagreement between us. So far as chro-
nology is concerned, I hope that the style sequence outlined in this article will make my position clear.
7Despinis,
Y-vii,.ok'q.
forms, though totally different in personality, is a type known only from Roman portrait
statues, which Despinis identifies as Kore and attributes to Agorakritos (P1. 5:c).8 Since
the evidence for its identification is tenuous, I prefer to call it "type of the Lateran
Agrippina". A Grimani statuette in Venice (P1. 5:d), now generally considered to repre-
sent Kore, was treated by Hekler as belonging to the same type' but should be separat-
ed from it as a variant.10 That in turn is very close to the Velletri Athena, with which
our statuette also has affinities (P1. 6:a, b).11 It will appear that the Agora maiden is
slightly earlier, at least in type, than the Athena and the Grimani statuette.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRIANGULAR OVERFALL
These close similarities make it possible to study as a formal series one of the char-
acteristic elements of the drapery of our figure, the apronlike triangular overfall of the
himation, in its linear patterns and in its plastic relationship to the body. This should be
a help in dating.
The triangular apron of the Kore Albani is divided into two main systems of folds
which are clearly separated one from the other: a fan of diverging straight folds where
the corner hangs down over the left leg and a group of catenaries over the abdomen.
The edge forms broad zigzags at the ends of the straight folds and then curves smooth-
ly upward following the line of the catenaries until it disappears under the bloused
chiton above the right hip. The folds along the upper part are not separated from the
catenaries by greater density or projection.
In the Lateran Agrippina, which seems to be the best copy of its type, the corner of
the overfall has swung more toward the center. The folded upper edge is caught under
the elbow rather than higher up as on the Kore Albani, so that it rises gently instead of
steeply toward the left side. The upper folds are gathered close together and begin to
project as a separate mass. The straight diverging folds become diagonal, and the cate-
naries are reduced to a few thin folds which mediate between the two systems so that
the folds seem evenly spread over the whole area of the apron. A single straight coun-
8Despinis,
IvAiok
4, pp. 180-182, list of replicas in note 384. Add to his bibliography: M. Bieber,
Ancient Copies, New York 1977, p. 122, figs. 544-545; Vierneisel-Schlbrb, pp. 163-177, no. 15.
9A. Hekler, "Rbmische weibliche Gewandstatuen," Milnchener Archdologische Studien dem Andenken
Addf Furtwdnglers Gewidmet, Munich 1909, pp. 151-152, 225.
10See Despinis,
Ivi4,3oX
4, p. 191, where the Kore Grimani is said to take a separate place in the circle
of works derived from the creation of Agorakritos. For full discussion of the Kore Grimani see R. Kabus-
Jahn, AntP XI, Berlin 1972, pp. 1-21. Her suggestion of an Attic origin should be corrected in favor of the
demonstration by L. Beschi that the Grimani statues must come from Crete ("Antichita' cretesi a Vene-
zia," ASAtene, n.s. 34-35, 1972-73, pp. 494-502). See also below, footnote 11.
"For the Velletri Athena, see E. B. Harrison, "Alkamenes' Sculptures for the Hephaisteion," AJA 81,
1977, pp. 150-155, 164-174, list of replicas pp. 175-178. The date around 420 B.C. is based on style; it is
not dependent on my identification of the Velletri Athena with the Athena Hephaistia but vice versa. Com-
pare Kabus-Jahn, op. cit., p. 19:
"
Um 420 wird man mit der Athena unsere Statuette [Kore Grimanil ansetzen
konnen." Vierneisel-Schldrb (pp. 138-140) defends the attribution of the Velletri Athena to Kresilas and
suggests a date no later than 430 B.C. She accepts a date of 420 for the Grimani statuette, however (pp.
164-166).
terfold strikes down from the proper right. The pattern of the apron of the Agora maid-
en is virtually identical with this. Only the folds are somewhat fewer, in accordance with
the smaller scale, and the difficulty of working the lower part makes the folds here
clumsy and heavy where they are smooth and light in the larger statues.
The Velletri Athena swings the point of the apron still farther toward the middle
and spreads the fan of straight folds until it becomes the dominant motif. The bunch of
curved folds occupies the remaining space, leaving no room for catenaries. The straight
counterfold is still there, but very shallow and unemphatic. Broad spaces appear be-
tween the fan folds of the apron as well as between the folds of the lower himation. In
the Agora statuette, as in the Lateran Agrippina, the ridge folds are close together, the
valleys narrow. In this, too, they show themselves earlier than the Velletri Athena.
The Athena, dated around 420 B.C., marks a terminus ante quem for our statuette,
and the Nemesis, dated in the late 430's,12 a terminus post quem. The Lateran Agrippina
type ought not to be later than our figure, since it is easier to think that the artist of the
minor work imitated the apron pattern of the major one than the other way around.
This clear line of evolution in the patterns of the himation with triangular overfall
seems to place the Dresden "Zeus" (P1. 6:c) after the Velletri Athena, i.e. after 420
B.c.13 Although the somewhat closer wrapping of the whole himation brings the point of
the triangle back to the proper left side, the big, straight fan folds remain like those of
the Athena, and their spacing is even wider. The stance and the close wrapping bring
the folds of the lower himation into a diagonal pattern continuing that of the overfall.14
Since the stance of the "Zeus" looks like a forerunner of that of the Ares Bor-
ghese, one is tempted to return to the old idea that the "Zeus" is a copy of an As-
klepios by Alkamenes.15 A fragmentary figure from a votive relief in the Agora (P1.
'2Despinis, Edvgok, pp. 55-61. It is above all the close resemblance of the Nemesis to figures from
the Parthenon pediments that suggests this date. We may add that the stance remains close to the Pheidian
stance of the Athena Parthenos and does not show the Polykleitan influence which is already visible in the
"Agrippina" and other Attic works of the 420's.
'3This date is approximately that proposed by F. Hiller, Formgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur griechi-
schen Statue des spdten 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Mainz am Rhein 1971, pp. 65, 70. He does not give
dates,
but his sequence of monuments implies it. At the same time Despinis (1vp,4oXiv, pp. 133-145) dated the
Dresden Zeus early in the decade 440-430 and identified it with the Hades by Agorakritos in the Temple
of Athena Itonia in Koroneia. Also at about the same time P. Mingazzini proposed a date of 360-330 B.C.
("Lo Zeus di Dresda, lo Zeus di Cirene, lo Zeus di Faleri e lo Zeus di Fidia," ASAtene, n.s. 31-32, 1969-
70, pp. 71-76), but no compelling stylistic arguments supported this novel dating. Vierneisel-Schlbrb
(pp.
148-149) agrees with Despinis' date and tentatively with his attribution.
"4The Velletri Athena also shows this continuity of folds from the overfall to the lower himation.
'5This was proposed by A. Furtwingler (Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik, Leipzig-Berlin 1893, p.
84) on the basis of Pausanias' mention of an Asklepios by Alkamenes at Mantinea (viii.9.1). G. Treu
(Olympia III, Berlin 1897, pp. 225-230 and Festschrift Otto Benndorf, Vienna 1898, pp.
99-110) argued
against the identification as Asklepios and restored the figure with a scepter. Despinis' identification as
Hades takes account of the fact that the hair of the god, with its uncontrolled locks covering neck and ears
and closely framing the face, does not belong to the classical image of Zeus. It seems suitable for an under-
world god or a hero. The expression is too mild for Poseidon, who wears such hair on the Parthenon
frieze. Opponents of the identification as Asklepios argue that the proud carriage of the head does not
6:d06
can be identified as Asklepios by its very close correspondence in pose to the
Asklepios on a votive relief in the Athens National Museum (P1. 6:e).17 The Agora
fragment has an overfall very much like that of the Dresden "Zeus", as well as a wide
stance which produces similar diagonally stretched folds in the lower himation. The
overfall of this figure is also strikingly like that of a male himation figure from the
Nemesis base.18
A second relief fragment from the Agora (P1. 7:a) shows a male figure who is ap-
parently leaning on a staff propped under his left armpit.19 The slab seems too thin for a
documentary relief; it must have been votive. This fragment too is most easily inter-
conform to the usual kindly image of Asklepios. This is rather subjective, however, for we have no other
preserved Asklepios types in the round so early as the time of Alkamenes. The Asklepios of the wagoner
relief, Athens N.M. 1341 (see below, footnote 17) is hardly less proud than the Dresden "Zeus". D. Mus-
tilli (BullComm 61, 1933, pp. 19-20) argues the suitability of the head for Asklepios. In defending his iden-
tification as Hades, Despinis stresses the beneficent, fertility-giving aspects of Hades, but one would expect
that kind of Hades to carry the Horn of Plenty. A certain fatherly quality is lent to the statue by the shawl-
like way the himation covers the back of the right shoulder. This is frequent with older men on Attic
gravestones but not among the gods, whom we do not imagine as being afraid of drafts. Asklepios is an
exception; he wears his himation in this way in several votive reliefs from the Athenian Asklepieion.
Standing: Athens N.M. 1331, EA 1222; I. N. Svoronos, Das Athener Nationalmuseum, Athens 1908-1937,
pl. 36; Athens N.M. 1332, EA 1236, Svoronos, loc. cit., S. Karouzou, Collection of Sculpture, Athens 1968,
pl. 45:a; G. Neumann, Probleme des griechischen Weihreliefs, Tilbingen 1979, pl. 47:a. Seated: Athens N.M.
1330, U. Hausmann, Kunst und Heiltum, Potsdam 1948, pl. 9; Athens N.M. 1338, EA 1232. In Athens
N.M. 1408, EA 1245, Zeus Meilichios (seated) has the himation over the back of the right shoulder. In
this, as elsewhere, Zeus Meilichios simply borrows the type of Asklepios.
These arguments do not exclude the identification of the Dresden "Zeus" as Hades, because we have
so little evidence for his iconography apart from that of Ploutos, but they make the identification strongly
dependent on style. Neumann (op. cit., pp. 67-68) tentatively accepts Despinis' identification provided it
can be supported by stylistic arguments. It seems to me that the stylistic arguments for Alkamenes are
stronger than those for Agorakritos. The oft noted resemblance to Poseidon in the east frieze of the Par-
thenon links the "Zeus" with Alkamenes rather than with Agorakritos. The fragments of a high-relief
frieze from the Agora are clearly related to Alkamenes and at the same time clearly descended from the
atelier of the Parthenon frieze (see Harrison, op. cit. [footnote 11 above], pp. 164-166). The affinities are
especially clear with the slab on which Poseidon appears. The tightly wrapped himation with transverse
folds in the lower part, already hinted at in the Poseidon, also seems to have interested Alkamenes (see
ibid., pp. 275-276), whereas we have no evidence of its use by Agorakritos.
'6Inv. S 2050. Found June 1, 1959 in packing beside a late Roman wall north of the south stoa terrace
of the Eleusinion (U 20). P. H. 0.29 m.; p. W. 0.255 m.; Th. 0.09 in.; Th. of background ca. 0.06 m.; H. of
plinth 0.035 m. Worked with the point on side and bottom, rough picked on back. Pentelic marble. It is
interesting to have a fragment of an Asklepios relief from the area of the Eleusinion which can be dated by
its style to the time between the initial introduction of Asklepios into the Eleusinion in 420/19 B.C. and his
establishment in his permanent sanctuary on the south slope of the Acropolis in 413/2 B.C. (IG II2, 4960;
cf. Hausmann, op. cit., pp. 21-23).
"Athens N.M. 1341. See especially Beschi, "Rilievi votivi attici ricomposti," ASAtene, n.s. 31-32,
1969-70, pp. 86-94.
'8L. Kjellberg, Studien zu den attischen Reliefs, Uppsala 1926, pl. 4, figs. 13-15 (original) and pl. 7, fig.
24 (Roman copy in Stockholm); B. Kallipolitis, "'H a3c'O-'q Tov aycaXAaTo' Tr Pajovova-i'a NEoucrrm,"
'ApX'E4,
1978 [1980], pl. 2:1A and pl. 26.
'9Inv. S 621. Found February 26, 1936 in demolition of the east foundations of the Church of Panagia
Vlassarou in the central part of the Agora (K 10-11). Broken on all sides; rough-picked back preserved. P.
H. 0.21 m.; p. W. 0.235 m.; Th. 0.06 m.; Th. of background 0.043 m.
preted as representing Asklepios, who commonly adopts such a leaning pose. Again we
have a triangular overfall. Now, however, the material seems very thin and clinging,
with delicate ridge folds. This style recalls that of the relief on the Choiseul stele in the
Louvre dated 410/409 B.C.20 and that of the Nymph relief of the Archandros (P1. 7:b).21
The second Agora fragment should not be earlier than 410; it seems later than the pre-
vious fragment and later than the Rhamnous base.22
It was the resemblance of the Dresden "Zeus" to the votive statue of Lysikleides
at Rhamnous (P1. 7:c), itself related to the Rhamnous base, that first suggested the at-
tribution of the Dresden "Zeus" to Agorakritos.23 We have already seen, however, that
Alkamenes in the Velletri Athena borrowed from the work of Agorakritos represented
in the Lateran Agrippina. It seems perfectly possible that the sculptors of the Nemesis
base, made more than a decade after the statue, might have borrowed in turn from
Alkamenes. To sum up, the arguments in favor of Furtwingler's denomination of the
"Zeus" as Asklepios are (1) that the figure looks like Asklepios and seems to have
influenced other representations of that god,24 (2) that an Asklepios by Alkamenes is
recorded25 and none by Agorakritos, and (3) that the figure is a link between the Vel-
letri Athena and the Ares Borghese,26 two figures attributed on other grounds to Al-
kamenes.
The fact that the "Zeus" seems to have held a scepter does not rule out his identi-
fication as Asklepios. The Sikyonian Asklepios of Kalamis also held a scepter. In de-
scribing the latter Pausanias makes no mention of a snake as part of the composition,
though he tells us that the god was brought to Sikyon in the form of a snake.27 If the
youthful Asklepios of Kalamis was standing, as seems quite possible, it may have intro-
20IG
12,
304. Louvre. Depart. des antiquities grecques et romaines. Catalogue sommaire des marbres
antiques, Paris 1922, no. 831. Encyclopedie photographique de lart, Paris 1938 (Tel), III, pl. 168. U. Kron,
Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen (AthMitt, Suppl. V, Berlin 1976), pl. 29.
21Athens N.M. 1329. Svoronos, op. cit. (footnote 15 above), pl. 44. BrBr, no. 439.
22There is also a relationship to the himation figures of the grave lekythos, Athens N.M. 2584 (B.
Schmaltz, Untersuchungen zu den attischen Marmorlekythen, Berlin 1970, A 21, pls. 11, 12), but these seem
already somewhat stiffened in comparison with our fragment. Schmaltz (p. 29) dates the lekythos before
the Hekatompedon traditio of 397/6 B.C. (IG II2, 1392).
23Despinis,
EvA,8okrv,
p. 133.
24Besides the apparent reflections on votive reliefs mentioned above, we may note the considerable
preponderance of Asklepios heads over heads of other divinities in Curtius' census of Roman Umbildungen
of the head of the Dresden "Zeus" (L. Curtius, Zeus und Hermes, RimMitt, Suppl. I, Munich 1931, pp.
20-37). It is not necessary to agree with all Curtius' derivations in order to see the general picture. For
criticism of Curtius, see Vierneisel-Schlbrb, p. 147.
25Footnote 15 above. Furtw-angler derived the "Zeus" from the statue mentioned by Pausanias at
Mantinea, since it has generally been thought that no cult statue of Asklepios existed in Athens before the
permanent installation of the god on the south slope of the Acropolis, but the question ought perhaps to
be reopened. In the period 421-415 B.C., to which the statue can be dated by its style, Alkamenes was
working in Athens. It could well be that the statue in Mantinea was derived from one in Athens (set up in
the Eleusinion, or simply made and kept in reserve until the site problems were solved?) rather than the
other way around. This is a large question, which cannot be gone into here.
26See W. Schuchhardt, Alkamenes (BerlWinckProg 126, Berlin 1977), pp. 33-37 and 59 (bibliography).
Add Vierneisel-Schl6rb, pp. 178-187.
27Pausanias, 11.10.3.
duced the triangular overfall into the iconography of the god-.28 We have seen that the
Sosandra of Kalamis (the Kore Albani) stands at the: head of a series from which is
derived the triangular overfall of our Agora maiden.
The boy of Lysikleides (P1. 7:c)29 and the Hera Borghese (P1. 7:d)30 belong to a
stage beyond that of the Dresden "Zeus". Here the smooth part of the overfall clings to
the inside of the right thigh and the fan folds are confined to the proper left. Many
figures from the Erechtheion frieze show the himation clinging to the inside of the
thighs,31 as does the Apollo of a late 5th-century relief from Brauron.32 So does the Kore
from the Piraeus in the Athens National Museum.33 The leaning Aphrodite34 is shown as
belonging to an earlier style phase than most of its imitators by the fact that the overfall
of the himation does not cling to the thighs but forms a bridge across them. The linear
pattern of the folds in the overfall is still rounded like that of the Kore Albani. The con-
ventional date of the Aphrodite around 430 B.C. or a little later is thus upheld. In the
leaning Nike from the Nike Parapet (P1. 8:d) the overfall clings to both thighs, and the
upper folds of the himation form a shell-like projection around the right hip. It seems
likely that this part of the Parapet is contemporary with the Erechtheion frieze.35
OTHER DRAPERY MOTIFS
The Nemesis of Rhamnous lacks the triangular overfall, but in other respects its in-
fluence is clearly felt in the Lateran Agrippina and the Agora maiden. Most notable in
28It is not clear to me why G. Mansuelli says (EAA I, pp. 720-721) that the Asklepios of Kalamis may
represent the beginning of the tradition of a seated Asklepios.
29Athens N.M. 199,
'EO'ApX
1891, p. 55, pl. 6; Kjellberg, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pl. 5, fig. 18; P.
Zancani Montuoro, BullComm 61, 1933, p. 54, fig. 20.
30Zancani Montuoro, op. cit., pp. 25-58, with illustration of the principal replicas, attribution to Agora-
kritos; W. Fuchs, Die Skulptur der Griechen, 2nd ed., Munich 1979, pp. 205-207, fig. 222 (unchanged from
first edition) with attribution to Kallimachos; Despinis,
EvApok',
pp. 156-158, attribution to Agorakritos;
Bieber, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), pp. 47-49, pls. 29-31; Vierneisel-Schlbrb, pp. 166-167, 171, notes 11,
12, with dating 420-410 B.C., cautious about attribution.
31E.g. AntP X, Berlin 1971, pls. 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 26.
32p. Themelis, Brauron, Athens 1971, p. 59; Neumann, op. cit. (footnote 15 above), p. 62 (with addi-
tional bibliography).
33Athens N.M. 176. S. Karusu, "Das 'M-adchen vom Pir-aus' und die originalstatuen in Venedig,"
AthMitt 82, 1967, pp. 158-169, Beilagen 85, 86.
34Schrader, op. cit. (footnote 6 above), pp. 203-210, especially 207, figs. 187, 188. Cf. Harrison, op. cit.
(footnote 11 above), p. 417.
35For the Nike see R. Carpenter, Sculpture of the Nike Temple Parapet, Cambridge, Mass. 1929, p. 49,
no. 9, pl. 20:1; for the additional fragment found in the Agora excavations, see E. Harrison, "New Sculp-
ture from the Athenian Agora, 1959," Hesperia 29, 1960, p. 376, pl. 83:a; also idem (footnote 11 above),
p. 417 and p. 418, fig. 1. The style phase seems to be the same as that of the Hera Borghese. The question
whether the Nike Parapet was made between 421 and 413 or 409 and 404 has perhaps been wrongly stated.
The reliefs of the north flank, Carpenter's Masters A and B, seem clearly to belong before 410, those of
the south flank clearly after (in view of the resemblance to the style of the Erechtheion in the work of
Master E and elements foreshadowing the 4th century in that of Master F). The works of Masters C and D
on the west face, though less obviously datable, also appear to belong to the time after 410. It seems logi-
cal, therefore, to assume that work started on the north flank late in the Peace of Nikias and was interrupt-
ed, like that on the Erechtheion, in 413, to be resumed around 410/9.
the Lateran type is the enrichment of the zigzags on the proper left side;36 they are
more numerous than on the Kore Albani, and the bigger folds are subdivided into
many small parallel folds. The folds on the Nemesis are strikingly similar.37
On Nemesis, Lateran statue, and Agora maiden, the corner of the himation which
came forward over the left shoulder is shorter than on the Kore Albani, resulting in a
smaller mass of drapery over the shoulder. On the Nemesis, the tip hangs free. On the
Agrippina it is looped up and tucked under the cross folds. On the Agora girl it lies flat
and the cross folds cover it. A similar treatment is used in the Velletri Athena.
In the Nemesis as in the Agora statuette the himation was pushed up onto the left
shoulder rather than half covering the upper arm as it does in the Kore Albani or fully
covering it as in the Agrippina. The chiton is visible in a very narrow strip on the side
of the Nemesis, in a wider one on the Agora girl. The Agrippina did not show the
chiton on the side. Because of the small size of the Agora figure and because the edge
of the back part of the himation is broken away, it is not possible to judge what the
artist did with the zigzags, but they seem to have been partly sacrificed in order to show
a wider area of chiton. The Grimani statuette also does this to some extent, but with
heavier folds (P1. 8:a).38
In the fine folds of the chiton, the Agora statuette borrows from several sources
but remains individual. The absence of the overfall distinguishes it from all the so-
called Kore types with which we have compared the himation, as well as from the
Nemesis. The way in which the folds cling to the body between and below the small
breasts, emphasizing the gently slumped posture of the upper torso, is very similar to
that of Figure 23 in the east frieze of the Theseum (P1. 8:b), and the basic pattern of all
these folds is almost identical in the two works. Only the folds are much more numer-
ous in the statuette in spite of its smaller size. Where the himation crosses in front, the
chiton folds break against it in little hooks, as they do in the Velletri Athena and in a
high-relief fragment from the Agora.39 This motif is not yet present in the Nemesis, and
there is just a tentative beginning in the Lateran Agrippina.
The back of the chiton (P1. 4:b, c) gives an effect of richness, which is not so ap-
parent from the front. A big loop of cloth, subdivided into two main
catenaries,
over-
laps the himation below the right arm. Below the
nape
of the neck are small stacked ca-
tenaries hatched with tiny vertical crinkle folds. This effect is used in the front of the
chiton of the Kore Albani, which may also have inspired the loops of loose cloth over-
lapping the mantle.
36Side view in Bieber, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), fig. 545.
37Side view in Despinis,
1vji43oX'4,
pl. 37.
38AntP XI, pls. 3b, 9b.
39Inv. S 679. Harrison, op. cit. (footnote 11 above), p. 165, fig. 20. I there suggested that this motif
was an idea of Alkamenes. It appears rather that he only formalized and made more emphatic an existing
motif. The Kore Grimani shows it still in a tentative stage, though the statuette seems otherwise to be
contemporary with the Velletri Athena. Vierneisel-Schlbrb (p. 166) rightly notes that it is a linearization of
the plastic kolpos motif of the Kore Albani.
The gesture of the left hand resting on the hip and holding .the folds of the hima-
tion in place is similar to that of the figure from the Nike Parapet (P1. 8:d) which also
wears the thin chiton without overfall or visible belt.40 The only difference is that the
fingers of the Agora maiden actually grasp the folds rather than just resting on them.
The comparison of the two figures shows the Nike as markedly later in style."1
The figure who stands behind Aphrodite and Eros in the east frieze of the Nike
Temple (P1. 8:c) also wears a thin chiton without overfall."2 She rests her right hand on
her hip. The folds have a fineness that is lacking in our piece, partly because the Pentel-
ic marble of the Nike frieze permits more delicate carving than the Parian marble of
our statuette and partly because the Agora piece is a little earlier. In the stringy quality
of the fine folds and the lack of transparency, our figure is closest to the chiton-clad
figures of the Theseum friezes.43 These friezes, like our statuette, seem to be related to
the frieze of the Nike Temple but clearly earlier. A date around 430-425 B.C. for the
friezes of the Theseum would explain the evident influence of the Parthenon pediments
on the seated figures and yet allow time between these friezes and those of the Nike
Temple."" The group of two girls in the "Ephedrismos" scheme which probably served
as an akroterion for the Theseum is extremely close in style to the Nike Temple
frieze."5 We would expect the akroterion to be somewhat later than the friezes.
THE SCULPTOR
This long look at the details of our statuette and their stylistic relatives has seemed
worthwhile because, being an original work, it can be related with greater immediacy
than can the copies to the architectural sculptures and votive documentary reliefs of its
40Footnote 35 above.
41The projection of the upper himation folds and the clinging of the overfall to the thighs mentioned
above are the principle elements. Cf. footnote 35 above for the date of the Nike.
42C. Blimel, Der Fries des Tempels der Athena Nike, Berlin 1923, pl. 8, fig. 1.
43H. Koch, Studien zum Theseustempel in Athen, Berlin 1955, pls. 29, fig. 2; 33, fig. 21; 34, fig. 26; 39,
fig. 16. C. Morgan, "The Sculptures of the Hephaisteion," Hesperia 31, 1962, pls. 77, figs. 2, 7; 79, figs.
23, 26; 81, fig. 16. S. von Bockelberg, "Die Friese des Hephaisteion," AntP XVIII, Berlin 1979, pls. 16, fig.
2; 19, fig. 7; 27, fig. 21; 28, 29, fig. 23; 30, fig. 26; 45, 46, fig. 16.
44The Nike Temple frieze is not exactly dated by external evidence. Ira Mark (Nike and the Cult of
Athena Nike on the Athenian Acropolis, diss. New York University 1979, pp. 266-267) argues for a date
shortly after 421 B.C.
45H. A. Thompson (The Athenian Agora, Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 3rd ed., Athens 1976,
pp. 195-196) suggests that the group belongs to one of the pediments. Previously ("The Pedimental Sculp-
ture of the Hephaisteion," Hesperia 18, 1949, p. 235 and "The Sculptural Adornment of the Hephaistei-
on," AJA 66, 1962, p. 345) he had identified the group "with certainty" as an akroterion. This was accept-
ed by F. Eckstein in his publication of the Conservatori Ephedrismos group (AntP VI, Berlin 1967, pp.
75-88), in which he also saw a central akroterion: "Kein Zweifel-die Gruppe von der Piazza Dante krinte
einst, wie ihre geschwisterliche Gruppe in Athen, den First eines Gebdudes" (p. 84). A. Delivorrias (op. cit.
[footnote 3 above], pp. 33-40) argued that the Agora group belongs to a pedimental scene, perhaps a Sack
of Troy, in which a girl helps a wounded comrade. One cannot prove that the piece was not pedimental,
for some of its weathering probably postdates the destruction of the building to which it belonged, but I
continue to believe that the subject, whose relationship to the Ephedrismos terracottas cannot be ignored,
has eschatological implications that would make it suitable for akroteria, just as abduction groups are.
period, while, at the same time, as a carefully detailed sculpture in the round, it helps
us to have faith in the copies which it resembles. Especially interesting is the close
resemblance in the pattern of the triangular overfall of the himation to that of the
Lateran Agrippina. Because the latter is very immediately related to the Nemesis of
Rhamnous and to the Parthenon pediments, Despinis' attribution to Agorakritos is
thoroughly convincing.46
Less persuasive is his identification of the broad-shouldered, matronly figure as
Kore, and his proposal to associate it with the Capitoline Demeter in the same cult
group.47 The fact that the design of the statue was available to be imitated by the sculp-
tor of our little figure suggests that the original of the Agrippina may have been set up
in Athens, perhaps actually near the Agora. The carving of the chiton folds of the
Lateran statue so much resembles that in copies of the Nemesis, and even, in places, of
the Nemesis itself, that one has the impression that the two originals were made of the
same material, Parian marble. Two Roman copies which have contaminated the type by
substituting different forms in the upper part of the chiton, namely those in Munich48
and in Syon House,49 clearly indicate by baring the right shoulder that the Roman ladies
they represent are being portrayed as Venus.50
All this suggests the tantalizing possibility that we have in the original of the Later-
an Agrippina the cult statue of Aphrodite Ourania in Parian marble which Pausanias saw
near the Agora.51 He called it a work of Pheidias, just as he gave to Pheidias the statue
of the Mother of the Gods52 which better authority gives to Agorakritos.53 No exact
replica of the Mother survives, and it is not possible to form from the many and vari-
ous small reflections a sufficiently detailed idea of the original to date the figure on
style, as we have tried to do with the Agrippina. Such literary evidence as there is
suggests that a date around 425 B.C. would be suitable.54 Steven Lattimore has recently
46Loc. cit. (footnote 8 above).
47I continue to believe that we have the original of the Capitoline Demeter in the fragments of a
statue in the Athenian Agora (Harrison, op. cit. [footnote 35 above], pp. 371-373, pl. 81:c). The scale is
colossal. No fragments of a Kore of comparable size have come to light.
48Vierneisel-Schldrb, pp. 163-177, with bibliography.
49F. Poulsen, Greek and Roman Portraits in English Country Houses, Oxford 1923, pp. 16-17, fig. 13; C.
Vermeule, "Notes on a New Edition of Michaelis," AJA 59, 1955, pp. 147-148, pl. 45, fig. 27; Vierneisel-
Schlorb, pp. 163-164.
60Besides baring the right shoulder, these statues also introduce into the overfall of the chiton a wind-
blown effect which belongs to Aphrodite in her connections with the sea and sailing. See below, p. 51.
5' Pausanias, i. 14.7.
62Pausanias, i.3.5. See R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, III, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia,
Princeton 1957, pp. 150-160, for testimony on the Metroon in general.
"3Pliny, N.H., 36.17.
54M. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion I, 3rd ed., Munich 1967, pp. 725-727, argues that the
cult was introduced into Athens in the late Archaic period. One ancient source connects the establishment
of the cult with a plague (Photios, s. v.
g-rqpayVp
v7)
= Wycherley, Agora III, p. 155, no. 487). Julian,
Orat. V.159b (Wycherley, Agora III, p. 154, no. 483) speaks of
JAM3
TvL' OEmOV and OEpaITELa
g-~vL8oq.
If
there is any truth in the tradition, it may refer to a plague in the late Archaic period. Photios says the
Athenians made a Bouleuterion. These references would fit well with the date around 500 B.C. to which
shown that Aphrodite Ourania appears with the Mother of the Gods in a double-naiskos
votive relief from Isthmia, where both goddesses have the seated form familiar from
other votives to the Mother.55 If Aphrodite Ourania was closely related to the Mother
of the Gods in Corinth, she might well be so in Athens too.56 It would not be surprising
to find her similarly dressed and with a similarly matronly physique. Both goddesses
wear a rich chiton with full "sleeves" and a long overfall and have the himation draped
over the left shoulder.
If the Lateran Agrippina went for a walk in a high wind she might look like the
Parian-marble Aphrodite in the Agora, which Despinis assigns to the School of Agora-
kritos but not to the master himself.57 The overfall is blown up over the right breast,
and the third corner of the himation (which forms the apron in the Agrippina and
related statues) is pulled up over the crook of the left arm to hold the cloak more
firmly as it flaps in the wind. This statue could well be a votive to Aphrodite Ourania
which emphasizes her aspect of Euploia, the bringer of victory at sea. She retains the
heavy body of the original Ourania and adds the wind-blown drapery like an additional
epithet.58
This wind-blown Aphrodite should be about a decade later than the "Agrippina".
As has been pointed out elsewhere, it is close to Masters A and B of the Nike Parapet,
around 420-415 B.c.59 Our statuette is firmly anchored in the preceding phase, contem-
porary with the Theseum friezes and with the Lateran Agrippina, around 425 e.c. The
most recent study of the Theseum friezes has suggested that its masters belonged to an
island school.60 So far as the drapery is concerned this could be true, but the strong
plastic realism of the athletic human nudes of both friezes and of the horse bodies of
the centaurs in the west frieze suggests influence from mainland bronze work.61 One of
Plato (erroneously) assigns a purification of Athens by Epimenides (Laws 642D). Cf. G. Huxley, "Nikias,
Crete and the Plague," GRBS 10, 1969, pp. 235-239, on references to an early plague or plagues in Ath-
ens and the possibility of the revival of old oracles in the time of the Peloponnesian War. It would be
natural to give new honors to the Mother after the plague of 430-426 B.C. Something similar may have
happened in the case of Apollo and Herakles Alexikakos, giving rise to the mistaken idea that their cults
were founded in the time of the Peloponnesian War.
55AJA 84, 1980, p. 220.
56For the identity of Aphrodite in the Homeric Hymn with the Mountain Mother, see Nilsson, op. cit.
(footnote 54 above), pp. 522-523. For identification of the Mother of the Gods with Aphrodite in a Ro-
man dedication from the Piraeus, see IG I12, 4714 (time of Augustus).
57Harrison, op. cit. (footnote 35 above), pp. 373-376, pl. 82. Despinis,
EvAuoxrj,
pp. 188-189. W.
Fuchs, op. cit. (footnote 30 above), p. 210, fig. 225. Fuchs repeats the erroneous statement of his first
edition that the lower part of the figure is restored 10-15 cm. too short. Actually the fragments join contin-
uously from top to bottom, though this is not readily apparent on the surface of the restored statue.
58A striking example of wind-blown drapery as an attribute is to be found in the Oreithyia (Q) of the
west pediment of the Parthenon.
59Harrison, loc. cit. (footnote 57 above). Despinis (loc. cit. [footnote 57 above]) agrees that the statue
is close to Master A.
60S. von Bockelberg, op. cit. (footnote 43 above), pp. 46-48.
61These qualities are well described by Bockelberg. Cf. Harrison, review of AntP XVIII, AJA 85, 1981,
pp. 232-234.
these mainland sculptors, probably Kalamis,62 may have been the designer of the meto-
pes, and he or one of his followers may have returned around 430 B.C. to take responsi-
bility for the friezes, associating with himself some younger island marble-cutters,
whose master may have been Agorakritos. The material of the friezes was the same
relatively coarse-grained Parian marble that had been used for the metopes, and it is
reasonable to assume that this material had already been acquired in the earlier building
period of the temple. One would want carvers who were familiar with this kind of stone,
not men whose only experience had been with Attic marble. One of these, perhaps
even the man who carved slab V of the east frieze of the Theseum, may have been the
sculptor of our statuette. The figure has something of Kalamis in its descent from the
Kore Albani and something of Agorakritos in its contemporary connections. The The-
seum sculptures seem to spring from the workshop of Kalamis and at the same time the
frieze of the Nike Temple is in many ways a continuation of their style. So long as we
cannot date the ends of the careers of Kalamis and of Agorakritos, it will remain diffi-
cult to untangle the skein of collaboration and mutual influence in the post-Parthenon
period, but works such as the Agora maiden help us to see what was going on.63
IDENTIFICATION AND USE OF THE STATUETTE
The Agora statuette is unusual not simply because of the fine detail that was lav-
ished on its back, but because the three-quarters back view from the proper left side
(P1. 4:c) seems to have interested the sculptor more than any other. From this angle
the somewhat crudely cut channels in the chiton on the left side disappear and the
pattern of the soft folds shows to advantage. At the same time the carefully worked out
pattern of the chiton folds below the nape and over the right shoulder can be enjoyed
together with the rich loops of the chiton sleeve under the right arm. The front of the
figure, by contrast, is treated rather like the side plane of a figure in relief.
Perhaps this interest in the oblique back view of the maiden compensated for a lack
of interest in the back of the figure with which she was grouped.
That would have been
the case if the second figure was enthroned. Since a votive relief from Eleusis, earlier
than our statuette, shows Kore as a very young girl clad in a chiton with
long kolpos
approaching an enthroned Demeter,64 the identification of our group as Demeter and
Kore seems the most probable.
Though its style is a
purely marble style, the minutely detailed execution of our
small figure assimilates it to votives in bronze and makes it
virtually
certain that its use
62See footnote 6 above.
63Somewhere in this world Kallimachos must have got his start. If he were in some sense a pupil of
Kalamis, it would explain the fact that Dionysios of Halikarnassos couples the names of the two sculptors
as representing a graceful and natural style like that of Lysias (Isokrates 3).
64G. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton 1961, fig. 67, pp. 191-192. Mylonas inter-
prets the figure as Hekate, but A. Peschlow-Bindokat ("Demeter und Persephone in der attischen Kunst,"
JdI 87, 1972, p. 110) and H. Metzger (Recherches sur I'imagerie athenienne, Paris 1965, p. 22) maintain the
identification as Kore.
was votive rather than architectural. We have no way of knowing where the group was
set up nor when it suffered the damage indicated by the ancient repairs. The context in
which it was found long postdates the Herulian destruction of A.D. 267, but the careful
technique of the repair, as shown by the smoothed joint surface in the left hand, sug-
gests an earlier date. We may recall that Homer Thompson also found, about 100 me-
ters to the northwest of where the statuette was discovered, an inscribed 4th-century
base which once carried bronze statues of a prominent Athenian and his wife dedicated
to Demeter and Kore. This was re-used in a context which suggested that it had
suffered in the Sullan sack of 86 B.c.65 Perhaps our group belonged to the same, still un-
identified sanctuary of the Two Goddesses outside the northwest corner of the Ath-
enian Agora.
EVELYN B. HARRISON
INSTITUTE OF FINE ARTS
1 East 78 Street
New York, NY 10021
65H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, XIV, The Agora of Athens, Princeton
1972, pp. 154-155, pl. 78:c, with earlier references. The statue of the wife was signed by Praxiteles.
PLATE 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
a. Statue of a maiden, Agora S 65, front.
Agora photo b. Agora S
65, back. Agora photo
c. Agora S 65, three-quarters back.
Agora photo d. Agora S 65, left side. Agora photo
EVELYN B. HARRISON: A CLASSICAL MAIDEN FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA
PLATE 5
a. "Kore Albani" (from
cast in
Hamburg).
Museum photo
b. Nemesis of Rhamnous, copy in Copen-
hagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek. Museum
N photo
c.
"Lateran
Agrippina",
Vatican Museum. d. "Kore Grimani", Venice, Museo
Vatican photo Archeologico. Photo DA! Rome
PLATE 6
I . c. "Zeus", Dresden Museum. Museum photo
a, b. Velletri Athena, front and side. Museo Nuovo.
Photo DAI Rome
-Yi ' ; i
- -- e. Votive
reliefho
to
Askepos
Athens
,NM13.
d. Votive relief, Agora S 2050.
Agora photo
PLATE 7
V.~ ~ ~
a. Votive relief, Agora S 621. Agora photo
b. Relief dedicated by Archandros to the Nymphs,
Athens, N.M. 1329. Photo DAI Athens
d. Statuette dedicated at
-s < c. Copy of Hera Borghese, Rhamnous by Lysikleides,
M
IRbuseum photo
PLATE 8
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I.
$ I
t - b. Theseum east
frieze, figure 23, detail.
f t 11 ; ^. Agora photo by Alison Frantz
a. "Kore Grimani", left side. Photo DAI Rome
[ it
A~~~~~~~A
4v ~ ~ :
c. Temple of Athena
Nike,
East
Frieze, detail. From
a cast (from Blumel)
d. Nike Parapet, West Face, Leaning
Nike.
Photo by William R. Biers
THE EARLIEST ATHENIAN GRAVE
(PLATE 9)
N THE SPRING of 1935 during his important excavations on the West Side of the
Agora, Homer Thompson came upon a very early burial made before the Agora
became the civic center of ancient Athens. The grave was located in a small side cham-
ber at the bottom of a deep shaft three meters below the surface of bedrock just to the
east of the porch of the Hellenistic Metroon (5.60 m. below its lowest course of poros
with the consequence that the burial was never disturbed in the repeated building opera-
tions in this area; Fig. 1). It contained a complete male skeleton in contracted position
on its side provided with two crude handmade bowls as offerings, one at the head, the
other at the feet, and was published in the preliminary report as "Late Neolithic before
3000 B.c."1 There were, however, certain anomalies about this burial-the form of the
grave at the bottom of a deep shaft which filled up with water so that a well could not be
excluded, and the predominantly Middle Helladic character of the pottery from the fill.2
In preparing the publication of the prehistoric material from the Agora during the
1960's, I discovered that this burial in the Metroon drain cutting at I 9:2 was my most
controversial deposit. Because of the nature of the fill and the lack of clear parallels
among our Neolithic material I finally, without much enthusiasm, reassigned it to the
early Middle Helladic period or the time of Lerna IV,3 a redating which has recently
come under discreet criticism.4
Since it is not only a question of a thousand years but of the uniqueness of the
burial if it is indeed Neolithic, in comparison with quite a few Middle Helladic graves in
Athens,5 I propose here to re-examine the evidence and bring it up to date in the light
of
IT. Leslie Shear, Hesperia 5, 1936, pp. 20-21; AJA 39, 1935, pp. 439-441, where he acknowledges
the
assistance of Mrs. Leslie W. Kosmopoulos in identifying the Neolithic character of the pots. In "Buildings
on the West Side of the Agora," Hesperia 6, 1937, p. 1, Homer Thompson refers to this early burial (with-
out date) and shows its location on p. 120, fig. 64, section C-C with respect to the plan of the Metroon on
p1. VI.
Special abbreviations used in this article are as follows:
Agora XIII = Sara A. Immerwahr, The Athenian Agora, XIII, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages,
Princeton 1971
Keos I = John E. Coleman, Keos, I, Kephala, Princeton 1977
2The excavator apparently had some doubts about its date, and discussed them with me-without prej-
udice, I might add-as I was working on the prehistoric material from the Agora. It is my hope that this
article, by restoring the Metroon Grave to its rightful importance, will make amends for my previous
error
of judgment.
3Agora XIII, pp. 92-93, pls. 27-28, 71 and 78.
40. T. P. K. Dickinson, The Origins of Mycenaean Civilization (SIMA 49), Goteborg 1977, pp. 61 and
116, note 9 with reference to Renfrew who maintained a Late Neolithic date (Colin Renfrew,
The Emer-
gence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C., London 1972, pp. 70,
110-
111, 195, and fig. 7:6).
5Maria A. Pantelidou, At ITpourropLKat 'A6Pvat, Athens 1975, pp. 49-54 and 247-249; S. A. Immer-
wahr, AJA 82, 1978, pp. 407-409 (review of Pantelidou).
THE EARLIEST ATHENIAN GRAVE
55
A C
D E
F G H I J K L NM N 0 P
R T U VW
X
Y
_
0
* ^ . . . - ! 2
*400 .4.0
o~~~~~~~~~~~~
AGOPA
EXCAVATIOH
-
~~~~503
ERIDANOS
A
50
100
4
/
4
|
|
5z/ \ r-\ l _t
<
S
NEOLITHIC
5
_) /~ -~s--701^ "''Kl, 07
WELLS *
6
K&1
~~~077 075
-
l / t--___ ) )"'t'0 __? i__ _n f) 0r72 05R-
72 MIDDLE HELLADIC
7
072/
%:
J84,
/ t / d V
t BURIAL $
9 KO~~~~~LON03 9 /KOLONOS / r-- ,; h E2 / g 1
4~~~~t~o
eIt
PITS & BOTHROI
t
r
9 X -ol / l sL j t ,
--------10
1
04.eD5
STRATIFIED DEPOSITS T H
MYCENAEAN
11
/_-_-______EL_-------
WELLS
1
------1----- L ---Jr GRAVES -
!
/.\t 2 ' A/' |
-
--
CHAMBER TOMBS 131
14 / ) >'- __ =, ~ *^2
N43
PITS & BOTHROI
* 1
15ie.2 .M/ ffff / _ _ _
1410
STRATIFIED FILLS +
400
?009 !;X/ \ wo | ?
17i, S S:;S.;NL
-
- - - \v- [17
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~~~~~~~~~~~18
AW
I
ELSINION
20
21 2000 0002
M 215 AR21;4
N,
t 6 I ARE0>AGUS I
&
1-221
22
23~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2
- T24 4\# ONU242
T2410 * (U243 *2124
Ti424* k* U251 MYCENAEAN
25~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-U4 SPRING-MCOjSE
________ T25=-= J - 4 51
T261~~ ~~ *up
27 570 T67
S27 20 * ~ ~~~~2
*S277 -
28
1
I I
1
8 } \ ) -- F?282* ssi
810 f
1 1 1 X )
\
+? tX tACrOPOLI3
28
I 2
~\ > \qv () / / rg / / f / g 2 (7 NINA TRAVLOU
1963 3
A
fi |
B
|
C
g DC| E | FO| G |
H
|
I
#
J
K
! I
L
!
M
I
N
o0
P
fQ I R S TC | VRI
W X
I
Y
FIG. 1. Neolithic, Middle Helladic, and Mycenaean Wells in the Agora Excavations
56 SARA A. IMMERWAHR
more recently discovered comparative material. We now know much more about very
late or Final Neolithic of about 3500-3000 B.C., notably from the Kephala cemetery on
Keos, and the later deposits from the Kitsos cave near Laurium and the Franchthi cave.
In establishing the date of the Agora burial there are basically four avenues of
investigation: (1) the form of the grave and the attendant burial, including the skeletal
analysis, (2) the pottery offerings, (3) the filling of the shaft, and (4) the relationship
both topographically and chronologically of this single isolated burial to the Neolithic
material recovered from the wells on the northwest slope of the Acropolis, which also
contained skeletal material.
The form of the grave still remains puzzling and without contemporary parallels,
although the "double grave" at Corinth and the rock-cut tombs at Manika in Euboia
have been cited.6 These, however, are clearly of the Early Bronze Age and not particu-
larly early, the Corinth grave having some distinctive Early Helladic II pottery while
other pieces resemble the Anatolian- and Cycladic-inspired pottery of the Manika graves
which foreshadow Early Helladic III.7 In other words, the form of grave, rock-cut with a
deep shaft, would be more in accord with the later date assigned the burial in Agora
XIII and presents us with the paradox of a gap of 1000 or more years from Final Neo-
lithic to the graves at Corinth and Manika. Although Dickinson and Renfrew imply that
there was a tradition for such tombs on the mainland and in the Cyclades, I have not
found their intervening parallels particularly close.8 Late Neolithic likewise is unproduc-
tive of real parallels: cave burials at Franchthi and at Alepotrypa in the Mani,9 pit
graves at Lerna,10 and the Kephala cemetery of proto-Cycladic cist and built graves on
Keos,11 in short nothing to compare to our three-meter deep shaft.12 Thus, the grave
form is unique for this period and has its closest parallels at Corinth and at Manika in
Euboia toward the end of the third millennium.
The skeleton, although crushed, was complete and in its original position, an adult
male between 30 and 35 years lying on his right side with head toward the opening
of
6By both Dickinson and Renfrew (footnote 4 above). T. W. Heermance and G. D. Lord,
"Pre-Myce-
naean Graves in Corinth," AJA, ser. 2, 1, 1897, pp. 313-332; Manika graves: G. A. Papavasileiou,
kept'
TnO ev Evl' Etoa
&pXar~v
r&a/ov, Athens 1910.
7See Jeremy B. Rutter, Ceramic Change in the Aegean Early Bronze Age (Occasional Paper 5,
Institute
of Archaeology, University of California), Los Angeles 1979, pp. 4-6 and Table 2.
8The rock-cut tombs at Phylakopi have short horizontal dromoi and elaborate chambers (cf.
Christos
Doumas, Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades [SIMA 481, G6teborg 1977, p. 49 and fig. 35),
while the Early Helladic tombs at Zygouries are irregular oval chambers only a meter below the surface
(Carl W. Blegen, Zygouries, Cambridge, Mass. 1928, pp. 42-55).
9Franchthi: Hesperia 42, 1973, pp. 277-282; Alepotrypa: AAA 4, 1971, pp. 12-26, figs. 15-17,
pp.
289-394, figs. 3-5.
'0Hesperia 27, 1958, pp. 136-137, pl. 37:a-c; 28, 1959, p. 205, pl. 41:a, b.
"Keos I, pp. 103-105.
12The possibility of its having been dug as a well with the side chamber added and more crudely
cut
for a burial seemed real enough to the excavator (Notebook E, p. 904) because of the copious amount of
water pouring in, but it is difficult to see how this could have been accomplished, and the relatively
good
preservation of skeleton and pots would argue against this. Likewise Shear's suggestion that the Middle
Helladic people converted the grave into a well seems unlikely. Possibly the watertable has changed.
THE EARLIEST ATHENIAN GRAVE 57
the shaft and knees drawn up in a position much like that of the Late Neolithic burials
at Lerna and Alepotrypa. It was sent to the American Museum of Natural History in
New York, where it was studied by J. L. Angel and presented as a Type A 1 "Basic
White" modified in a Dinaric-Mediterranean (Type F 1) direction, consistent with other
Neolithic skulls from the Agora.13
The crucial argument for a Final Neolithic date comes, however, from the two
simple and crude pots deposited as offerings in the grave.14 Although at the time of
writing they did not seem to have much in common with the more characteristic Neo-
lithic shapes and fabrics from the well deposits, such as the Red Burnished biconical
jars, incised scoops, and decorated coarse ware,15 an impartial re-examination suggests
that they are not inconsistent with our Neolithic ceramic repertory. They have more in
common, however, with the pottery from the Kephala graves, and indeed it is the
excellent and full publication of Keos I that has led me to re-examine our much scrap-
pier material for other parallels.
I offer here new photographs and a somewhat fuller description of these two pots,
which should supersede the catalogue entries for nos. 384 and 385 in Agora XIII.
P 6072 = Agora XIII, no. 384 P1. 9:b and d Flaring open bowl on high foot ring, very badly
At foot of skeleton. H. 0.095 m. (without han-
shaped, the mouth an irregular oval from handle
dies), D. 0.102 to 0.112 m. Entire upper part of to handle, the ring foot varying in height from
both handles restored in plaster as well as frag- 0.02 to 0.025 m. The handles, although restored
ments from side walls.
above rim, must have been similar to reconstruc-
Fabric coarse, but not particularly heavy, reddish
tion, that is, a loop handle rising from plastic
with quartzite inclusions. Orange-red slip showing ridges attached to side walls, these also very irreg-
traces of burnishing strokes interior and exterior ular, one pair vertical and close together, the oth-
without producing a pattern or even a lustrous
er running obliquely.
surface. Surface considerably coated with calcite
accretions from long burial.'6
The Middle Helladic parallels cited in Agora XIII were based primarily on the
general crudeness of fabric and the rising loop handle,17 but occurred on much smaller
pots without burnishing and without attached ribs from the handles. These last two
13J. Lawrence Angel, "Skeletal Material from Attica," Hesperia 14, 1945, pp. 279-363, here no. 2 (27
AA), pp. 291-292, fig. 1, pl. 41:2. Whether a later dating would be ruled out is hard to say, but six out of
ten skulls at Kephala were also Basic White "large-headed, deep-jawed and rugged" as was our Athenian
(see Angel in Keos I, p. 137) and the Lerna Late Neolithic burial at JC-1 produced the skull of a woman
of much the same type (J. Lawrence Angel, Lerna, II, The People, Princeton 1971, pp. 40-41, no. 242, pl.
I). By Lerna IV and V new elements had been introduced which are visible even to the untrained eye in
some of the longer and high-headed Type D Nordic-Iranian skulls from the Middle Helladic cist-grave
cemeteries (Lerna II, pp. 41-66 and 111).
"Agora XIII, nos. 384 and 385, p. 93 and pls. 27 and 71.
"Agora XIII, pp. 22-25, nos. 1-18, pls. 1, 2 (Red Burnished jars); pp. 35-37, nos. 111-124, pl. 8
(scoops); pp. 38-42, nos. 130-170, pls. 9-11 (decorated coarse ware).
16I have profited from looking again at these two pots and discussing their fabric and condition with
Stephen P. Koob, Conservator at the Agora.
17Hetty Goldman, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge, Mass. 1931, p. 177, fig. 245:5 and 6.
features, as well as the high foot ring, all occur on our Neolithic Red Burnished bowls,
but usually much more carefully executed.18 The fabric, however, of some of our plain
coarse and semicoarse ware with a red slip is not dissimilar.19 On the other hand, we
have no parallel for the rising loop handles as restored on our bowl, nor do there seem
to be any among the Kephala bowls, but it would be difficult to suggest an alternative
restoration. A general parallel, which has been cited, is the spreading open bowl on a
ring base with a tab on rim and a horizontally pierced lug on the wall from Grave 20 at
Kephala,20 which, although it has traces of crusted red on the exterior and is consider-
ably more flaring, is as close a parallel as I have found.
The second bowl from our grave is better made and is perhaps somewhat earlier, to
judge from the fact that it was mended when deposited as a grave offering.
P 6073 = Agora XIII, no. 385 P1. 9:a and c Flaring hemispherical bowl with flattened bot-
tom and outturned lip. Double-scalloped tab rises
At head of skeleton. D. 0.175 m. Fragments from rim on one side; second opposite tab re-
missing from wall, restored in plaster. Somewhat stored. Vase had been broken and mended before
better levigated clay with quartzite inclusions, fired being deposited in grave; three pairs of drilled
grayish tan; dark brown to black burnished slip holes alongside fracture.
interior and exterior, much flaked and crackled. No Middle Helladic parallels cited.
Although at first glance the fabric looks quite different from our characteristic
Neolithic wares, without the reddish color of the Red Burnished or the more solidly
gray to black of the Gray Burnished, a fragment from one of our Neolithic wells has an
identical crackled dark burnished slip and belonged to a deep bowl with outturned lip
that could well have resembled the one from the grave.21 In general shape our bowl is
closer to the Kephala example cited above, but it lacks the ring foot. Tab handles are
also frequent at that site, sometimes notched or scalloped as on our example, and
where the bowl is complete, as in Kephala no. 104, there is only one tab per rim (sug-
gesting perhaps that the restoration of a second here is incorrect).22 Tab handles may be
a Cycladic feature, as rather similar examples occur at Saliagos in somewhat earlier
material.23 Pierced lugs are the more characteristic Agora handle, although other forms
occur, and it is now possible to recognize at least two examples of tabs, both of which
are small fragments broken from the rim with only a small amount of wall preserved.24
'8Cf. Agora XIII, nos. 33-35, 55, pls. 4 and 68.
19Cf. Agora XIII, nos. 127, 171, 193, 196, pls. 9, 12, and 13.
20Keos I, p. 65, no. 104, pls. 28 and 76, cited by Renfrew, op. cit. (footnote 4 above), p. 70.
"Agora XIII, no. 78, pls. 6 and 69.
22Keos I, p. 14, pl. 29:P (= pl. 75:AX); 29:N (= pl. 75:AP); 38:P (= pl. 85:AT and AV), the last
almost identical to ours.
23J. D. Evans and Colin Renfrew, Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos, Oxford 1968, fig. 58, nos. 6,
9, 10 and pl. XXXI:a. For chronological relationship of Saliagos to Kephala see Keos I, pp. 98-99.
24Agora XIII, nos. 128 and 129, pls. 9 and 69. On p. 38 there was some doubt expressed as to how
these small fragments should be restored.
Mend holes occur at Kephala in complete or nearly complete pots, and probably this is
also the explanation for the bored holes occurring in isolation on certain Agora sherds.25
While the grave offerings now speak unequivocally for a Final Neolithic date for
the burial, the fill of the shaft suggested a different conclusion and was one of the main
arguments for assigning the grave to Middle Helladic. Over one hundred fragments of
Gray and Yellow Minyan, some Middle Helladic plain and Mattpainted were dominant
in the pottery, as well as a few pieces of earlier EH II slipped and polished, but much
was too badly worn and small to be identified and some Neolithic may have been pres-
ent.26 There was also a lot of bedrock, including "pieces the size of a man's head," and
relatively little pottery from a three-meter deep shaft. The only explanation that seems
consistent with the grave offerings is to conclude that the shaft was dug in order to make
the burial and was closed immediately thereafter with the bedrock and earth from the
excavation, which may have included a few Neolithic sherds. A gradual subsidence
must have led to the later filling-up of the hole with whatever refuse was available, as
in the case of our other Middle Helladic bothroi and gullies.27 Perhaps more pertinent
to the fill of our shaft is the existence of a well-traveled road along the West Side of the
Agora, which, from the evidence of stratified deposits near the Tholos, surely went
back at least to Early Helladic times.28 The condition of much of the small worn scraps
of unidentifiable pottery from our shaft strongly suggests road metal, as does a stone
arrowhead or point (no. 386) which shows considerable secondary wear.29
Although it now seems certain that the Metroon burial must be reassigned to the
Final Neolithic period, this redating raises a topographical problem, which may have a
chronological significance. Whereas Middle Helladic pottery was plentiful throughout
the Agora area wherever bedrock was reached,30 the recognizable Neolithic material
25Keos I, p. 10 and pls. 79 (no. 170) and 80 (no. 136). Cf. Agora XIII, nos. 24, 56 and 100.
26In restudying this deposit (September 1977), I carefully sorted, counted and bagged the recognizable
fragments and put them in one tin; the residue, consisting of insignificant scraps scarcely larger than 2 sq.
cms., coarse, well worn, and without distinguishing features, came to about one half tin. The excavator's
notebook (E, p. 901) speaks of a "uniform filling with rocks the size of a man's head and oply a few
sherds with the majority coming from sifting earth" and thus provides no record of where within the three-
meter depth the Gray Minyan and clearly identifiable MH material came from.
"Agora XIII, pp. 51-52 (deposits at B 21:15, G 19:1, and R 21:4).
28Agora XIII, pp. 52 and 113. Cf. plan, pl. 90 for location of ancient roads in Agora going back to
Bronze Age and possibly Neolithic times. Inventoried sherds from West Side of Agora are nos. 241 and
243 (EH) and nos. 283, 292, and 346 (MH).
29No. 386 (Agora XIII, p. 93 and pl. 28) has recently been re-examined by Steven R. Diamant, who
has identified the material as black flint rather than obsidian and the object as a rough point more like the
scraper from Kephala (Keos I, p. 42, no. 90, pls. 25 and 70) than a tanged arrowhead like those from
Saliagos (op. cit. [footnote 23 above], fig. 66 and pl. XXXVII) or from MH deposits cited in Agora XIII.
See also S. Diamant, "A Barbed and Tanged Obsidian Point from Marathon," JFA 4, 1977, pp. 381-386.
30The presence of Minyan and Mattpainted was everywhere noted by the excavators, and much is
preserved in basement storage. The inventoried sherds referred to above, footnote 28, represent only a
small portion of what was available, and several pieces found their way into the fill around Geometric
graves near the Tholos (Agora XIII, nos. 283, 292, 346).
came almost entirely from the 20 wells at the northwest corner of the Acropolis in the
area of the Klepsydra, with only a few items in our catalogue-and these often of a less
destructible nature like the marble statuette (no. 219) from the area of the Eleusinion-
found out of context in the Agora proper.31 At the time of preparing Agora XIII, I
envisaged Neolithic occupancy as restricted to the slopes of the Acropolis, and the
eccentric position of this burial on the West Side of the Agora, some distance from the
Acropolis, was certainly a contributing argument in rejecting a Neolithic date. The
picture, however, is not quite so clear cut today, for it is becoming apparent that acci-
dents of excavation, or preservation of remains, may have distorted it. In 1965 during
stratigraphic tests in the area of the Middle Stoa a shallow well was discovered at M
14:1.32 Since it yielded only a half-dozen scraps of pottery and since this author was not
on hand, it was not included in Agora XIII, although its location is marked on the plan,
pl. 91, where it was given a Middle Helladic designation. Through the kindness of John
McK. Camp II, who was curious as to the date of the well, my attention has just now
been called to this deposit and to its one significant pottery fragment (P 27425), which
doubtless led to an Early Helladic or Middle Helladic designation.33 Far from being an
example of EH III to early MH incised "Adriatic ware", the fragment in question repre-
sents our best preserved "scoop" fragment of the Final Neolithic period with parallels
among the material from our wells and from Kephala. I publish it here with photo-
graphs and drawings.34
P 27425. Fragment of a scoop. P1. 9:e, f spring and beginning of the band handle, the end
From shallow well between Middle and South of which appears on the interior as a little ex-
Stoas at M 14:1. crescence.
P. H. 0.07 m., W. of handle 0.04 m. Pinkish Broad incised lines (made by a blunt instrument
buff clay with some grit; possible traces of red as in other examples of this class): oblique parallel
surfacing and perhaps cream slip in incisions. lines on handle, a zigzag line between double par-
Three joining fragments broken all around, but allel lines top and bottom extending horizontally
clearly from the back of a scoop bowl with the on bowl.
Although the handle is less broad and much simpler in its decoration than on the
Sesklo scoop or Kephala no.
98,35
the general layout of the decoration on the bowl with
310f the 218 items in our Neolithic pottery catalogue, only three came from the Agora proper (no.
48,
Middle Stoa building fill; nos. 36 and 66, miscellaneous finds), the rest from the 20 wells. The marble
statuette (no. 219) from the area of the Eleusinion came from "demolition marbles", and the celt no. 222
(as well as other inventoried, but uncatalogued, stone objects) was a "miscellaneous find."
32Hesperia 35, 1966, p. 45 and pl. 16:a (where well is referred to as EH). Mention is made of the
dressing-down of bedrock over a large area deep beneath the Middle Stoa, which certainly
would have
obliterated most prehistoric material and which apparently all but destroyed
our well at M 14:1.
33Parallels cited on the inventory card are to fragments from the North Slope (Hazel D. Hansen,
"The
Prehistoric Pottery on the North Slope of the Acropolis, 1937," Hesperia 6, 1937, p. 545, fig. 4), clearly
so-
called "Adriatic ware" which belongs to an EH III to MH I horizon contemporary
with Lerna IV. The
shapes are very different from P 27425, and the incisions scratchier with sharper
walls.
34Drawing and profile by Christopher A. Pfaff, regular member of the ASCS at Athens, 1980/81.
35Cf. Agora XIII, pl. 8 (Sesklo scoop) and Keos I, pl. 82.
two parallel lines running almost horizontally from the bottom of the handle and with a
pattern of oblique lines above-here a simple zigzag rather than the interlocking trian-
gles and meandroid squares of the Sesklo scoop-shows an awareness of the more
highly decorated examples, present in a few scraps from the Agora wells.36 Our closest
parallel for the new fragment is no. 120 from the well at U 24:2 which preserves the
back of the bowl and the lower attachment of a broad band handle with two diagonal
incisions.37 Whether these scoops were all made locally, as Coleman suggests,38 seems
to me highly doubtful, given the complexity of the form, and I would favor a single
center of export (Thessaly?) for the more highly decorated examples with local imita-
tion for the cruder specimens.
Whatever the origin and use of these enigmatic vessels, the occurrence of one in
an archaeological context in the central Agora extends the area of Final Neolithic occu-
pancy from the slopes of the Acropolis toward the Kolonos Agoraios and the burial at
I 9:2. Whether this has a chronological implication suggesting a later spread from the
Acropolis slopes is difficult to assess and can only be determined by the relationship of
the Metroon burial and its pottery to that of the 20 wells on the northwest slope.
The shaft of our grave is dug in much the same way as the wells, some of which
are much deeper,39 but most within the three- to four-meter range with some even
shallower. They too are circular, roughly cut with a diameter ranging from 0.75 m. to
somewhat over a meter, and although some of the shallower ones showed no presence
of water and were apparently abandoned when an intractable boulder was encountered,
most were clearly wells with a good water supply. The fill in no case could be clearly
divided into use and dump fill, but it seems likely that the more or less complete Red
Burnished jars40 should be connected with the use of the wells. Although these wells
were dug carefully by the late Arthur W. Parsons over 40 years ago with the material in
most cases separated according to upper and lower levels, the dump did not seem to be
stratified.41 This fill also included animal bones (bos, capra, ovis, sus, cervus) and shells
(cardium murex) attesting to near-by habitation, and at least five wells yielded human
skeletal material, including three skulls from one well, one each from two others.42 This
36Nos. 111, 116, 117 and 121 (cf. Agora XIII, p. 12, note 64).
37Agora XIII, pl. 8, no. 120.
38See Keos I, pp. 16-17, Form C 1, and p. 101 for discussion of comparative material.
39The deepest Neolithic well at U 24:2 was 7.70 m., two others at S 27:4 and U 24:3 were over 5
meters deep.
40Agora XIII, p. 2, nos. 1, 2, 3, 5.
41In 1967 when I had finished the manuscript of Agora XIII, I had come to the conclusion that it was
impossible to establish a chronological sequence for the wells, or individually within their respective depos-
its, but today with more stratified deposits of Final Neolithic in the Kitsos cave, at Thorikos and in Euboia
(see below, footnote 46) it may be possible to separate out earlier and later elements, and particularly to
establish the relationship of our best Red Burnished biconical jars to coarser wares.
42Three skulls (31, 32, and 33 AA) from the well at U 26:2 were published by Angel, op. cit. (footnote
13 above), pp. 293-294, nos. 3, 4, 5, pl. XLI; one skull (1 AA) from U 25:1, Angel, p. 291, no. 1, pl. XLI.
A fifth (7 AA) from the well at S 27:4 was not included. A human humerus was found in each of two
wells (S 27:5 and T 26:3).
is surely an indication that burials must have taken place in the area, probably not in
any of these shafts, which did not yield complete skeletons and seem clearly to have
been cut as wells, but perhaps in the near-by caves of the North Slope. The association
of burials and domestic remains in, or in the vicinity of, caves is characteristic of Final
Neolithic deposits at Kitsos, Franchthi, and Alepotrypa on the Greek mainland, and
differs from the ordered separation of domestic and cemetery areas at Kephala on
Keos.43
On the other hand the close relationship of the Agora Neolithic to Kephala is
clearly attested in such pottery forms as the scoops, coarse-ware pithoi with specialized
lug handles and ornamental plastic bands, the head of a terracotta figurine of proto-
Cycladic type (Agora XIII, no. 220), and numerous other details enumerated by Cole-
man.44 There is not identity of culture, however, and our Red Burnished with painted
patterns seems to have more in common with pottery from the Kitsos cave45 than with
most of the Pattern Burnished pottery from Kephala. Parallels also exist in Euboia46 and
in the Red Monochrome ware from Palaia Kokkinia near Piraeus.47 It is perhaps safe to
conclude with Coleman that the Agora material covers a longer period of time. Where
the Metroon burial fits into this sequence is not yet clear. Although its offerings have
parallels with the Kephala pottery, as well as with some of the pieces from the wells, it
seems to me to belong to a slightly later horizon, as its location farther from the Acrop-
olis slopes and caves might indicate. Until Final Neolithic and the transition to Early
Bronze on the mainland has been thoroughly documented in stratified sites like Kephala
on Keos, a more precise dating seems impossible. We can now, however, surely reject a
Middle Helladic date. New material has vindicated Shear's original proposal of Late
Neolithic or "Subneolithic", and the Agora grave with its skeleton 27 AA becomes the
earliest preserved burial of an Athenian.
SARA A. IMMERWAHR
43Keos I, pp. 104-105.
"Keos I, pp. 100-102.
45BCH 93, 1969, p. 965, fig. 17; BCH 95, 1971, p. 711, fig. 22; BCH 96, 1972, p. 823, fig. 7. Cf. with
these Agora XIII, nos. 87-92.
461n his survey of the Karystos area of southern Euboia Donald R. Keller of Indiana University has
found significant Final Neolithic remains at the site of Plakari at the west end of the bay. Through his
kindness I have seen this material in the Karystos Museum, and he has likewise compared it with that in
the Agora. In our opinion his Red Burnished bowls have more in common with the Pattern Burnished
material from Kephala, although a few parallels do exist with Athens. Clearly, however, all three sites
belong to the same chronological and cultural horizon.
4711paKTI-Ka, 1951 [19521, p. 104, figs. 12, 13: cf. Agora XIII, no. 125; p. 106, fig. 19: cf. Agora XIII,
no. 211. I do not share Coleman's opinion that this site must be later than all the Agora Neolithic material
(Keos I, p. 104).
PLATE 9
a. P 6073
b. P 6072
c. P 6073
d.
P 6072
Scale 1:2
e, f. P 27425
SARA A. IMMERWAHR: THE EARLIEST ATHENIAN GRAVE
AN ATHENIAN STELE IN PRINCETON
(PLATE 10)
A SMALL GRAVE STELE, long in the collection of The Art Museum, Princeton Uni-
versity, is finally making its debut. It is a slab of Pentelic marble of the conventional,
slightly tapered shape, rough picked on the back and showing the marks of a claw chisel on
both sides and on the unsculptured areas of the front face (P1. 10).1 The irregular break at
the top rises diagonally from the left, taking part of the relief with it, and then levels off
horizontally. A hint, on the right frame, of the usual inward projection (vestigial capital)
suggests that this horizontal part of the break coincides with the upper edge of the recessed
relief. With the top of the stele went any inscription that identified the deceased. The crest
was probably a simple pediment. The relief shows the deceased standing on the left and
her little maid at the right. The woman wears a chiton that is girdled across the overfold
and further secured by cross straps; falling behind her is a light cloak or veil that she holds
in her left hand and that probably covered her head. The maid, head in profile to the left,
raises a leaf-shaped fan toward her mistress and holds a box against her body with her left
hand; her chiton and somewhat longer undergarment fall from her shoulders.
The stele is a product of an Athenian workshop that turned out grave markers,
records of decrees, and votive reliefs in the early part of the 4th century B.C. The style
falls into place with that of the Athena on the well-known treasury inscription of 398/7
B.C. and related reliefs.2
In his notebook, on the page headed 1899/1900, Professor Allan Marquand, in
charge of the Department of Art and Archaeology and of The Art Museum at Prince-
ton University, made the following entry: Mrs. E. Sandoz presents Athenian stele. In the
Museum's current inventory book, begun in 1923 as a replacement of an old list, the
stele is entered briefly under the number 204 with the additional note that it was pur-
chased in Athens in 1850. The statement about provenience must either depend on
some record no longer in the Museum's files or reflect somebody's memory at the time
of entry (the round number of 1850 suggests a recalled approximation).
Ernest Sandoz, surveyor and civil engineer in Princeton, was the nephew of the
geographer Arnold Guyot (when Guyot came to Princeton from Switzerland in 1854
'Preserved height, 0.77 m. Width, 0.37 m. at bottom, diminishing to 0.355 m. at the level where the
border to the spectator's left is broken. The thickness of the slab diminishes from 0.085 m. at the bottom
to 0.075 m. at the highest preserved point of the right edge. The width of the border behind the maid
diminishes from 0.04 to 0.033 m. in a rise of 0.32 m. The height of the unsculptured lower face is 0.425 m.
As the photograph indicates, there are numerous scratches and abrasions on the surface; the woman's left
hand is chipped, leaving a surface that is relatively modern in its freshness, but not recent (a similar sur-
face is on the lowest point of the break at the left edge near the woman's elbow).
2J. Svoronos, Das Athenischer Nationalmuseum, Athens 1908-1937, pl. CVII, no. 1367 and pp. 601-
604, for the inscription of 398/7; also R. E. Binnebbssel, Studien zu den attischen Urkundenreliefs des 5. und
4. Jahrhunderts, Meeuws 1932, no. 24.
64 FRANCES FOLLIN JONES
with his mother and three sisters, the nephew was part of the family group).' Sandoz's
second wife was Helen Crabbe, daughter of Rear Admiral Thomas Crabbe and donor of
the stele. Her father was the link with Athens. After a career in the United States
Navy, he died in Princeton in 1872 and was buried in Princeton Cemetery; three vol-
umes of archival material, given by Ernest Sandoz, are in the Princeton University
Library and provide a clue to the probable occasion when Crabbe acquired the stele.
The third of the three volumes, covering the years 1851-1855, contains handwritten
copies of official letters (mostly to the Secretary of the Navy) by the then Captain
Crabbe who had been sent to the Mediterranean in command of the U.S. Steam Frigate
San Jacinto. The frigate arrived at Cadiz on March 25, 1852, twenty-two days out of
Norfolk, Virginia,
in what Crabbe refers to as "fair
time", and finally returned to Phila-
delphia on July 5, 1853. The entire voyage was plagued by mechanical difficulties and
mishaps, involving several layovers for repairs (one for more than two months at Tri-
este), leading Crabbe to indicate to his superiors that the frigate was a national embar-
rassment. The vessel was at Piraeus at least from August 1st to 18th, 1852, while en
route from Constantinople to Trieste. Crabbe mentions the ship's "being assigned to
convey the Hon. George P. Marsh and family to Trieste when his [Marsh's] business
has been concluded with Grecian Government," so one assumes that the captain had a
bit of leisure while in port. The official nature of the correspondence precluded com-
ment on personal trips ashore, but surely this would have been the time when Captain
Crabbe acquired the stele which we present here as a tribute to a former naval
person
whose distinguished career has centered upon Athens.
FRANCES FOLLIN JONES
THE ART MUSEUM
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Princeton, NJ 08544
3I am grateful to Mrs. Robert Gunning of the Historical Society of Princeton, to Mr. Earle Coleman of
Princeton University Archives, and to Mr. Charles E. Greene of Special Collections, Princeton University
Library, for their help in supplying information and documentation about Mr. and Mrs. Sandoz and
Thomas Crabbe. Crabbe's three volumes are in Special Collections under the call number PB1 184.27.
PLATE 10
ki:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.
41
14;
IC,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
FRANCES F. Jo ,;.: AN' ATHENIAN STELE'iNPRINCETON
FRANCES F.
JONES: AN
ATHENIAN
STELE IN
PRINCETON t~
THE ANCIENT IMAGE OF ATHENA POLIAS
(PLATE 11)
But the most holy object, that was so considered by all many years before the unification
of the demes, is the image of Athena which is on what is now called the Acropolis, but in
early days the Polis. A legend concerning it says that it fell from heaven.
T HUS PAUSANIAS1 on the old olive-wood image of Athena Polias in the Erech-
theion. This was the venerable image which was dressed in a newly woven peplos
every four years in the culminating rite of the Greater Panathenaia,2 and which, as if a
protective talisman of the city, was taken aboard ship with the Athenians themselves
during the temporary evacuation of Attica in 480 B.C.3 Yet for all its primacy in the state
religion of Athens, Pausanias says nothing about the image's appearance and thus has
left us to reconstruct it from a number of scattered references and possible reflections
in the minor visual arts.4
For more than a century now, there has been notoriously little scholarly consensus
as to which of this evidence is necessarily relevant, much less as to how it should be
combined. Discussion has polarized around two opposing views. Most earlier scholarship
argued that the image had the form of an armed, fighting Athena, like the convention-
al, standing Palladion type of Athena or like the striding Athenas pictured on Panathe-
naic amphoras.5 A. Furtwdngler, however, proposed that the image was unarmed and
seated;' and in 1908 this view was defended by A. Frickenhaus, who called attention to
epigraphical evidence that the image wore a diadem and held a gold phiale in one
1i.26.6:
TO
8E ayLaYTaToV Ev KOLJNL 7TOXXOLV 7TpOTEpOP
VOIU(TEV
ETETLV J) ioVV7JX\ov aio% TJWv 87.uwv
eo-rV 'A07qva&
aAya\A~a
El
'
V V aKpo0ToXEL, ToTE 8%
6voa~oA
GroE ?r7.r 8E Es aUTO EXEL E7ELJ) EK
ToV oipavov . Translation of W. H. S. Jones, Pausanias I, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass. and
London 1918, p. 137, with minor alterations.
The following special abbreviations will be used in this article:
Herington = C. J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias, Manchester 1955
Shear = T. L. Shear, Jr., Hesperia, Suppl. XVII, Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 286
B.C., Princeton 1978
2Herington, pp. 17, 32-33, with references. On the frequency with which the peplos was dedicated,
now see Shear, p. 36, note 89.
3Plutarch, Themistokles, 10 (quoting Kleidemos), which refers to the loss of TO
yOPolYELOl) a7To T7g
6EOvj TOv ayaX,\LaToc and the subsequent search for it in the baggage being gathered at the Peiraieus during
the evacuation. The gorgoneion was of gold; see footnote 18 below.
4The literary and most epigraphical references are collected in 0. Jahn and A. Michaelis, Arx Athenar-
um, 3rd ed., Bonn 1901, pp. 68-69.
'E.g. 0. Jahn, De antiquissimis Minervae simulacris Atticis, Bonn 1866; L. R. Farnell, The Cults of the
Greek States, Oxford 1896, I, pp. 334-337; J. G. Fraser, Pausanias's Description of Greece, London 1898, II,
p. 341; E. Petersen, Die Burgtempel der Athenaia, Berlin 1907, pp. 40-60.
6A. Furtwdngler, "Athene in der Kunst," in Ausfihrliches Lexikon griechischen und ramischen Mytholo-
gie, Leipzig 1884-1890, W. H. Roscher, ed., I, cols. 687-689.
66 JOHN H. KROLL
hand.' Noting that the only four Archaic portrayals of Athena holding a phiale show her
in a seated posture (e.g., PI. 11:a), that two of these depict her with her helmet re-
moved, and that a copious number of Archaic terracottas from the Acropolis portray a
seated, unarmed Athena clad in a peplos,8 Frickenhaus argued that all these representa-
tions were derived from the ancient cult statue, which therefore was of a seated god-
dess, unhelmeted, and holding out a phiale. But not all authorities were convinced; and,
the decisive detail of the gold phiale notwithstanding, the identification of the cult
statue as that of a fighting Athena enjoyed a brief revival9 before it was finally laid to
rest by C. J. Herington in the most critical and influential review of the problem to
date.10 Although Herington comes out on the side of Frickenhaus' Sitzbild, his endorse-
ment is far from unqualified; for, as he says, the Frickenhaus reconstruction is hazard-
ously dependent on "arguments from the minor arts of a period when most of the
minor artists ... were more likely to reproduce the living, or immortal, goddess as their
contemporaries felt her than a statue only a decade or two old.""1
The truth of these words is brought home when one examines the most elaborate
of Frickenhaus' four representations of a seated Athena holding a phiale (P1. 11:a).
Here the seated goddess faces an altar and temple while a priestess prepares a sacrifice.
As in the other three representations, there is no statue base beneath Athena's stool
nor any other detail of style or iconography to suggest that the Athena is a statue. On
the contrary, the circumstances that she is seated at the altar outside the temple and on
a portable stool rather than a throne imply that it is Athena in person who has come to
partake of the offerings; and, as any banqueter would, she has sat down, removed her
helmet, and extended her cup, the phiale, the normal drinking-cup of the gods.12 Once
it is recognized that a seated Athena with phiale is in effect a banqueting Athena, the
association between posture and vessel is easily understood without reference to a
putative cult statue. As for the seated terracotta Athenas from the Acropolis,
there is
7A. Frickenhaus, "Das Athenabild des alten Tempels in Athen," AthMitt 33, 1908, pp. 17-32. Cf.
idem, Tiryns I, Athens 1912, p. 110, note 1. For the epigraphical evidence, see footnote 18 below.
8Seated Athena with phiale: black-figured kalpis, ABV, p. 393, no. 20 = P1. 11:a, reproduced from E.
Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder, Berlin 1840-58, IV, pl. 242; red-figured sherd by Myson from the Acrop-
olis, AR V2, p. 240, no. 42 = B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen, Berlin
1925-33, II, pl. 72; black-figured lekythos, Athens N.M., no. P 1138 = Frickenhaus, op. cit., figs. 3, 4;
terracotta relief from the Acropolis, ibid., fig. 1 = D. Brooke in S. Casson, Catalogue of the Acropolis
Museum, Cambridge 1921, II, pp. 419-420, nos. 1337, 1338. Seated terracotta Athenas: ibid., pp. 330-332,
355-369.
9E.g., M. Bieber, "Two Attic Black-figured Lekythoi in Buffalo," AJA 48, 1944, pp. 124-129; H. L.
Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, London 1950, pp. 445-449; D. von Bothmer, "A Panathenaic Am-
phora," BMMA 12, 1953, pp. 52-56.
0Herington, pp. 22-26.
'Ibid., p. 24.
12H. Luschey, s. v., 4LaX7J, RE, Suppl. VII, 1950, col. 1030, noting that in the visual arts the gods are
never depicted drinking from stemmed kylikes. Luschey suggests that the gods employed the phiale be-
cause of its sacramental, hence godly, character.
THE ANCIENT IMAGE OF ATHENA POLIAS 67
simply no internal evidence to decide their possible relevance to the old Polias statue
one way or the other.13 Since the case for a seated image of the Polias rests solely on
the conviction that they and the representations of seated Athena with phiale are rele-
vant, it is hard to feel much enthusiasm for it.
To judge from the literary testimonia, one would expect, conversely, that the
image was in fact standing. Aristophanes refers to Athena Polias and the making of her
peplos at Birds, 827-828 and to Athena as fully armed and standing (iravoiroXtav
EOT7'K
EXovO-a)
two lines later; but as Herington demonstrates in detail, these lines are
best understood as allusions to the city goddess herself and need not apply to a statue
(or statues) of her.14 Two other relevant passages, however, are not easily dismissed.
Athenagoras, Legatio, 17.3, attributes three cult statues to the sculptor Endoios: the Ar-
temis in Ephesos, the old olive-wood image of Athena, and the Seated Athena.15 Since
no location for the two Athenas is specified, they are surely images on the Athenian
Acropolis, where Pausanias (i.26.4) saw a seated Athena by Endoios. The juxtaposition
of the old olive-wood Athena with the seated one implies that the former was not
seated. The second passage is from Strabo, xii.1.41, a discussion of whether the Trojan
statue of Athena at Iliad vi.302-303 was a seated or standing figure. Homer assuredly
thought of it as seated since the women of Ilion place a votive peplos "on its knees"
(Eft yoi'vao-tv). But some ancient commentators assumed that it was similar to or
identical with the famous Trojan Palladion, an upright statue of Athena, and that the
peplos must therefore have been placed "beside" the knees of the image. Strabo argues
for the seated interpretation, in part because "many ancient wooden statues of Athena
'3Their relevance is emphatically denied by Brooke, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), pp. 330-332, but is
accepted, although provisionally, by R. A. Higgins, Greek Terracottas, London 1967, p. 72.
14Herington, pp. 24-26.
15To
gv
yap 4v 'E4ocx Tcar
'ApTE'WU80o
Kat to trgs 'A6rjva& (.uaikov 8U
'Affqkav
ta&O77 yap Wk ol
.VcTTLKWTEpOV ovTrw yapt) To T7J' a eXaia' to vakatoa v Kat re v Ka6-jgirrjv 'Ev8o0o0 ElyacoaTo UaO7JT7J
AaLMkov. "Endoios, a disciple of Daedalus, made the statue of Artemis in Ephesus and the ancient olive
statue of Athene (or rather of Athela; for she is Athela, the unsuckled, as those ... the more mystical
sense ... ) and the Seated Athena." Text and translation of W. R. Schoedel, Athenagoras, Legatio and De
Resurrectione, Oxford 1972, pp. 34-36.
Following the edition of J. Geffcken (Zwei griechische Apologeten, Leipzig-Berlin 1907), Herington (p.
24, note 1, and pp. 69-70) argues that the text is too defective at this point to be admitted as evidence.
But it is clear from Schoedel's more recent edition that the only textual problem lies within the parenthe-
sized digression (which itself is largely clarified by paragraph 20.2 of the Legatio). Herington (p. 70) further
objects that Athenagoras is "wildly inaccurate" in his attributions of statues to name artists, although
Herington is able to point to only one such inaccuracy. I have not been able to consult G. Botti, "Atenago-
ra quale fonte per la storia dell'arte," Didaskaleion 4, 1915, pp. 395-417; but Schoedel, who has, writes
(op. cit., p. xx), "that Athenagoras' information on the history of art, though not profound, is ... general-
ly reliable." Certainly there is nothing suspect about Athenagoras' attributions to Endoios. On the author-
ity of Mucianus, Pliny (N.H. xvi.213-214) also names Endoios as the sculptor of the Ephesian Artemis.
And Pausanias (i.26.4) quotes from the inscription on the base of the seated Athena on the Acropolis that
Endoios was the maker (cf. A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, Cambridge, Mass.
1949, pp. 491-492). In support of Athenagoras' attribution of the Polias to Endoios, see below.
68 JOHN H. KROLL
are seen to be seated, such as those in Phokaia, Massilia, Rome, Chios, and several
other places."16 The ancient xoanon of Athena in Athens is conspicuously absent from
this list; and, although Herington counters that the list "seems to be haphazard and
does not claim to be complete,"17 the list is undeniably a learned one and may be less
haphazard than we can judge. The Polias image on the Acropolis was very well known
in antiquity and was included in both Plutarch's and Philostratos' accounts of the most
ancient cult statues in Greece (see below). Had it been seated, and had Strabo men-
tioned it, it would have stood first in his list and would have strengthened his argument
immeasurably. That he does not mention it is less likely to be because of any ignorance
or carelessness on Strabo's part than because, as we have seen from Athenagoras, it
probably was standing.
Another problem regarding the appearance of the Polias concerns the location of
the image's gold owl. Our knowledge of the owl, like that of the phiale, comes from the
inventories of the statue's precious ornaments that were recorded by the Treasurers of
Athena in several traditio inscriptions of the late 370's and early 360's. In the sections
of these inscriptions that catalogue the valuables in the
apXaqo' VEC0;, i.e., the Erech-
theion, the statue's ornaments are listed in unvarying order as "a diadem that the
goddess wears, the earrings that the goddess wears, a band that the goddess wears on
her neck, five necklaces, a gold owl, a gold aegis, a gold gorgoneion, and a gold phiale
that she holds in her hand."18 As throughout these traditio catalogues, each object is
detailed only as much as it had to be for identification. Thus the diadem, earrings, and
neck band at the beginning of the list are principally identified by their attachment to
the image (and hence distinguished from miscellaneous votives in the temple) rather
than by their metal, which, to judge from ancient jewelry in general and in view of the
importance of the image, was almost certainly gold. The owl, aegis, and gorgoneion, on
the other hand, were more concisely and meaningfully described as golden since this far
into the list of ornaments there could be no question that they (and the five necklaces)
belonged on the image. Finally, the phiale is said both to be of gold and held in the
goddess' hand specifically to distinguish it from several, predominantly silver phialai
that were deposited in the cella of the Erechtheion as votive offerings.19
It is clear that the ornaments are systematically catalogued from the headband
downwards and that the owl, which is recorded between the necklaces and the aegis,
must have been perched somewhere about shoulder level. Frickenhaus suggested
that
the owl stood on a pedestal next to the image or on the back of the throne on which his
v6roxxa 8E Tw
apXauov rTjq
'AOqva&, (oavWv Kacd7JuEva 8ELKVVTaL, Kava1TEp Ev (IwKaUa, Maooakia,
PWA/L,
XtC , aX 'aL; ITEL'o0LV.
7Herington, p. 24, note 1.
18IG 112, 1424, lines 11-16; 1425, lines 307-312; 1426, lines 4-8; 1428, lines 142-146; 1429, lines
42-47; and (printed in IG 112, part 2, fasc. II) 1424a, lines 362-366, in which alone the text is preserved
in
full:
0-TEAav7J,
,^v ,^ OEO' EXEL ITacTpa, a ,^ OEO' EXEL O'X6OLf3O, oS EXEL E
T
TL TpaX'XwtL Op/OL
TEVTE'
oy~avf yxpvO, airyLs ypvOT, eOp7OVELOP
OJXTVV-
fLaX7J tJVO, ,^J El T7JL XELPL EXEL.
191n the cella there were four of these silver phialai and one made of gilded wood: IG 112, 1424a,
lines
354, 355, 356, 359, and 371.
Sitzbild sat.20 Herington adds that the owl may equally have been affixed on the god-
dess' shoulder.21 But these conjectures must now be rejected in favor of a fourth possi-
bility, which has some concrete, if indirect, documentary support, namely, that the owl
was held in the goddess' other hand.
In 1979 T. L. Shear, Jr. published a recently excavated Attic inscription of 270/69
that honors a certain Kallias of Sphettos for his many services to Athens.22 From lines
55-70 of the decree we learn that Kallias was sent to the court of Ptolemy II in 279/8
and there persuaded the king to donate a gift of ropes for escorting the peplos at the
Greater Panathenaia in the following year. Somewhat surprisingly, the text (line 65)
refers to the festival as the "Panathenaia for Athena Archegetis" (Ta Hava0rvaux TEL
'ApXYYE'Td[8)
rather than as the Panathenaia for Athena Polias, as one would ordinari-
ly expect, inasmuch as this was the pre-eminent festival of Athena Polias. As noted in
Shear's commentary, the implication is that the epithet Archegetis must be a title of
Athena Polias.23
'ApXi
y'Ts, "First Leader" or "Founder", has always been known as
one of Athena's many epithets at Athens, but never is it attested with any distinctive
civic or religious associations that might indicate whether or how Athena Archegetis
should be distinguished from the city goddess in general.24 Thus before the publication
of the new decree Athena Archegetis was barely more than a name. We can now see
why: she and Athena Polias were apparently one and the same.
Now according to the scholion on Aristophanes, Birds, 516, there existed a statue
of Athena Archegetis and an owl was held in its hand: TI)' 8E
'ApXr'YETL80 'A0rjva3 To'
ayaXApa
ykavKa
EtxEV
Ev r XELPL This notice, however, has never seemed a particular-
ly meaningful gloss on the Aristophanic phrase it is supposed to illuminate, which says
merely that "the daughter of Zeus has an owl."25 One assumes that the statue of Athe-
na Archegetis cited by the scholiast was an Athenian statue; but even so, Athens must
have been full of representations of Athena with an owl, and one must wonder why the
scholiast singled out this particular statue, which is otherwise unmentioned in the sourc-
es. The answer is obvious, of course, if the statue is none other than the old image of
Athena Polias on the Acropolis, the most ancient, the most authoritative, and probably
the best known image of Athena involving an owl. Furthermore, its owl, being of gold
and positioned at shoulder height, was especially prominent. Since the epithets Polias
and Archegetis seem to have been interchangeable, and since there is every reason to
20Frickenhaus, op. cit. (footnote 7 above), p. 24.
2'Herington, p. 23, note 3.
22Shear, footnote 1 above.
23Shear, p. 36, note 88.
24See Plutarch, Alcibiades, 2; Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 644; scholion on Aristophanes, Birds, 516 (see
below); IG II2, 674 (= The Athenian Agora XV, Princeton 1974, no. 78), line 16 (the prytaneis of 273/2
sacrifice to Athena, Archegetis of the City, at the festival of the Chalkeia); and in the following dedicatory
texts: IG II2, 3175, 3176, 3199, and 3474. Cf. Shear, p. 36, note 88.
25Birds, 514-516: ... 6 ZEus yap o vvv f3aGLXEVIWV
v
sor o ets so~K( (X@ IX ^n ean CAv aLETOV OpVLV
EOTT7jKEV
EXWV EITL
T71'
KEaaX-
j3actLXEV'; W*V,
' 8' av9
OvyarT'qp ykaaiX'
. .. .
70 JOHN H. KROLL
believe, therefore, that the scholiast's statue of Athena Archegetis and the old image of
Athena Polias were identical, we may conclude that the image, which was probably
standing, held a gold phiale in one hand and the gold owl in the other.
I have dwelt on this literary and epigraphical evidence because I believe it enables
us to recognize a representation of the Polias image on the reverses of some Athenian
bronze coins of the last third or last quarter of the 3rd century B.C. The coins were
minted in two varieties, the first with the head of Zeus on the obverse (P1. 11:1-4), the
second and more common variety with a head of Artemis on the obverse, so identified
by a quiver at her shoulder (P1. 11:6-12).26 That the standing Athena on the coins'
reverses is explicitly depicted in the form of a statue is clear both from the rigidity of
the goddess' pose and from the conspicuous display of the objects held in her hands: a
phiale in her outstretched right hand and an owl in her left hand, whose upturned palm
is held up at shoulder level so that the owl itself is about even with the image's head.
The image wears a Corinthian helmet and is dressed in a peplos, which blouses out in
an overfold just below the waist but otherwise hangs straight down without a break at
the knees. This last detail, together with the formal, elevated posture of the bent left
arm supporting the owl, indicates that the image antedates the Classical era of Greek
statuary, when balanced, relaxed poses (including an obligatory bent leg for standing
figures) had become the norm. Yet despite the archaic features of the statue's composi-
26Plate 11:1-4, 6, 10-12 are reproduced from J. N. Svoronos, Les monnaies dAthenes, Munich 1923-
26, pl. 25:1-6, 8, 10; P1. 11:5 and 8 from F. S. Kleiner, "The Earliest Athenian New Style Bronze Coins,"
Hesperia 44, 1975, pl. 75, nos. 344 (cf. p. 324) and 89 (cf. p. 306); P1. 11:7 (same reverse die as the cor-
roded P1. 11:6) from F. W. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, Numismatic Commentary to Pausanias, London
1885-1887, pl. AA.ii (cf. pp. 134-135); and P1. 11:9 from B. V. Head, British Museum Catalogue of Greek
Coins: Attica, Megaris, Aegina, London 1888, pl. 15:3 (cf. p. 84).
The approximate date of the coins is deduced from their position (1) following coins of the type
Svoronos, op. cit., pl. 24:10-17 (reverse of owl with amphora), all of which were overstruck on coins of
Antigonos Gonatas, presumably after his death in 240; but (2) preceding coins of the type Svoronos, op.
cit., pl. 81:1-16 (reverse of Zeus holding thunderbolt), which Kleiner, op. cit., p. 328, has firmly dated to
the very end of the 3rd century. The coins therefore were probably minted during the period after Athens
was freed from Macedonian control in 229. If so, their iconography is most plausibly understood as sym-
bolic of Athens' newly won political autonomy, the reverse statue of the city goddess being particularly
evocative in this respect, and the obverse heads of Zeus and Artemis possibly representing Zeus Eleuthe-
rios and Artemis Soteira (cf. the heads of these two divinities and the accompanying inscriptions naming
them on coins of Syracuse during the democracy of 344-317 restored by Timoleon: B. V. Head, On the
Chronological Sequence of the Coins of Syracuse, London 1874 [reprinted from NC, 18741, pp. 24-33, pl.
6:1, nos. 15, 16, pl. 7:8, no. 10). Prophetically (though tenuously, in view of the evidence then available,
cf. Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, op. cit., p. 134, and Head, BM Catalogue: Attica, p. 84), the statue on the
coins' reverses was identified as the Athena Archegetis of the scholion on Birds, 516 by E. Beule, in his
pioneering Les monnaies d'Athenes, Paris 1858, p. 387.
It should be emphasized that the statue on these coins is the first statue of Athena or of any other
deity to appear as an Athenian coin type; and it is furthermore the only statue in the numismatic iconogra-
phy of Athens that can even be suspected of representing the Polias image. There are three reverse types
of an Athena holding a phiale on Athenian coins of the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ (Svoronos, op.
cit., pls. 86:40-42, 87:11-14, and 87:33-37) but none of these have an owl and (like all the Athenas on
Athenian coinage of the Roman period) are rendered in the fully developed Classical style of the time of
the Parthenon and later.
tion, the peplos, as shown on the earlier and more dependably rendered reverses (P1.
11:1-8) hangs most naturalistically, with a rounded flounce of the overfold and some
relatively deep and irregular horizontal and diagonal folds below it.27 Such naturalistic
dress would of course be quite incongruous on a typical Archaic statue made entirely of
stone, bronze, or any other hard material; but it is precisely what we would expect for
the old Polias image that was draped in an actual peplos of cloth.
The only detail that might argue against identifying the statue on the coins with the
Polias image is the helmet, for in the inscribed inventories of the image's ornaments
the goddess' headdress is listed as a UTE4C{ VT). If, however, the helmet were a normal
helmet of bronze, as one would assume from the conventional materials of the image's
woolen peplos and gold jewelry, it would hardly have been inventoried among the
ornaments of precious metal. Moreover, the wearing of a diadem by no means preclud-
ed the wearing of a helmet. The stephane need not have been a large, showy tiara; as
D. B. Thompson writes, "The word appears to be used of almost any ornament that
binds the head, such as a fillet or diadem."28 And we see from Plate 1 :a and other
representations of Athena with her helmet temporarily removed29 that she often wore a
decorative hairband beneath her helmet. In all other respects-phiale, owl 'held at
shoulder height, natural appearance of the peplos, and the archaic, standing pose-the
statue depicted on the coins agrees so exactly with the Polias image as it can be recon-
structed from non-visual sources that it would seem almost perverse not to accept the
identification and to regard the helmet as the one new element of the image that the
coins have to contribute. On the coins, the helmet is tilted far back at about a ninety-
degree angle on the goddess' head, allowing her face to be fully exposed. The diadem
conceivably would have been visible under the helmet at the forehead, above the ears,
or in both places.30
27The internal chronology of the coins can be reconstructed through the progressive simplification of
the reverse-die engraving and the evidence of some probable overstrikes. On the earliest specimens, with a
head of Zeus on the obverse and a dotted border around the circumference of the reverse (P1. 11:1-5), the
statue's drapery is rendered most naturalistically; and P1. 11:1 even shows a slight bend in the right arm of
the image. The realistic drapery is continued into the next phase of the coinage (P1. 11:6-8), with Artemis
head on the obverse and dotted border on the reverse. But in the final Artemis-head phase (P1. 11:9-12),
the dotted border is omitted from reverses and the peplos tends to be rendered rather more schematically,
the overfold being indicated as two pointed "tails". That such archaistic-looking tails are the result of hasty
die cutting and must not be regarded as faithful reflections of the peplos as it was actually seen on the
image is especially clear from the cursive, linear rendering of the entire statue on P1. 11:12. Most of, if not
all, the coins from the third phase of the coinage appear to have been overstruck on earlier specimens with
the Zeus-head obverse.
28D. B. Thompson, "The Golden Nikai Reconsidered," Hesperia 13, 1944, p. 193.
29E.g., the Pheidian "Athena Lemnia" (G. M. A. Richter, Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks, 4th
rev. ed., New Haven 1970, figs. 654-658) and two vase paintings conveniently illustrated in J. Boardman,
Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Archaic Period, London 1975, pls. 160 (amphora by the Berlin Painter,
AR V2, p. 202, no. 77) and 185 (amphora by the Tyszkiewicz Painter, ARV2, p. 1643, no. 33bis).
30Cf. the amphora by the Andokides Painter showing Achilles and Ajax gaming (Boardman, op. cit.,
pl. 2:1; AR V2, p. 4, no. 7). The helmets of both heroes are tilted fairly far back on their heads so that their
headbands are exposed over their ears.
72 JOHN H. KROLL
The representations on the coins show that the phiale, the owl, and the arms,
which were specifically positioned to support these gold objects, were not added piece-
meal but were all elements of a single artistic whole, as parts of which the helmet, the
gold aegis, and the gold gorgoneion were, in all likelihood, also created. The episode in
Plutarch31 that mentions the (temporary?) loss of the gorgoneion during the abandon-
ment of Attica before Salamis provides a terminus ante quem of 480 B.C. for the manu-
facture of this gold-ornamented ensemble. A terminus post quem of approximately 550 is
indicated by the generally Late Archaic aspect of the image (note especially the slight,
relaxed bend in the right arm that extends the phiale, shown on what seems to be the
earliest and most reliable coin reverse, P1. 11:1) and by the form of the helmet, which,
because of the way it is worn, can only have been of the fully developed Corinthian
type. This variety of Corinthian helmet, characterized by extended cheek pieces and a
cut-away neckguard at the back, which together allowed the helmet to be rested hori-
zontally on the top of the head, did not evolve until around the middle of the 6th
century.32 Since the resulting dating of ca. 550-480 corresponds with the career of
Endoios, whose working life A. E. Raubitschek has fixed between ca. 540 and 500,33
the coin representations lend no small credence to Athenagoras' association of the
statue with that master sculptor.
According to no fewer than five ancient authorities, however, the image of Athena
Polias was vastly older than this. As quoted at the beginning of this paper, Pausanias
informs that it was venerated long before the synoikismos of Attica and that it was said
to have fallen from the sky. Others variously attributed its origin to Kekrops, the first
king of Athens (Eusebios, Praeparatio Evangelica, x.9.15); to Kekrops' offspring, Erech-
thonios (Apollodoros, iii.14.6); or to the aboriginal inhabitants of Attica, the autochtho-
noi (Plutarch, De daedalis Plataeensibus).M Moreover, Plutarch (ibid.) thought it re-
markable that the Athenians still preserved the image to his day; and he lists it among
the oldest cult statues of Greece, along with the original wood image of Apollo
on
Delos that was given by Erysichthon (another son of Kekrops), the original wooden
Hera of Samos, Danaos' wooden image of Athena at Lindos, and the original pear-
31See footnote 3 above.
32E. Kukahn, Der griechische Helm, Marburg 1936, pp. 45-47, pl. 4:1, 2; A. M.
Snodgrass,
Arms and
Armour of the Greeks, Ithaca 1967, pp. 93-94.
33Raubitschek, op. cit. (footnote 15 above), p. 495.
34Frag. 158 in F. H. Sandbach, Plutarch's Moralia XV, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge,
Mass. and
London 1969, pp. 293-297: 'H 8E TWcP 4oavwv
7TrotqoLt
apXatov EOLKEV Elat LT Kat wakaLov, E"y
Okwov
AP
P 7rp^7pWTOl
EL' A7^jX0o^
v7ro' 'Epvo-'X6oioo
'A7ri6XXwat
7rEO6E
E'7rt T^7(0E OEWputv ayakaa, OvxL1wol'
8E
7^ H ao~tc~o' V7TO raW av'ToxO660cw
P pvkE'', o ,utxpk i'i^ 'A6'qva^
ot
8bOvWaTov01. 'Hpac
U Ka'
Ea/Uot L tvWov ELX0 s'8o, cs 4firn KaAWuo',
OVIT(c)
EKEXAP401
E"plyOl EV(OO1/, aA' E7TL TEO/AZW
8br waco
yxvo&i'a
V Aooq 'rfa oa Pt'L.
tJ8E yacp tipv0oPTO OEOV' TOTE Kat yap 'AOr7v1
P ALP&p AavaS XtTLrV Er)KEJ' 08o'.
XE'yETat 8E HdL'pas o 7rpwTo'; 'Apyokl8o r'Hpac LEpOIv Etcra4LEiO ... EK TrW ITEp'l Titpvv~a &'opcP olYxvxr
TE~WO
EVKEapop, 'Hpac
acyaXAt /o(x*oat.
wood image of Argive Hera. Finally, Philostratos (Vita Apollonii iII.14) cites the Polias in
his list of the most ancient images of the gods, which includes the same xoanon of
Delian Apollo, the image of Dionysos in the Marshes, and the Apollo of Amyklai.
Nothing is known about the appearance of the wooden Apollo on Delos or about the
image of Dionysos in the Marshes, venerated at the site of the oldest festival of Diony-
sos in Athens, according to Thucydides, ii.15.4. But the fragment of Kallimachos quoted
by Plutarch (footnote 34 above) informs that the oldest cult statues of Hera on Samos
and of Athena at Lindos were, respectively, an aniconic plank (Jooa o-aptc) and a plain
image (AXrTw Ao,0.35 And Pausanias describes the pear-wood Argive Hera as a small
seated statue (II.17.5-6)36 and the Amyklaian Apollo as an ancient and unskilful image
about 40 feet high, having the form of a bronze pillar with feet, a helmeted head, and
arms holding a spear and a bow (iii.9.2).37 Clearly, in the company of such comparanda
as these, there must have been something conspicuously primitive about the Polias
image as well.
How is this abundant and reasonably consistent testimony about the prehistoric
origin of the Polias to be reconciled with the Archaic statue depicted on the coins?
Since we are not entitled to assume that the Erechtheion housed two images of the
goddess,38 both the prehistoric and the Archaic aspects of the Polias must have been
combined in the same image. We have already accounted for its visible externals-the
peplos that was renewed every four years and the helmet, the arms, and the gold orna-
ments and attributes that are to be associated with Endoios. This leaves only one com-
ponent that could antedate the 6th century: its body or core, which was hidden beneath
the peplos and which may very well have gone back to the time of the Bronze Age
kings of Athens, if not much earlier still. If the nucleus of the image was indeed as
ancient as the sources insist, we may readily envisage it as a primitive, aniconic or
quasi-iconic fetish of olive wood.
Some rather more concrete evidence to this effect is possibly to be found in Tertul-
lian, who, in a defense of the Christians' alleged worship of the cross, asks, "How much
difference is there between the shaft of the cross and Pallas of Athens (Pallas Attica) or
35The unworked cravis of Samian Hera is mentioned also by Clement, Protrepticus iv.46.3. Cf. E.
Buschor, "Heraion von Samos," AthMitt 55, 1930, pp. 4-5. On the original Athena Lindia, S. Casson, The
Technique of Early Greek Sculpture, Oxford 1933, pp. 62-65; Lorimer, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pp.
443-444.
36Cf. Lorimer, op. cit., p. 444, with references.
37The Apollo is illustrated on Spartan coins of the 3rd century after Christ: S. Grunauer-von Hoer-
schelmann, Die Minzprdgung der Lakedaimonier, Berlin 1978, p. 99, pl. 32:12, 13. Cf. L. Lacroix, Les repro-
ductions des statues sur les monnaies grecques, Liege 1949, pp. 54-58, pl. 1:15, 16; Casson, op. cit. (footnote
35 above), pp. 56-57. The coins indicate that the columnar body was wooden and only sheathed with
bronze.
38A hypothetical case for two "ancient" images is hardly worth considering. E.g., since the coins show
the Panathenaic peplos on Endoios' image, the sacrosanct, prehistoric image, were it separate, would-in-
credibly-have been left undraped. The fact is that neither Pausanias, whose account of the contents of the
cella of the Erechtheion is unusually thorough, nor any of the other literary or epigraphical testimonia
collected by Jahn and Michaelis, loc. cit. (footnote 4 above) allow for more than one image.
74 JOHN H. KROLL
the Ceres [sc. Isis] of Pharos (Ceres Pharia), each of which is displayed as a rude stake
and unshaped piece of wood without effigy?"39 That Tertullian's Pallas Attica should be
understood as the Athena Polias on the Acropolis is probable enough.40 By carefully
pairing the Attic Athena and the Alexandrian Isis, Tertullian has not chosen any two
aniconic pagan images at random but compares the abstract form of the cross to images
of the chief deities of the most prominent intellectual centers of the pagan world. Apart
from Pheidias' chryselephantine Athena Parthenos, the Polias is the only image of the
goddess that could be meaningfully referred to as the Pallas of Attica, and it is, more-
over, the only known wooden image of Athena in Attica that can even be suspected of
having an essentially aniconic character. Granted that Tertullian may never have visited
Athens and known the image at first hand, the casualness of his reference and the fact
that he is addressing pagans about their own objects of veneration suggest that he is
alluding to what was common knowledge at the time.4' Yet for all that, Tertullian does
not name the Polias, and his credibility here can be checked only insofar as we have
independent grounds for thinking that the unadorned Polias may have been more or less
as primitive as his Pallas Attica. Consequently, while Tertullian's statement deserves at
the very least to be taken seriously as possible complementary evidence for the under-
lying nature of the statue, one can insist on neither its reliability nor its relevance.
This is particularly to be regretted when we turn to consider the image's face. The
coins indicate only that it had a face and that the face was to some degree naturalistic. If
the olive-wood core was therefore genuinely aniconic, the face would have had to have
been a late addition, ascribable, like the arms and gold ornament, to Endoios. As illus-
trated in a number of 5th-century Attic vase paintings, aniconic column or tree-trunk
fetishes of Dionysos were regularly anthropomorphized by the addition of a mask and
by
cloaking the wood column or log with a garment.42 And from
Hyperides, pro Euxenippo,
39Apologia, 16.3.8: Et tamen quanto distinguitur a crucis stipite
Pallas Attica, et Ceres Pharia, quae sine
effigie rudi palo et informi ligno prostant? Cf. Tertullian, Ad Nationes I.12.3: Quanto distingqitur a crucis stipite
Pallas Attica et Ceres Pharia, quae sine forma rudi palo et solo staticulo higni informis repraesentatur?
All the standard commentaries note that Tertullian's Ceres Pharia is Isis Pharia, for whom see P. M.
Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, Oxford 1972, I, p. 20; II, p. 54, note 125. All representations of Isis Pharia
portray her in fully anthropomorphic, Hellenistic form (P. Bruneau, "Isis Pelagia 'a Delos," BCH 85, 1961,
pp. 435-446, and BCH 87, 1963, pp. 301-308). Tertullian is the only source that mentions a primitive image.
40A. Schneider (Le premier livre Ad Nationes de Tertullien, Neuchatel 1968, p. 250) suggests alterna-
tively that the Pallas may allude to the Palladion image housed near the Athenian lawcourt called Egii naX-
ka8L'W (L. Ziehen, s. v., "Palladion," RE XVIII, 1949, cols. 176-179). But if this image could be designated
as a Palladion, it almost certainly would have been anthropomorphic, unlike Tertullian's Pallas. On the
form of Palladion Athenas, see G. Lippold, s.v., "Palladion in der Kunst," RE XVIII, 1949, cols. 189-201;
J.-M. Moret, L'Ilioupersis dans la ceramique italiote, Geneva 1975, pp. 87-97, with plates.
41T. D. Barnes (Tertullian, A Historical and Literary Study, Oxford 1971, pp. 107-108, 194-210, 213)
emphasizes that Tertullian was a respectably learned man, well educated and versed in classical pagan
literature, and that his Apology was directed specifically to a cultured audience. Although evidence is lack-
ing, Tertullian may have traveled widely through the Greek East (ibid., p. 198).
42The material is collected and discussed in A. Frickenhaus, Lendenvasen, Winckelmannsprogramm
LXXII, Berlin 1912. Cf. W. Wrede, "Der Maskengott," AthMitt 53, 1928, pp. 81-92, figs. 1-3. Summary
by A. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, 2nd ed., Oxford 1968, pp. 30-34, figs. 17-22.
24-25, we learn of a magnificent face or mask that the Athenians in the 320's pre-
pared-along with "other appropriate parts and much expensive ornament"-for embel-
lishing the apparently primitive image of Dione at Dodona.43 Thus, the addition of a fine
mask to the olive-wood image of the Polias would have been fully in keeping with estab-
lished practice. On the other hand, if we disregard Tertullian's reference to a featureless
Pallas Attica, it becomes equally possible that the face of the Polias was carved directly
out of the ancient olive-wood shaft. This too could have been the work of Endoios. Or it
could have been a feature of the prehistoric image: in his survey of pre-Archaic Greek
cult statues, S. Casson concludes that "it is possible to establish the working hypothesis
that pre-Hellenic Cretan and some of the earliest Hellenic figures of deities shared the
peculiarity of having plain or almost columnar bodies but realistic or, at least, partly
detailed heads."44 But however this may be, without a close-up view of the Polias, the
question of when and how she received her face must obviously be left open.
All the essential sources nevertheless can be reconciled and with the help of the
coins may enable us to understand Pausanias' puzzling silence about the statue's ap-
pearance. With the possible exception of the face, all the external elements of the Polias
would have been regarded by the ancients as ornamentation, distinct from the image
per se. Throughout Hyperides' discussion of the Athenians' embellishment (EntKOcr-
LELOv)
of the Dione statue at Dodona (footnote 43 above), the A8os or
'yaXtAta
of the
goddess is consistently distinguished from its rich and artistic KOcrUpOS. The same distinc-
tion is explicitly applied to the statue of Athena Polias in Plutarch's account of the
Athenian festival of the Plynteria as the time when the Praxiergidai removed the KOY-
Wu
from the vwoq and veiled the latter from view.45 For a serious antiquarian like
Pausanias, it was of course the ancient and true
E'8oq,
not its Kocrpsos, that was of conse-
quence. Yet without lifting up the peplos there was nothing to be seen of the true
image, except perhaps the face. One must add to this that even though Endoios' embel-
lishments must have been exquisitely crafted, his remodeling of the Polias was lacking
in the kind of artistic or iconographic novelty that would have attracted Pausanias'
interest. The goddess was given only her usual attributes-owl, helmet, aegis, and gor-
goneion-and the portrayal of her holding out a phiale was, to judge from other Archaic
cult statues with phialai,46 a rather common and undistinguished conception. Given the
43WVZ
yap 6 ZE w 6 A8can'os 7rpoaTE' Ev
aj tai To ayaX Tc AUw0 ErLKO `OaLa Kat
VEL1 7rpOOdT7rO7 TE 7roL7)OaA~Eu'oL
W- OLOJ TE Ka'XXLO-TO Kat Ta9XXa 7raJ'Ta Ta aKoXov~a, Kai
KOO-A0u 7roXVwv
KaE ITOXvTEX7) 1 co iTapacTKEvao-avTE' ...
EITEKoOTA~'qOaTE
To ebo' T
Aviwr~ &gwc Kat VwIJ avhc Kat
Irq^-
OEOV.
44Casson, op. cit. (footnote 35 above), p. 58.
45Alcibiades, 34.1: 8p(Lt 8E% Ta opywa
HlpaeEpyytbat 0apy'qXu^0vo'
E`Kn OOLIi'TOI''
awopp)Ta, TO V TE
KO-A/O
V KaOEXO'VTE# Kat TO E80o' KaTaKaXlAIjaVTEc. If my interpretation of the image is correct, the passage
implies that all Endoios' additions, including the arms and possibly a face, were so constructed as to be
removable. On the Plynteria further: L. Deubner, Attische Feste, Berlin 1932, pp. 17-22; Herington, pp.
29-30; D. M. Lewis, "Notes on Attic Inscriptions," BSA 49, 1954, pp. 17-21.
46E.g., the Piraeus bronze Apollo, whose phiale is not preserved (G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi, 2nd ed.,
London 1960, p. 136, figs. 478-480, no. l59bis); the Apollo Smintheus of Alexandria Troas (Lacroix, op.
76 JOHN H. KROLL
thoroughgoing conventionality of the statue's external form, it was only natural that
Pausanias passed over it and chose to comment instead on the image's unique and
profound historical significance as the religious focus of Athens since time immemorial.
Addendum
Line drawings of several coins of the type discussed above published by Beule, op.
cit. (footnote 26
above), p. 387, and by A. B. Cook, Zeus, III, i, Cambridge 1940, p.
827, figs. 636, 637, show the reverse statue with the goddess' feet exposed and with
one leg in advance of the other in the "walking-standing" pose common to many Ar-
chaic korai. Since submitting my paper I have seen a few unpublished coins that con-
firm these details of Beule's and Cook's drawings and clarify that the feet are depicted,
although as rather formless dots, below the peplos on my Plate 11:11. Since the peplos
clearly flounces on the ground and hides
ope
or both feet on other specimens (P1.
11:5-7, 9), I conclude (1) that the feet of the image were sometimes exposed but at
other times covered, just as one would expect of a statue that was repeatedly undressed
and dressed in a long woolen garment; and (2) that the feet and the legs to which they
were attached must be added to the list of Endoios' embellishments for the image.
JOHN H. KROLL
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Department of Classics
Austin, TX 78712
cit. [footnote 37 above], pp. 76-86, pl. 4:2-14); the Artemis statue depicted on Athenian coins of the 2nd
century B.C. (M. Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens, New York 1961, pls. 75, 76, nos.
709a-714c; Lacroix, op. cit., p. 205); the statue of Aphrodite depicted by the Meidias Painter in his scene
of the rape of the daughters of Leukippos (AR V2, p. 1313, no. 5); and the completed image of Samian
Hera, which held a phiale in each hand (Lacroix, op. cit., pp. 206-216, pl. 17:6-10; Buschor, op. cit. [foot-
note 35 above], fig. 2). In the Classical period, cult statues holding phialai seem to have become even
more common; see B. Eckstein-Wolf, "Zur Darstellung spendener G6tter," A'IdI 5, 1952, pp. 64-65, and
Lacroix, op. cit., pls. 24:1, 26:1, and 28:7.
PLATE 11
a. Black-figured kalpis (E. Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder, Berlin
1940-58, IV, pl. 242)
b * ~~j X~
' .
2 3 4 5 6
..tj 9ACt.
7 8 9 10
11
12
JOHN S. KROLL: THE ANCIENT IMAGE OF ATHENA
PoLIAS
TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON ARISTOPHANES*
1. WASPS, 844-847: HESTIA'S PIGSTY'
B8. TOVT TL EOcr;
CF. XotpoKo/ELtvO'EV Tora1.
B8. EO' 1EpoOvXTVo-(ra' TEpELs;
C?. OVK, aXX sva
Ls ap01 V0T9 E7 t n T t Va
&4l eEoTr &PX4EVO ETLTpt) TLra.
&XX' Eta-ay'
aVvf(Xa%&,
s E'YW TveaiV J3E7IT.
At line 838 Philokleon left his do-it-yourself dicastery in quest of an indispensable
piece of courtroom furniture, the
8pViaKT1o9,
or bar of the court.2 Here a surprised Bdely-
kleon greets his father with "What is this?" as the old man returns dragging a contraption
which he describes as a
XOLPOKO,.tdoLv 'Eor1a. Although it is apparent from the following
lines that the old man's term for his latest prop is not lost on Bdelykleon,
XOMPOKOItEioL
'E.TIaK has been a persistent curiosity to later commentators. The scholiast wrote: Xotpo-
KOJUEdOV ETLV ayyEtOV [Rogers: EO-n (&ypE'6vI
TL
KaVVcTor4, O6TOV
oi
X OPOL
TPE'vrTat.
E.TLK 8E, I TEI E7TL
Ts1
EOTIa' TpE4oVOI
XO'pOV'.
E10r4EpEt 8E 0OVTo aV7L 8pV4a'KT0V
KUyKX1801. Modern critics have accepted this explication as far as X0tp0K0oEtiov,3 but they
*For Homer A. Thompson, good teacher and friend.
'The texts of Aristophanes used in these notes are from the following editions: D. M. MacDowell,
Aristophanes Wasps, Oxford 1971; K. J. Dover, Aristophanes Clouds, Oxford 1968.
2See lines 829-833. The word is more often used in the plural as in lines 385-386 where Philokleon
instructs his fellows in the chorus to bury him V'ro' rotl
8ppV
xKTO. The barrier is often thought to have
separated public and court proper, but S. Dow ("Aristotle, the Kleroteria, and the Courts," HSCP 50,
1939, pp. 20-21) sees it as surrounding the central properties such as bema and ballot box. Cf. H. A.
Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, XIV, The Agora of Athens, Princeton 1972 (= Agora
XIV), pp. 57, 59, for physical evidence of a dryphaktos or kinklides in a later courtroom of the Agora. See
also F. Salviat, "L'offrande des Hermaistes et les TPYbAKTOI deliens," BCH 87, 1963, pp. 259-264.
3XOtPOKOJUE'OV
survives elsewhere in early Greek writing only at Lysistrata, 1073 where the Spartan
envoys arrive WOIrEp XOtPOKoIAktOV ITEpt TO;
/A7)POYL0V
EXOvTEg. For all the varied interpretations of this
line (see F. Blaydes, Aristophanis Lysistrata, Halle 1880, p. 286), it clearly jests, as some critics have ob-
served, at the aggravated priapic state of the envoys, whose cloaks are so extended that the coryphaeus
makes fun of them as covering pigpens, or, the posts to which pigs were tethered. If, as some have sug-
gested, the humor does not stop there, I think that portions of the scholia to both occurrences of the word
(XOtpOKOUE'OV
...
irov oit X?opot TpEkovTat
and
raniraXo' v (t
8EO-AEViVTE' ToPs xoLpov; TpE ovat ...
are clues to the baser meaning of the word at Lysistrata, 1073: This XOLPOKO.ELOV is a place where
X?opo?
or Xomp&8a (see footnote 13 below) are nourished and reared. Blaydes (loc. cit.) perhaps alludes to some
such view of Biset (O. Bisetus, 'AptcroToivovs KcoW/OJJat E48EKa ..., Aureliae Allobrogum 1607), but I
could not get hold of the latter work. fko-lrEp
XOLPOKO/ELOV seems independent of the preceding observa-
tions that the Spartans are dragging their beards; the envoys are probably bent over with agony, and in
Aristophanes long beards are a stereotyped attribute of Spartan men (cf. Wasps, 446). Translation of xot-
pOKO/UELOP here as "sanitary knapkin" (LSJ, s. v., and more recently, C. Ruck, "Euripides' Mother: Vege-
tables and the Phallos in Aristophanes," Arion, n.s. 2, 1975, p. 46, note 58) is therefore contextually, if not
syntactically, farfetched. Furthermore, the ending -Eov usually indicates place.
78 GERALD V. LALONDE
are divided over the meaning of 'EOrTla. Is the pigpen 'Eork'a because it was near a
hearth in the house or courtyard (Starkie, Rogers), or because porkers, at least the first-
lings, were sacrificed to Hestia as goddess of the household (Wilamowitz, MacDowell) ?4
Aristophanes may have intended one of these meanings, and we may prefer the second
for keeping the pigs out of the house or the hearth out of the barnyard, but it is likely that
the poet was playing here with more than just domestic pieties. Since the trappings which
Philokleon secures for his court are domestic mockeries of the real thing, porridge bowls
for voting urns (855), an amis for a waterclock (807, 858) and a pigsty for the courtroom
dock, one might suspect that 'EO
Tlaq has some similar topographical significance beyond
the comic hero's hearth and home. Although
'EOrTiag
cannot be identified with a hearth
or cult of Hestia in any of the usual meeting places of dicastic panels,5 Philokleon's use of
the word would surely have put the Athenian audience in mind of the civic worship of
Hestia and the hearths par excellence in the Prytaneion and Bouleuterion,6 both buildings
which served at times as courts of law. The Prytaneion housed the chiefly ceremonial
court where Basileus and Phylobasileis in the manner of a coroner's jury presided over
cases of homicide in which the accused were unknown persons, animals or inanimate
objects.7 In the Bouleuterion the Council exercised its jurisdiction over a variety of
offenses with a limited punitive power of fines up to 500 drachmas. It could refer more
serious cases to the Ekklesia or dicasteries and, if the referred charge carried no fixed
penalty, the Boule could recommend one to the receiving tribunal.8
XotPoKOUEdoV
'E0o.iaq in its context suggests especially
the Council House with its renowned 8pv-
kaKTrO surrounding
an orchestral area with
bema
and sacred hearth where officials
may
have made a purificatory sacrifice of sucking pigs before each meeting.9
To
Athenians,
4W. J. M. Starkie, The Wasps of Aristophanes, London 1897, p. 284; B. B. Rogers, The Comedies of
Aristophanes, London 1916, II, p. 129; Wilamowitz, SBBerl, 1911, p. 518, note 1; MacDowell, op. cit.
(footnote 1 above), p. 244. For the sacrifice of pigs to Hestia, see Eupolis, I.335 (T. Kock, Comicorum
Atticorum Fragmenta, Leipzig 1880-1888, frag. 281); Athenaios, iii.96 B; iv.149 D; K. Keil, "Zum Corpus
Inscriptionum Graecarum," RhM, n.s., 20, 1865, pp. 550, 556.
5The dicasts, however, seem to have met in more places than can now be clearly identified; see Agora
XIV, pp. 71-72.
6For the hearth and statue of Hestia in the Prytaneion, see Pausanias, i.18.3-4; [Plutarch] Vitae decem
oratorum, 847 d, e; Pollux, ix.40; R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, III, Literary and Epigraphical Testi-
monia, Princeton 1957, no. 570 and p. 174. For the &i-tra of the Bouleuterion and oaths and dedications to
Hestia Boulaia, see Aischines, Ii.45 and the scholia which identify the Eom'a with the altar of Zeus Boulaios;
Harpokration, s. v. Bovkaia. Regarding our identifications of the Bouleuterion or Prytaneion in the mention
of Hestia, cf. A. Boegehold's observations (in "Philokleon's Court," Hesperia 36, 1967, pp. 113-114, note
10; the article identifies Philokleon's "real" court in the Wasps) that topographical allusions to public insti-
tutions could be made simply by naming the god (or man) whose statue stood on the site in question.
7See Andokides, 0.78; Athenaion Politeia, 57.4; Demosthenes, xxii.76; Pausanias, i.28.10-11; Plutarch,
Solon, 19.3; Pollux, viii.120; I. Bekker, Anecdota Graeca, Berlin 1814-1821, I, 311.15; D. M. MacDowell,
Athenian Homicide Law, Manchester 1963, pp. 85-89.
8See P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule, Oxford 1972, pp. 144-207.
9The arrangement of
8p1OKTaOS
and E'o-ra was roughly the same in Old Bouleuterion and New; see
Equites, 674-675; Xenophon, Hellenika 11.3.50-56; Rhodes, op. cit., pp. 33-34 and Plans E and F; W. A.
McDonald, The Political Meeting-Places of the Greeks, Baltimore 1934, pp. 131-138; Agora XIV, p. 34. The
sacrifice of piglets is attested only for meetings of the Assembly specifically and for civil gatherings in
general, but Rhodes (p. 36) thinks, as some of the testimonia suggest, that the same ritual was performed
TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON ARISTOPHANES 79
who knew their judicial topography well, the full thrust of Aristophanes' jest was some-
thing more than later critics have realized: Philokleon steals a
XOtpOKo0tdoV
as his
8pv'faKTrOq
and makes irreverent pretentions to the hallowed chambers of Prytaneion or
Bouleuterion by referring to the railing as a "pigsty of Hestia."10
As is often the case, Aristophanes' characters are not content with one pun. Men-
tion of Hestia becomes the cue for another pithy joke in the next two lines with Bdely-
kleion's mock worry that Philokleon has plundered a shrine of the hearth goddess, and
the old man's retort that he has a redeeming purpose-to squash someone a+' 'Eamraq
apXo/.Evoq.
As most critics note, line 846 makes a pun on the literal and proverbial
meanings of &a' 'EUrkax
a~pXEorat.11
First, Philokleon would begin his assizes auspi-
ciously with the customary first sacrifice to Hestia,12 and it may be added that the impli-
cations of
XotpoKottEiO
v
'EriTag mentioned above and Philokleon's own comic savagery
suggest that he sees defendants as so many swine and their legal destruction (ULrpm co)
as his sacrifice.3 Secondly, with the meaning of a proverb derived from the custom of
first honors to Hestia, he intends to squash someone "beginning from the utter begin-
ning."14 This is well-done irony, since with s1T~rp'qco rather than 8tKauR-co or some
such verb, Philokleon shows his real predilection for beginning with the end. This
sentiment that punishment, especially the capital sort, is the only kind of due process
recurs immediately in the old man's insistence on a damning vote without the bother of
Bdelykleon's o-av8es and ypajax (847-850), and a little farther on in his premature
judgment that the cheese-filching Labes should "die like a dog" (998). In this vein of
absurd draconism Aristophanes probably intended a third entendre of &f' 'Easeos7 a
pXo-
/.LEVOS E'LTpLtJIW Ttva: Philokleon in his remorseless zeal for punishment would even
snatch his prey from the suppliant hearth.'5
before meetings of the Boule; see Aischines, I.23; Acharnians, 44 and scholia; Ecclesiazusae, 128 and scho-
lia; Harpokration, Suda and Photios, s.v. Kaeapo-tov; Suda, s.v.
EpwL-TtapXao; Pojlux, VIII.104; A. G.
Woodhead, "IY.HFOPIA and the Council of 500," Historia 16, 1967, p. 134.
"0It should not surprise us that Philokleon, elsewhere a dicast, should suddenly present himself in the
judicial capacity of a councillor. In at least one other place in the Wasps Aristophanes achieves a joke by
allowing his comic jurists to claim bouleutic duties in which the real dicasts apparently had no share: at line
578 Philokleon lists among the delights of a dicast 7rTa8WV TotvV 8oKtaoAE'vwv al8ota lapEo- 6Eao-6at.
As far as we know, dokimasia of candidates for citizenship in the 5th century B.C. was the task of the Boule
alone; see Athenaion Politeia, 42.1-2. Cf. such satiric license on a grander scale in Aristophanes' use of
Sokrates in the Clouds as the mouthpiece of a variety of contradictory newfangled doctrines.
"See W. Suess, RE VIII A, 1913, cols. 1274-1275.
12Cf. Plato, Cratylus, 401 D; Aristophanes, Aves, 865; Sophokles, fr. 658 (A. Nauck, Tragicorum grae-
corum.fragmenta, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1889, p. 287); Euripides, fr. 781, 35 (Nauck, p. 608).
"3Cf. lines 570-574 where Philokleon savors the image of a cringing defendant presenting his crying
daughter to the dicast as to a god who delights in the sacrifice of pigs: EL 8' av
Xotpt8&ov xatpx OvyaTp o
kOWVi /1E rn&'o-Oat There, as more notoriously at Acharnians, 769-796, Aristophanes gets a salacious twist
from the double meaning of
Xotpttov (piggy/cunnus) and synechdoche of the part for the whole; cf. J.
Henderson, The Maculate Muse, New Haven 1975, pp. 60, 131-132.
"Cf. Plato, Euthyphro, 3 A:
aTEXzVCO yyap jAm 8OKEJ ai' rea(tT'
apXEo-Oat
KaKOvpyELV TriV IfoxcV, CM-
XEtpwV a&tKEJV "E.
'5With this meaning the line may have echoed again the E'o-rTa of the Bouleuterion if that altar had any
of its later fame as a place of refuge; Andokides, I.44; ii.15; cf. especially Xenophon, Hellenika ii.50-56, for
80 GERALD V. LALONDE
2. CLOUDS, 323-325: THE CLOUDS OVER PARNES
lAd. J3XE'TE VVV 8EVpL lrpa
77
HTpr'ij9' a
yap
6pc
KaTLoVO-a' Pk
1
V 1,p-o. qA
7Rovyjj ai'rcs.
IT. 4EpE irov; &Eiov.
En.
xwpovio avTat IraVv JroXkai
A aI ^ ^ t t f
ut aTaw KOL'XO) V KaLA Traw 8ao-E'an, avras ITkaytaL.
When this scene introducing the Chorus of Clouds was played in the Theater of
Dionysos, Sokrates obviously could not call Strepsiades' attention to Mount Parnes
itself, for in that direction the Acropolis looms over the theater. Dover has rightly
advised us not to infer from this that the play was intended for production in another
theater.'6 The dramatic scene could be imagined as taking place at any spot in Athens
with a view of Parnes, and, as Dover suggests, Aristophanes probably "intended the
actor to compromise with theatrical conditions by pointing, not too precisely, past the
east or west end of the Acropolis."'7 But why should Aristophanes single out Parnes?
He could easily have avoided the compromise by having Sokrates direct Strepsiades'
attention to an apparition of the Clouds over Hymettos which dominates the eastern
skyline. A plausible explanation is that the poet, wishing his fantasy to imitate nature,
made Parnes the place of epiphany because it was most commonly associated with the
appearance of clouds and cloudy weather. In a fragment of the lost earlier version of his
Clouds, Aristophanes hints further that he thought of Parnes as the prominent haunt of
the Clouds who are said, "when angered, to go off to Parnes, by Lykabettos."'8 A
number of scholars, ancient and modern, have remarked on the special relationship of
Parnes and real clouds. Theophrastos probably spoke for the 5th century as well as his
own when he noted that the Athenians interpreted the gathering of clouds over Parnes
during the prevailing north wind as a forecast of stormy weather.19 C. C. Felton, who
spent several months in Athens during the 19th century when Parnes was still regularly
visible from the capital, observed that he "seldom saw the summit without a mass of
delicate, silvery clouds resting on it ... ."20 Wachsmuth cited a study of the relative
frequency of morning clouds crowning Parnes (143 days of the year) and Hymettos
(103 days) and attributed the difference to the variation in altitude of the two moun-
the drama, of Kritias and his henchmen dragging Theramenes from this altar while the councillors watched
in fright from the other side of the 8pV1KTOaI; cf. [Plutarch], Vitae decem oratorum iv.3; Diodorus Siculus,
xiv.4.
"Dover, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 143.
17
Ibid.
18J. M. Edmonds, The Fragments of Attic Comedy, Leiden 1957, I, p. 682:
Photios. HIa'pv)-
T' opo'
6rqxvKJs
Es
T-qV HIa'pV-q'
op'yuait6oat 4pov8at Kaa'a Tr6
AvKaJ3qTTO'V
'Apto-o4&vv
NE4AaLa Kal E7.
19Theophrastos, de signis tempestatum,
47.
20 The Clouds of Aristophanes, Boston 1880, p. 136; Felton's commentary is quaintly romantic but still
useful in parts.
TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON ARISTOPHANES 81
tains.2' So, although clouds over Hymettos also could be harbingers of rain,22 since
Parnes was the higher mountain, on the prevalent northern route of Athens' weather,
and thus usually the first and foremost gathering place of clouds, it is not surprising that
Aristophanes should choose it over any other place for the first apparition of his
Chorus.
GERALD V. LALONDE
GRINNELL COLLEGE
Grinnell, IA 50112
21C. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, Leipzig 1874, I, p. 111; cf. the scholiast's exaggeration of this point
(F. Duebner, Scholia Graeca in Aristophanem, Paris 1877, pp. 97-98):
(323) /3XEITE VVVJ KTX ...
... [EIKOTW# 8E EITE
7TrOp?
T1 V
Ha'pv6a
KaTE'pXEo-Oat aviTa. rvavat yap at rv O6pE'WV
KOpV4ta 8wa To v io# aEt 0-VVVE4ktlg ktvovrat.
22Theophrastos, de signis tempestatum, 20, 24, 43.
SOME IONIC ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS
FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA
(PLATES 12 and 13)
S INCE 1929, when Homer Thompson and I arrived at the School at Athens on the
same ship, we have been looking at Greek monuments and discussing them togeth-
er, to my enormous profit and pleasure. It seems fitting, therefore, that there should be
offered here, as a wee token of my appreciation of over a half century of friendship, a
word about a few of the architecture adespota from the Athenian Agora which we have
discussed together. These remarks must be considered only preliminary; a fuller ac-
count of the capital and bases is more appropriate and will be presented with the several
other Ionic capitals and bases found in the Agora.
A much mutilated but still impressive Ionic capital (A 616, Fig. 1, P1. 12:a, c, e)
was found in the area of the Odeion in 1936, broken into two pieces which have been
put together. The sides of the top two thirds of the block have been cut down to make
a circular shaft, 0.397 m. in diameter at the top, resting on the spirals of the volute and
the necking. The top of the volute as cut down is roughly chiseled as is the bottom of
the volutes which has been cut to make them level with the original bottom of the
necking, so that the bottom of the block would rest firmly on the whole length of the
capital. The surface of the cylinder is more finely tooth chiseled but still a rough finish.
In the center of the top of the cylinder a round hole, 0.10 m. in diameter and 0.038 m.
deep, was cut, presumably at the same time that the cylinder was cut. To what period
or for what purpose this re-use is to be assigned is impossible to determine with any
certainty. One might hazard a guess that it was in the Early Christian period that our
capital served as a base plinth and bottom drum of a column, perhaps of a second
storey. Our concern here is with the capital in its original state.
Enough remains of the original form of this capital of island marble to draw atten-
tion to the fine quality of the carving and surface finish and the elegance of the design
as well as its unusual character in which the eggs of the necking are fully carved on one
side but only blocked out, ready for the detail to be delineated in paint, on the other.
Of the several capitals known from Athens and vicinity in which one side is carved
and
the other painted, one came to mind as strikingly similar; a look confirmed the suspi-
cion that our Agora capital and the one lying (as recently as 1976, but not in late 1980)
among other blocks below the bastion of Athena Nike on the south side, near the
one-
time entrance gate to the Acropolis (Fig. 2, P1. 12:b, d, f), are a pair. Dimensions (Figs.
1, 2), kind of marble, surface finish and tooling, and details of design (P1. 12:a-f)
are
the same, so that there can be no doubt that both were made to serve together in the
SOME IONIC ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA 83
same building. The capital on the slope below the Acropolis serves to show how the
Agora capital appeared before it was cut down.
The "Acropolis" capital was published by Mobius in 1927 and dated 440-420 B.C.1
In the half century since 1927 many more Ionic capitals have come to light throughout
the Greek world and have added an enormous amount of new evidence for our under-
standing of Ionic capitals at the same time that they have led to a realization that ques-
tions of origin and development and of chronology are far more complex than was once
thought. Detailed, comprehensive, and exhaustive studies of proportions and details of
form and ornament have been made by several scholars as they have presented newly
discovered examples.2 This is not the time nor the place to add to these valuable studies
with their useful tables of figures, but it may be of interest to make a few observations
about some of the characteristics of this pair of capitals.
First, be it noted that the dowel hole near the center of the top of each capital with
a pry hole appropriately near (Figs. 1, 2) indicates that epistyle blocks were pried into
place and doweled above the capitals; these pieces capped the columns of a building and
were not from freestanding votive columns. The material is clearly of the highly crystal-
line quality regularly recognized as island marble.' It should be kept in mind that the
use of island marble for buildings in Athens is almost unknown after the Persian wars.
The volutes on both faces are concave rather than convex in relation to the border-
ing astragal but are shallow relative to capitals of the Periclean period. Distinctive is the
fact that the eye of the volute, the echinus, and the corner palmette linking echinus and
volute are treated differently on the two faces. On one the large eye characteristic of
Attic Ionic is delicately carved with a rosette of eight double petals, its center set in
separately; on the other the eye is flat and smooth. The echinus of ovolo profile, which
is separated from the lower border of the volute by a plain surface on line with the
front of the volute (not directly over the ovolo as commonly on Attic capitals) is on
one side fully carved with oval eggs and darts which extend the full height in between;
on the other side the shape of the egg is blocked out on the flat surface, but no round-
ing of the egg or its border had been carved, although the darts are cut free. The five
petals of the half palmettes which fill the angles are delineated with slight convexity on
what we may now call the "carved" side; on the other they are merely blocked out. In
1"Attische Architekturstudien," AthMitt 52, 1927, pp. 171-173, Beil. XIX:2, 3 (= Mobius).
2E.g. W. Wrede, "Ein ionisches Kapitell in Athen," AthMitt 55, 1930, pp. 191-200; F. Benoit, "Le
chapiteau ionique de Marseille," RA 43, 1954, pp. 17-43; W. Alzinger, "Ionische Kapitelle aus Ephesos
I," OJh 46, 1961-1963, pp. 105-136; R. Martin, "Chapiteaux ioniques de l'Asclepieion d'Athenes," BCH
68-69, 1944-1945, pp. 340-374, "Chapiteaux ioniques de Thasos," BCH 96, 1972, pp. 303-323, BCH,
Supply. I, Etudes deliennes, Paris 1973, pp. 371-398, "Chapiteau ionique d'Halicarnasse," REA 61, 1959, pp.
65-76; G. Gruben, "Das archaische Didymaion," JdI 78, 1963, pp. 115-142; D. Theodorescu, "Un chapi-
teau ionique de l'epoque archaique tardive et quelques problems concernant le style, 'a Histria," Dacia 12,
1968, pp. 261-303; A. Bammer, "Beitrage zur ephesischen Architektur," OJh 49, 1968-1971, pp. 1-22;
"Beobachtungen zur ephesischen Architektur," AA (JdI 87), 1972, pp. 440-457.
3Pace Mobius, p. 171, who described it as Attic.
84 LUCY SHOE MERITT
/
C' - /
,/'
(D
N-
0)
o o
m
0.
_fli
0.
1\:
01
0
(0
-A0
N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O
Ii I ' I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
'~~~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '1C
0
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
/ ~~~~~~~0
z
L~~~~~~~j LJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
86 LUCY SHOE MERITT
other words we have to do with one side completely carved in the Ionian tradition, the
other what we might call half carved, half painted. Examples of capitals with full carving
on one side and on the other either no carving at all or the volute indicated but the
abacus and echinus left plain are known both in Attica and elsewhere,4 but the treat-
ment of the echinus here is unusual; another example with such treatment is known,
also from Attica, the pair of capitals from Stavro and Jeraka (see footnote 4 above).
The rosette in the eye has been discussed by Martin5 and shown to be characteristic
especially of Thasian capitals of the group he dates to the latter part of the 6th and the
early 5th centuries which show the shift from Cycladic to Anatolian influence in Thasos
and which are to be associated with contemporary examples at Neapolis, Histria, and
Halikarnassos. To be sure, the decorated eye will become a feature of Ionic on the
Acropolis of Athens in the last third of the 5th century, but the rosettes of A 616 and
its companion are closer to those of the earlier group. Two fragments of volutes with
the volutes indicated entirely in paint on a smooth flat surface have been found in the
Agora (A 991 and A 1103), both with the traces of a rosette in the eye. They show that
the rosette was sometimes used by Athenians in their painted capitals as well as in the
better known carved capitals of the Acropolis buildings of the 5th century.
In fact the Agora excavations have added a notable number of painted capitals,
some nearly complete and others fragmentary, to the known corpus; some have carved
volutes with other detail painted, others have all decoration painted.6 They strengthen
the impression that painted rather than carved capitals are common in Attica through-
out the 5th century, perhaps favored except for the group of buildings on the Athenian
Acropolis and a few other works of the architects concerned there. What then of the
group of half-painted, half-carved capitals? Do they represent a movement from a late
6th-century Ionian-influenced carved capital toward a revival of the earlier 6th-century
Attic painted tradition to be seen in the many painted 5th-century forms? Or are they
moving from the 6th-century painted (largely votive) toward the full carving of the
Ilissos Temple, Propylaia, Nike Temple, and Erechtheion?
Let us look at what suggestions the bolster of A 616 has to offer. The relatively
early, still well-rounded form, only slightly cut in concavely either horizontally or verti-
cally, is in apparent contrast to the decoration which is familiar from capitals of the latter
half of the 5th century, but which appears
also on the Stavro-Jeraka capitals (footnote
4
above) usually considered late Archaic. The four astragals bordering three flutes (here
4E.g. Stavro and Jeraka, Mobius, pp. 167-171, fig. 3, pl. XXVII; Athens, Library
of Hadrian-Monas-
teraki Museum, Wrede, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), pp. 191-200, figs. 1-4,
Beil.
LXII-LXIV;
Delphi,
Courtyard in front of Museum, found re-used in the Early
Christian Basilica and
reported by
Georges
Daux, "Chroniques des fouilles en Grece en 1959," BCH 84, 1960, p.
756 (I owe
permission
to mention it
here to the kindness of Pierre Amandry, Director of the French School);
Corinth A-989
(unpublished,
but
noted here with the kind permission
of Charles K. Williams); Chios,
AntJ
39, 1959, p. 206,
note
3,
pl.
XXVIII; Samos, AthMitt 72, 1957, pp. 106-109, Beil. 108, pl. XV; Halikarnassos,
REA
61, 1959, pp.
65,
68, pls. I, II.
5BCH 96, 1972, pp. 315-323.
6These will be treated all together elsewhere.
shallow) in the central area of the bolster
comprise the alternate bolster decoration of
5th-century Attic Ionic, the alternative to the broad, flat center band (either in low
relief or painted) which is the more common and is regular on capitals with mostly
painted decoration.' Does this pattern tie A 616 with the later group, or is it one of the
first examples of a style beginning much earlier but to become increasingly popular in
the latter part of the 5th century? It is worth remembering that A 616 is linked with the
Stavro-Jeraka capitals not only in this bolster pattern but also in the half-carved echinus
on one side and the island marble. The design of the bolster appears to be an
attempt
to combine elements of the Ionian (both Anatolian and Cycladic) bolster (in which the
whole width is divided into flutes separated by astragals) with the traditional Attic re-
striction to a band in the center. A central band was divided into two astragals at Hali-
karnassos, clearly Anatolian, and on a capital at Delphi of coarse-grained marble, and
into three astragals in two early capitals on Delos and later on the capital in the Atheni-
an Library of Hadrian.8
Both the rosette carved in the eye and the carved egg and dart on the echinus
along with the carved palmette in the angles with the volute are distinctly Ionian char-
acteristics, and the bolster design is at least partially Ionian in inspiration. The strong
current of Ionian ideas, dress, culture, and artistic style which begins to pour into
Athens in mid-6th century and continues throughout the four decades of Peisistratean
and Peisistratid period until the last decade of the century is widely recognized in the
field of sculpture. Payne9 long ago realized that in the sculpture of the period two
groups exist: (1) the pieces which can be considered Ionian, the work of Ionian artists
working in their home style whether in Ionia (the pieces then imported) or as for-
eigners in Athens, and (2) the far more numerous pieces which combine native Attic
and imported Ionian elements to make a new truly Attic style from which the late
Archaic and then early Classical Attic styles grew. It is only reasonable to ask whether
some similar situation may not have maintained in architecture. Whole architectural
members fully carved are not apt to have been imported as individual statues could
have been, but the fact that island marble was imported may well suggest that Ionian
stone cutters went with it to carve the decoration on some of the marble. The many
votive Ionic capitals from the 6th century found on the Acropolis at Athens10 tend to
have the decorative patterns, Ionic though they be in origin, painted; painted decoration
was natural to the local Attic Doric architecture. But there must have been some
demand in Peisistratean Athens for architectural members carved by Ionians in the
'Variants are a central carved astragal ending at the top in a lotus blossom, M6bius, pp. 165-167, Beil.
XVIII:5, 6, and a lotus stem and blossom added to the central band, ibid., Beil. XVIII:7, 8.
8Halikarnassos and Delphi, see footnote 4 above; Delos, R. Martin, BCH, Suppl. I, Etudes dMliennes,
1973, p. 376, fig. 5 and p. 384, fig. 11; Athens, Library of Hadrian, Wrede, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p.
196, figs. 2, 3, Beil. LXIII:2.
9H. Payne, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis, [London] 1936, pp. 55-63.
10AntDenk I, pls. 18, 29; R. Borrmann, "Stelen fUr Weihgeschenke auf der Akropolis zu Athen," JdI
3, 1888, pp. 275-277; 0. Puchstein, Die ionische Saule, Leipzig 1907; A. E. Raubitschek, BIABulg 12, 1938,
pp. 162-172 and numerous later studies.
88 LUCY SHOE MERITT
more elaborate style in which they were trained and which presumably had as much
appeal to some Athenians as Ionian sculpture. Can our pair of capitals be thought of as
such Ionian work? The bolster design might seem to give pause, if not also the half-
carved side, but one painted side is not unknown in Ionia.1" The egg and dart has been
thought to be later than late 6th century, but neither the egg border nor the dart are as
sharp or as sharply separated from the egg as usual in the late 5th century. It should be
realized that in no architectural member of either Greek order is the individuality and
independence of the designer more freely expressed than in the Ionic capital. No firm
regular development characterizes these capitals around the Greek world. Except in
certain general tendencies in proportions and decoration and in certain geographical
predilections, there is in most capitals a mingling of proportions of form and of details
of ornament which frequently baffles attempts to date from this or that detail. Perhaps
we have in this pair of capitals not the renewal of Ionian influence in Attic architecture
in the latter part of the 5th century but rather the work of an Ionian of that earlier
period of Ionian ties a century earlier, an Ionian experimenting with details suggested
by his association with Attic traditions and combining them with his own from Ionia.
Of possible significance in our consideration of A 616 and its fellow capital are
three other architectural pieces found in the excavations of the Athenian Agora. Three
examples of an Ionic base torus (A 829, A 1467, A 4543, Figs. 3-5, P1. 13:a-d) have
been found in contexts of no significance, from marble piles in the eastern part of the
area.12 All three are of the same island marble, have the same profile and division into
six horizontal channels separated by a single fillet, and have the same dimensions if al-
lowance is made for wear. They are clearly the upper member of Ionic column bases of
which the lower element may have been a plain cylinder as in Agora A 197413 (P1. 13:e)
or a cylinder enlivened by horizontal divisions incised as in Agora A 3454 (P1. 13:f) or
by scotiae in the more Ionian piece from the Acropolis;14 this latter may be the most
likely. The half-round form of the torus and the character of the channeling divided by
single fillets are comparable to those of late Archaic bases.15
The diameter of these tori at the top measures 0.553 m.
(A 1467), 0.546 m. (A
4543), and 0.552 m. (A 829, when a and b are set together). Trace of the setting of the
"Chios, Samos, and Halikarnassos, see footnote 4 above.
"2A 829 found in demolition marble pile in Section fQ,
A 1467 in marble dump east of Stoa of Attalos,
A 4543 in area east of Library of Pantainos near Chapel of Aghia Matrona, included here with the kind
permission of T. Leslie Shear, Jr.
13L. S. Meritt, "The Geographical Distribution of Greek and Roman Ionic Bases," Hesperia 38, 1969,
p. 188, pl. 49:c.
14L. T. Shoe, Profiles of Greek Mouldings, Cambridge, Mass. 1936, p. 156, pl. LXXII:1 1; B. Wesenberg,
Kapitelle und Basen, DUsseldorf 1971, p. 119, no. 18, fig. 253. In fact the dimensions of the piece would
permit it to be associated with our tori, which are very similar to the torus that is linked with this lower
element of a base.
15E.g. Samos, Heraion, Second Dipteros, Profiles of Greek Mouldings, pl. LXV:3; Athens, Acropolis,
ibid., pl. LXV:5; Delphi, Massiliote Treasury (toichobate), FdD II, iii, 1, Paris 1923, p. 53, fig. 54, pl.
XVI;
Thermi, Wesenberg, op. cit., figs. 265, 266.
? ,552
049 r 013 e +526
kilo,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
H- - I
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
K-
'0515
1-
0 05 ,10
M.
;-
A 829o- A 829B
5 50
'V~~~~~~M
W.B.D.,JR:- I1976
8 G. 3. Ionic base A 829
shaft above on A 829a gives a dimension of 0.526 for the diameter of the apophyge (if
not an astragal below it) at the bottom of the shaft. If it is recalled that the diameter of
the bottom of the echinus of capital A 616 and its mate is 0.454 m., it will be seen that
an association of A 616 with the tori would give a difference of about seven centimeters
between the top and bottom diameters of the Ionic column, an acceptable figure. The
empolion cuttings in the tori range from 0.066 to 0.07 m. square, that in the bottom of
the capital 0.073 m.; association is permissable. Finally, the marble links the two capitals
90 LUCY SHOE MERITT
1042 MAX. 1553 3
V/1~ ~ ~
1066
SQ.
L'
0 ,05 10
A 1467
0 150
W.B.D.JR.- 1976
FIG. 4. Ionic base A 1467
and the three tori. It is impossible without further pieces and other evidence to prove
the association of the capitals and tori, but a connection is both possible and even
probable considering the close similarity of the marble.
If these five pieces are to be associated, the likelihood that they belong to a build-
ing of the late Archaic period is strengthened, and we have to look, as further excava-
H
048 MAX.
s--
,546
-0
070 SQ.
NL.
067
x,072
0 105 ,10
7_ M.
A 4543
0 ,5M
W.B.D.,JR.-I976
FIG. 5. Ionic base A 4543
tion reveals more foundations, for one which would accommodate possibly a
tetrastyle
porch, since we seem to have evidence for three columns at least. If the date could be
accepted, how very tempting to think of these pieces of
strong Ionian influence as
belonging to one of those buildings associated most particularly with Peisistratos him-
self, namely his Enneakrounos which sits waiting for columns to fit three
places
in the
92 LUCY SHOE MERITT
foundations of the building preserved in the southeast corner of the Agora, dated to the
third quarter of the 6th century B.C.16
Lucy SHOE MERITT
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Austin, TX 78712
"6H. A. Thompson, Athenian Agora, XIV, The Agora of Athens, Princeton 1972, pp. 197-199, fig. 50; J.
McK. Camp II, The Water Supply of Ancient Athens, diss. Princeton, 1977, chap. III, pp. 11-28. If, however,
the four cylinders (Wesenberg, op. cit. [footnote 14 above], p. 119, note) on the Acropolis should prove to
belong with the Agora tori and the Acropolis torus prove to be from the same series as our tori, we must
reckon with four columns. A recheck of the character of the marble of the pieces now on the Acropolis
must be made before any connection between the Agora and the Acropolis pieces can be suggested.
PLATE 12
a. Ionic capital Agora A 616, carved side b. Ionic capital under the Nike Bastion, carved side
e ji Jo t r
7n_5
~&Jf
r .. 4
c. Ionic capital Agora A 616, top d. Ionic capital under Nike Bastion, half-carved, half-
painted side
e. Ionic capital Agora A 616, bottom
f. Ionic capital under Nike Bastion, bolster and
carved side
LUCY S. MERIrr: SOME IONIC ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE ATHENIAN AGORA
PLATE 13
X
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~I-.
.4
a. Ionic base torus Agora A 1467, top b. Ionic base torus Agora A 1467, side view
c. Ionic base torus Agora A 829 d. Ionic base torus Agora
A 4543
I.~~~~~~~~~~F
ot]~~~~
e. Ionic base Agora A 1974 f. Ionic base Agora A 3454
LUCY S. MERHTT: SOME IONIC ARCHITECTURAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE ATHENIAN AGoRA
A MINIATURE ATHENA PROMACHOS
(PLATE 14)
T HE GODDESS ATHENA is surely most closely associated with the city which
.
derived its name from her and which viewed her as its own special champion. Re-
flections stemming from a tiny and very modest depiction of this deity, recently discov-
ered in excavations at Nemea, are offered as a small token of esteem and gratitude to
Professor Thompson.
The bronze finger ring illustrated on Plate 14:a and b which bears an intaglio device
representing Athena in fighting pose was discovered in 1976 near the southeast corner
of the Temple of Zeus at Nemea.1 It appeared in disturbed context of the first half of
the 3rd century after Christ, having been churned up from earlier levels below.2 The
style of the engraving, as so often with bronze intaglios, is of mediocre quality. Precise
dating of this sort of ring is notoriously difficult, and shape has to assume a dispropor-
tionate role in chronological determination. On our ring the slender hoop which sup-
ports a curving oval bezel (the curvature visible in Plate 14:b)3 suggests a date in the
second half of the 5th or possibly into the 4th century close to a series of rings from
Olynthos which provide, once again, an important terminus ante quem. Our understand-
ing of the history of Nemea leads us to believe, however, that the site was abandoned
during the first half of the 4th century following widespread destruction in the late 5th
century.5 Probability would therefore suggest that our ring must date no later than the
latter part of the 5th century, a time of well-documented activity in the sanctuary.6
Athena is portrayed in three-quarter view to the right (as seen in the cast, P1. 14:c)
in time-honored fighting pose. The spear is poised at head level in her right hand, the
lInventory GJ 14. The bezel measures 0.016 by 0.012 m. Most of the hoop is missing,
andl
the metal is
pitted. Unpublished.
I am grateful to my husband, Stephen G. Miller, for encouraging me to publish this piece. As always,
I have profited from discussion with him on problems with my research.
For special abbreviations used in this article see footnote 8.
21t was discovered on July 20, 1976 in Layer 31 with grid coordinates L/13-14/1, just off the North-
west corner of the "Nu Structure". For the area of its discovery see Stephen G. Miller, "Excavations at
Nemea, 1976," Hesperia 46, 1977, pp. 4, 5, figs. 2, 3, respectively. For a discussion of activity of the 3rd
century after Christ see ibid., p. 3. Note that Early Christian graves of the 5th-6th centuries after Christ
also peppered the area (ibid., p. 3, pls. 1:e, 2:a).
See also plan, Hesperia 47, 1978, p. 60, fig. 1 and aerial photograph, pl. 10.
31t belongs to Boardman's Type II, consisting of rings dating from the middle to the end of the 5th
century B.C. (J. Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings, New York 1970, pp. 212-214).
4See D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, X, Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds, Baltimore
1941, pp. 132-155. See esp. rings of Robinson's Type II, nos. 474-494.
5See excavation reports of Stephen G. Miller, Hesperia 49, 1980, p. 186; Hesperia 47, 1978, p. 65;
Hesperia 46, 1977, pp. 9-10, 21.
6See excavation reports of Stephen G. Miller, Hesperia 48, 1979, pp. 81-82 and Hesperia 47, 1978 for
a sacrificial deposit; Hesperia 46, 1977, pp. 19-20 for bronze casting.
94 STELLA G. MILLER
shield raised obliquely to be seen from the outside on her left arm. With regard to
stance, the feet are planted firmly but slightly apart on the ground, and the shoulders
are thrown back in somewhat exaggerated fashion. Details about the head are indistinct
but she evidently wears the familiar helmet. Her long girded peplos has no overfold,
and she seems to wear no aegis. The peplos clings to the torso to reveal the breasts
beneath, and on the lower body it is stretched in wide oblique ridges across the legs
from ankle to mid-thigh. An important addition to her costume is the scarflike mantle
thrown over the shoulders. This garment is familiar from the media of Archaic sculp-
ture and vase painting which appreciated and frequently exploited its decorative quali-
ties. Its appearance on our Classical Athena, however, is an archaism of the sort which
was just becoming popular with artists in the late 5th century. The later development of
this sort of mantle involves the splitting of the drapery ends into swallowtails, a change
whose inception can be chronologically bracketed between the late 5th century and its
first documentable appearance on Panathenaic amphoras of 363/2.7 With regard to our
ring, we may conclude that the presence of the archaistic mantle in its early form with-
out the distinctive swallowtail embellishment, while offering nothing definitive, at least
accords well with the proposed late 5th-century dating of the ring.
A great deal has been written on many aspects of Athena Promachos and her various
manifestations, origins, and survival in later monuments.8 The high regard Athena en-
7See J. D. Beazley, The Development of Attic Black-figure, 2nd ed., Berkeley and Los Angeles 1964, p.
98 (= Development); E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, X, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton
1965, p. 61; C. M. Havelock, "The Archaistic Athena Promachos in Early Hellenistic Coinages," AJA 84,
1980, p. 42.
8In general see C. J. Herington, Athena Parthenos and Athena Polias, A Study in the Religion of Periclean
Athens, Manchester 1955 (= Athena Parthenos and Polias); review of Athena Parthenos and Polias by E. B.
Harrison, AJA 61, 1957, pp. 208-209; C. J. Herington, "Athena in Athenian Literature and Cult," in
Parthenos and Parthenon, Greece and Rome, suppl. to ser. 2, vol. X, 1963, pp. 61-73(= "Athena").
On the iconography of the Archaic Promachos in sculpture see H. G. Niemeyer, Promachos, Unter-
suchungen zur Darstellung der bewaffneten Athena in archaischer Zeit, Waldsassen 1960 (= Niemeyer,
Pro-
machos); idem, "Attische Bronzestatuetten der sp-atarchaischen und friihklassichen Zeit," AntP III, Berlin
1964, pp. 7-31; C. Rolley, "Statuette d'Athena Promachos," RA 1968, pp. 35-48; H. Herdejurgen,
"Bronzestatuette der Athena. Bemerkungen zur Herkunft des archaischen Promachostypus," AntK 12,
1969, pp. 102-110; H. Kenner, "Athena und die Gbtterwelt der Austria Romana," OJh 51, 1976-1977,
esp. pp. 110-126; Havelock, loc. cit. (footnote 7 above); E. Simon, Die Gatter der Griechen, Munich 1969
(= Simon), esp. pp. 185-193; K. Schefold, Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art, London 1966, pp. 58-60;
idem, Gbtter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in der spdtarchaischen Kunst, Munich 1978 (= Gbtter- und Hel-
densagen), p. 14; idem, "Statuen auf Vasenbildern," JdI 52, 1937, pp. 38-43; L. Lacroix, Les reproductions
de statues sur les monnaies grecques: la statuaire archaique et classique, Liege 1949, pp. 116-129, 281-286; D.
Le Lasseur, Les dresses armees dans l'art classique grec et leurs origines orientales, Paris 1919, pp. 56-71.
On Panathenaic amphoras see J. D. Beazley, ABV, pp. 403-417; idem, Development (footnote 7
above), pp. 88-100; idem, "Panathenaica," AJA 47, 1943, pp. 441-465; K. Peters, Studien zu den panathe-
naischen Preisamphoren, Berlin 1942; G. von Brauchitsch, Panathenaische Preisamphoren, Leipzig 1910; J.
Boardman, Athenian Black Figure Vases, London 1974 (= Boardman, Black Figure Vases), pp. 167-177; J.
Frel, Panathenaic Prize Amphoras, Kerameikos Book No. 2, Athens 1973.
On the Pheidian Promachos see E. Mathiopoulos, Zur Typologie der Gbttin Athena im funften Jahrhun-
dert vor Christus, diss. Bonn 1968, pp. 7-47; E. Langlotz, Phidiasprobleme, Frankfurt 1947, pp. 73-76,
108-109; G. Becatti, Problemi Fidiaci, Milan 1951, pp. 161-167.
A MINIATURE ATHENA PROMACHOS 95
joyed as city goddess in the religious and cultural life of Athens is well documented and
universally recognized. The fact that an image of Athena, though by no means the exclu-
sive preserve of the Athenians,9 will in antiquity (as well as today) have evoked immedi-
ate thoughts of Athens is also not likely to be disputed. What I should like to propose,
however, goes beyond this to suggest the possibility that a particular iconographic repre-
sentation of the goddess, namely the Fighting Athena, may have had special, widely rec-
ognized symbolic and indeed political overtones of considerable duration in ancient Ath-
ens. To examine this possibility, we must turn first to the imagery of the Archaic Athena.
Our understanding of the development of 6th-century Athens is beset with prob-
lems and controversies at every turn, hampered as we are by the paucity of contempo-
rary literary sources on the one hand and the fragmentary nature of the archaeological
evidence on the other.10 A documented event, however, important for our purposes,
concerns the reorganization of the Panathenaic Games which according to historical
tradition occurred in 566/5, an event often associated with the name of Peisistratos
himself.11 As is well known, the practice of awarding Panathenaic amphoras as prizes
was instituted in conjunction with this reorganization, and it is these vases which repro-
duce the distinctive Fighting Athena, a figure which will grace Panathenaics from this
time forward. A representative example of the 6th century appears in Plate 14:d.12
C. J. Herington has discussed at length the character of the Archaic or "Solonian"
Athena and her special protective relationship with the Athenians.13 The Fighting Athe-
na would appear to be the visual counterpart of this Athena from around the time of its
appearance on the Panathenaics. Certainly the subject matter which incorporated the
bellicose goddess developed an enormous popularity in Athens from shortly before the
middle of the century through the later Archaic period. J. Boardman has suggested that
Herakles, who is featured so prominently in Archaic pediments on the Acropolis, might
have embodied the kind of political symbolism which is generally accepted in the Peric-
lean age with its many allegorical representations.14 Certainly the expansion and cultural
9Note that the earliest representations of Athena (from the first half of the 7th century) include a
terracotta from Gortyn on Crete (Simon, figs. 169, 170) and a Cycladic relief pithos from Tenos (ibid., fig.
165). See Niemeyer, Promachos, pp. 56-64.
On the worship of Athena outside Athens see L. R. Farnell, The Cults of the Greek States I, Chicago
1971, pp. 308-313 and references.
'0For a recent statement on these issues see T. L. Shear, Jr., "Tyrants and Buildings in Archaic Ath-
ens," in Athens Comes of Age: From Solon to Salamis, AIA Symposium Papers, Princeton 1978, pp. 1-19;
also W. H. Plommer, "The Archaic Acropolis: Some Problems," JHS 80, 1960, pp. 127-159.
"J. A. Davison, "Notes on the Panathenaea," JHS 78, 1958, pp. 23-42 with references; idem, "Peisis-
tratus and Homer," TAPA 86, 1955, pp. 1-21.
'2From the Athenian Agora (P 24661); published by J. McK. Camp II, Gods and Heroes in the Athenian
Agora (Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Picture Book No. 19), 1980, p. 6, fig. 8. On Panathenaics see
references cited in footnote 8 above: Beazley, Peters, von Brauchitsch, and Frel.
'3Herington ("Athena," esp. pp. 62-63) stresses that it is Athena's closeness to Zeus which is being
emphasized in the myth of the Birth of Athena whose iconographic history in Athenian art starts at this
period. See also below, footnote 15.
14J. Boardman, "Herakles, Peisistratos and Sons," RA 1972, pp. 57-72; see also idem, Black Figure
Vases, p. 216; and Le Lasseur, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), p. 78.
96 STELLA G. MILLER
flowering in Athens in the second half of the 6th century can be linked directly to the
politics and artistic patronage encouraged by the Peisistratids. Although it defies proof,
it is hard to believe that the propagandistic value of allegorical symbolism (subtle in the
case of Herakles, blatent with regard to the Fighting Athena) will have escaped the
notice of the Tyrants.
A quick review of the numerous Athenian contexts in which the Fighting Athena
appears, besides the seemingly official mark of the Panathenaics, will underscore the
pervasiveness of the motif. First, one thinks of the Attic vase paintings which depict the
Birth of Athena, a motif which begins a history of great popularity in Athenian art just
about the time of the reorganization of the Panathenaic Games.15 This Archaic version
is, of course, the one in which the tiny armed goddess springs in fighting pose out of
her father's split head. Attic vase painting also enthusiastically adopts the old myth of
the Rape of Cassandra who seeks refuge at the Palladion, a statue which, interestingly
enough, after the mid-6th century also takes on the pose and attributes of the Fighting
Athena of the Panathenaics.16
A myth of prime importance in this period is the Gigantomachy in which a battling
Athena (and, notably, her protege Herakles) plays a central role. Significantly, it too
starts to appear in Attic black figure in the 560's and rapidly becomes one of the most
popular Attic themes.17 Numerous vase paintings featuring this motif were dedicated on
the Acropolis,18 and it is likely that the iconography of the Fighting Athena in fact
derives from this myth. The theme was featured prominently in the marble pediment
usually associated with the so-called Peisistratid Temple on the Acropolis,19 as well as
on several Archaic reliefs dedicated on the same spot,20 and it is not impossible that the
subject matter was woven into the peplos presented to Athena at the festival of the
Panathenaia.21 Finally, the Fighting Athena is known through a
group of late Archaic
bronze statuettes which were dedicated on the Acropolis where
they
were discovered.22
Taken together, the potential for symbolic interpretation is very strong.
15On the Birth of Athena see Herington, "Athena," pp. 63-64 and see comments, footnote 13 above;
F. Brommer, "Die Geburt der Athena," RGZM 8, 1961, pp. 66-83; K. Schefold, "Die Geburt der Athe-
na," in Gbtter- und Heldensagen, pp. 12-20; Boardman, Black Figure Vases, p. 216. See also the white-
ground pinax found on the Acropolis, B. Graef and E. Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu
Athen I, iv, Berlin 1925, pl. 109, no. 2578.
'6See Boardman, Black Figure Vases, p. 230.
"7Boardman, Black Figure Vases, p. 220; Schefold, Gdtter- und Heldensagen, pp. 54-66; see F. Vian,
Repertoire
des gigantomachies figures dans lart grec et romain, Paris 1951; J. Dbrig and 0. Gigon, Der Kampf
der Gbtter und Titanen, Olten 1961. See Farnell, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pp. 308-309.
'8Graef and Langlotz, op. cit. (footnote 15 above), pl. 108, no. 2559; ibid., II, i, Berlin 1929, pl. 21,
no. 327:a-c.
"9For recent bibliography see M. S. Brouskari, The Acropolis Museum, Athens 1974, pp. 76-78, figs.
144-150; B. S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton 1977, pp. 205-209; and for a good
illustration, Schefold, Gbtter- und Heldensagen, figs. 71, 72.
20Brouskari, op. cit., fig. 142, no. 121; fig. 247, no. 120; fig. 59, no. 12992 (terracotta plaque).
2"On the peplos see Deubner, Attische Feste, Berlin 1932, pp. 29-34 with references. See also C. A.
Forbes, "HE'1rToa," RE XIX, i, 1937, col. 561; and comments by Schefold, Gbtter- und Heldensagen, p. 55.
22See Niemeyer, Promachos and idem, "Attische Bronzestatuetten" (footnote 8 above).
The question whether a monumental statue inspired these many representations,
what it will have looked like, and where it might have stood, has been much discussed.
Most scholars agree that such a prototype did in fact exist and that it must have been
located on the Acropolis itself.23 The well-known group of Archaic Attic vase paintings
(including some discovered on the Acropolis)-, which show the Fighting Athena in
association with an obvious sacrificial scene including altar and gift-bearing adorants,
give us additional substantiation concerning this Athena.24
Whether, however, this hypothetical statue was an out-of-doors monument as
maintained by some scholars, or a cult statue from an early temple on the Acropolis as
believed by others, cannot be ascertained.25 Certainly, the nature of the remains, partic-
ularly of the early temples on the Acropolis, fragmentary or hypothetical, continues to
be highly controversial. But the theory, most eloquently stated by Herington, that
such a Promachos served as cult statue for an early ancestor of the present Parthenon is
still an appealing, though not provable, suggestion.27 At the very least, it has the advan-
tage of supplying a necessary cult image for a probable temple.
The Persian destruction of the Acropolis demolished many landmarks, and with the
subsequent refurbishing we see evidence of the dawning of a new era. The little Angeli-
tos' Athena (Acropolis 140) has been called a "herald" of the new Severe Style which
permeates the artistic spirit of the first decades of post-Persian Athens.28 Whether or
23See, for example, Herington, Athena Parthenos and Polias, pp. 40-42 and Harrison, op. cit. (footnote
8 above), pp. 208-209; von Brauchitsch, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), pp. 167-180; Niemeyer, Promachos,
pp. 13-15; Schefold, JdI 52, 1937, p. 38; Frel, op. cit. (footnote 8 above), p. 9; Simon, p. 192; Boardman,
Black Figure Vases, p. 167.
24See Simon, pp. 192-193; Schefold, JdI 52, 1937, p. 40. Among the vases are a neck-amphora by the
Painter of Berlin 1686 (Berlin 1686, ABV, p. 296, no. 4); a Panathenaic amphora by the Princeton Painter
(New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 53.11.1, ABV, p. 298, no. 5) and an Attic band cup (private
collection, Simon, fig. 176).
25See comments especially by the following: Niemeyer, Promachos, pp. 13-15; Herington, Athena
Parthenos and Polias, pp. 40-65 (and review by Harrison, op. cit. [footnote 8 above]); Schefold, Gbtter- und
Heldensagen, p. 14; Simon, pp. 192-193; A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1949, comments on no. 329.
Niemeyer has argued persuasively that an early (perhaps the earliest) bronze Promachos statuette
from the Acropolis (Athens N.M. 6450) may reflect the cult statue of the Eupatrids ("Das Kultbild der
Eupatriden?" Festschrift Eugen von Mercklin, Waldsassen 1964, pp. 106-111). The figure with appropriately
poised arms but with columnar body in closed-foot position is dated by him to around the second quarter
of the 6th century (Simon, p. 189, would date it to the mid-6th century). The Panathenaics which from the
start reproduce the striding Athena may then have initiated the spread-foot pose which, as has been noted
by Harrison (op. cit.) and others, is so unlikely in large-scale sculpture at this early period. It is, however,
perfectly in keeping with the nature of the two-dimensional medium of vase painting which shows the
Promachos in what is essentially a profile silhouette.
26See J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, London 1971, "Athena, Archaios Naos," pp.
143-147; "Hekatompedon," pp. 258-260; and "Parthenon," 444-457. See also Plommer and Shear, opp.
citt. (footnote 10 above).
27Note that Herington's belief in the existence of the large Archaic temple below the Parthenon was
"seriously weakened" by Plommer's article (op. cit. [footnote 10 above]; cf. Herington, "Athena," pp.
61-62, note 1).
28B. S. Ridgway, The Severe Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton 1970, pp. 29-30, fig. 39; Brouskari, op.
cit. (footnote 19 above), fig. 248, no. 140.
98 STELLA G. MILLER
not she held a swinging spear in her broken upraised right arm is not certain, but B. S.
Ridgway has argued cogently that her quiet pose sets her sufficiently apart from the old
striding-and-attacking formula to suggest that the spear was held quietly in front as a
support.29 In any case, the second quarter of the 5th century sees the old Attacking
Athena receding in importance to be replaced by the armed but peaceful Athena best
exemplified by the Pheidian version of the Promachos.30
Although the Athena Promachos by Pheidias is in many ways a shadowy figure to
us, we do, of course, know a certain amount about this famous statue.31 We learn from
ancient testimonia that it was created sometime after the victory over the Persians. In
addition we know that it stood on the Acropolis, that it was made of bronze, and that it
was exceedingly tall. If we can trust the evidence of certain coins of the Roman Imperi-
al period, it stood between the Erechtheion and the Propylaia. Most important, howev-
er, is the manner in which it evidently held the weapons at ease, the shield in one
hand, the spear probably in the other with its butt resting on the ground. It was clearly
an influential monument which inspired numerous copies throughout the rest of antiq-
uity and helped set the tone for the revised iconography of the warrior goddess.
The Fighting Athena survived in the Classical age as an indispensable ingredient in
representations of certain old archetypal myths: in the Gigantomachy as an important
participant, and in the Ilioupersis in the form of the Palladion. Indeed these myths are
elevated to new heights in the formulaic glorification of the triumph of order over
chaos, civilization over barbarianism, by their inclusion in the sculptural program of the
Parthenon.32 At the same time the conservative Panathenaics preserved the old image
of the fighting goddess, even changing it periodically to look more archaic. This image
was quite purposely used to underscore the age and continuity of a venerable institu-
tion. But as a symbol of the new Athens the Fighting Athena was
apparently
felt to be
too aggressive a symbol. Thus we see, for example, the reworking of the
iconography
of
the Birth of Athena from the old version, with the goddess emerging ready
for battle
from Zeus' head, to that which was so proudly proclaimed on the East pediment of the
Parthenon where (however she is restored) she appears as the peaceful, armed goddess
who promotes wisdom and artistry in war.33 In terms of modern public relations, Athe-
na's image and her "logo" have undergone a
significant shift of
emphasis.
What, then, of the late 5th-century ring discovered at Nemea? The circumstances
of finding prevent a definitive statement concerning
the nature of its context. The
29Ridgway, op. cit., p. 30, arguing against Langlotz (in H. Schrader, E. Langlotz, W.-H. Schuchhardt,
Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akropolis, Frankfurt 1939, pp. 48-49).
30Cf. Herington ("Athena," pp. 68-70) for his interpretation of the Periclean, Aeschylean Athena.
31Pausanias, i.28.2; Scholiast on Demosthenes, contra Androtion, 13; see Mathiopoulos, op. cit. (foot-
note 8 above), with references.
32The Gigantomachy on the East metopes (F. Brommer, Die Metopen des Parthenon, Mainz 1967, pp.
198-209; East metope 4 shows Athena), the Ilioupersis on the much damaged North metopes (ibid., pp.
218-221).
33F. Brommer. Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel, Mainz 1963, pp. 142-144. See also E. B. Harrison,
"Athena and Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon," AJA 71, 1967, pp. 30-32.
possibility of accidental loss by its owner cannot, of course, be ruled out, but the appro-
priateness of such an object as a dedication to the goddess' father Zeus and its findspot
in the innermost sacred area of the sanctuary make the idea of a votive most attractive.
Equally incapable of proof is a suggestion that the ring may have belonged to an Athe-
nian. The close associations of the motif with that city, however, and the long icono-
graphic tradition which links it so closely with Athenian monuments of an earlier date,
lend considerable weight to the suggestion.
Iconographically, the ring is independent of contemporary Panathenaics although,
like them, it shows archaistic mannerisms in its treatment of the goddess. What, then,
is its significance? I should like to speculate that the owner of the ring was a citizen of
late 5th-century Athens with conservative political leanings. His politics, I would sug-
gest, are revealed by the ring device which is so clearly modeled, however loosely, on
the old Archaic imagery of the fighting city goddess.34 She served in this context as a
symbol and a reminder of the glorious days of that overtly aggressive power which be-
longed to Athens under the tyrants. Our hypothetical Athenian may, then, have sought
to express such ideals through his personal sealing device.35 It was thus an appropriate
and pious act to dedicate this significant possession at the venerable Panhellenic sanctu-
ary of Zeus at Nemea.36
STELLA G. MILLER
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Stanford, CA 94305
340n ring devices and their relationship to statues see most recently comments by G. Horster, Statuen
auf Gemmen, Bonn 1970, pp. 46-47.
350n ancient seal usage see Kubitschek, "Signum," RE, 2nd ser., II, 1923, cols. 2361-2455; and for
engraved rings and gems employed as seals see G. S. Dontas,
"'ApXaat a'EXkYvtJat' 8, 'a-ta
o~payi8E,"
'ApX'E0,
1955 [19611, pp. 1-21; Boardman, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), pp. 235-238, 428-430.
For the use of an Athena Promachos ring device see a Samian stamped amphora handle (V. R.
Grace, "Samian Amphoras," Hesperia 40, 1971, p. 60, pl. 14, nos. 54-56); and for the same
motyif
a Seleu-
cid bulla (M. Rostovtzeff, "Seleucid Babylonia: Bullae and Seals of Clay with Greek Inscriptions," YCS 3,
1932, pp. 20-21, pl. 2, no. 5). Both are of the later archaistic type of Promachos discussed by Havelock,
loc. cit. (footnote 7 above).
36Finger rings, plain or with sealing devices, are not uncommon dedications to the gods (cf., for exam-
ple, IG 112, 1409, part of the Parthenon inventories).
PLATE 14
c. Cast of ring GJ 14
a, b. Bronze ring, Nemea inv. GJ 14
d. Panathenaic vase, 6th century B.C. (Athenian Agora p 24661)
STELLA G. MILLER: A MINIATURE ATHENA PROMACHOS
KLEONAI, THE NEMEAN GAMES,
AND THE LAMIAN WAR
T ^>HE DEATH OF ALEXANDER in 323 B.C. unleashed anti-Macedonian sentiments
throughout Greece, and especially in Athens, with the ill-fated Lamian War as the
direct consequence. As the excavations of the Athenian Agora have shown vividly, this
war was a disaster for Athens. Homer Thompson has given us an example of the inter-
ruption of construction begun under the Lykourgan program,1 and the archaeological
picture of economic stagnation becomes one of increasing deprivation as Athens contin-
ued toward the real hunger of the early 3rd century B.C.2 In retrospect, the Lamian War
can be characterized as a faltering and self-deluded step on the road to self-destruction,
but at the beginning of the war Athens could reasonably hope for success.3 As is true of
every war, the causes of the Lamian War were varied, but the purpose can be defined,
simply and obviously, as anti-Macedonian. It was this negative force of unification
which helped Athens gain her allies in the opening stages and which is symbolized by
the rather grandiose title of "Hellenic War" which was used officially by the Athenians
themselves.4 The purpose of this paper is to suggest that Kleonai, a polis not previously
associated with the Lamian War, may have played a role at certain stages of the conflict.
First it is necessary to review the events which led to the actual hostilities. At the
Olympic Games which culminated on August 4, 324 B.C.,5 Alexander's representative,
Nikanor of Stageira, made an announcement which could not have been much of a
surprise since a crowd of more than 20,000 who were directly affected by the proclama-
tion had gathered to hear it. This was the order for the restoration of exiles.6 This
order, popular enough in many quarters, would have forced Athens and Aitolia to give
up claims on Samos and Oiniadai, respectively. The proclamation accordingly gave
'H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, XIV, The Agora of Athens, Princeton
1972, pp. 21-23, 60-61, 172.
I would thank E. Badian and A. Boegehold for their helpful suggestions and criticisms during the
preparation of this paper. The responsibility for errors of fact or judgment which remain, despite their good
offices, is mine.
In references below the following abbreviation will be used:
Badian = E. Badian, "Harpalus," JHS 81, 1961, pp. 16-43.
2Stella G. Miller, "Menon's Cistern," Hesperia 43, 1974, p. 209, for references and bibliography.
3As has been pointed out recently by F. W. Mitchel, "Lykourgan Athens: 338-322," Lectures in Mem-
ory of Louise Taft Semple, Second Series, Norman, Oklahoma 1973, p. 212.
4IG JJ2, 448, lines 43-44; 505, line 17; 506, lines 9-10; cf. Plutarch, Phokion, 23.1.
5S. G. Miller, "The Date of Olympic Festivals," AthMitt 90, 1975, pp. 223, 230. Although I realize
that the translation of ancient dates into modern calendar dates is a risky business which does not receive
universal approval, it seems to me valuable for present purposes. Such a policy quickly reveals relative
chronology and gives a general indication of absolute chronology.
6Diodorus Siculus, xvii.109.1; xviii.8.207; cf. M. N. Tod, Greek Historical Inscriptions II, Oxford 1948,
nos. 201 and 202, and p. 297, for additional references and bibliography.
KLEONAI, THE NEMEAN GAMES, AND THE LAMIAN WAR 101
Athens and Aitolia pause, and it has been suggested that they may already at this time
(i.e. after the Olympic Games of 324 B.C. but before the death of Alexander) have
sought an alliance based upon a mutual distaste for the return of the exiles.7 It is of
some interest that the leader
(apXE9Ecvpo)
of the Athenian delegation to the Olympic
Games of 324 was Demosthenes.8
In the meantime, no more than a few weeks before the end of the archonship of
Antikles (325/4 B.C.), Harpalus had arrived in Athens.9 We need not recount here all
the events of Harpalus' sojourn in Athens, but we should recall three results of it: 1)
the Athenian treasury, already healthy thanks to the policies of Lykourgos,10 was aug-
mented by the monies confiscated from Harpalus;11 2) the number of mercenaries
centered at Tainaron in southernmost Lakonia, and available to the highest bidder, was
increased;12 and 3) Demosthenes (along with others including Demades) was forced
into exile, probably no earlier than March, 323 B.C.13 The situation in Athens was thus
in some disarray, with several of her leaders in exile, but considerable material re-
sources were available and anti-Macedonian sentiment had been heightened. The means
and the motive were present, and the opportunity soon came with the death of Alexan-
der in Babylon on June 10-11, 323 B.C.14 We do not know how much time elapsed
between Alexander's death and the first active move of the Athenians toward revolt
(but see footnote 26 below). Early reports of his death, in the face of many previous
false rumors, were regarded as premature, but confirmation finally came.15 This confir-
mation cannot have arrived by the beginning of the new archonship of Kephisodoros on
July 12, 323 B.C.16 but the first rumors had surely reached Athens in the month since
Alexander's death. These may not have been sufficient to support open revolt, but they
will have encouraged Athens to continue her policy of foot dragging vis-A-vis the resto-
ration of the exiles and also the pursuit of alliance with the Aitolians. We can see the
continuation of such a policy in the re-election of Leosthenes as strategos for the new
7For the proper reading of the heading of the alliance between Athens and Aitolia see F. W. Mitchel,
"A Note on IG 12 370," Phoenix 18, 1964, pp. 13-17. For a summary of the question of its date see L.
Moretti, Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche I, Florence 1967, no. 1, pp. 1-2. Further, see also below, footnotes 17
and 26.
8Deinarchos, i.81-82, 103. These may also have been the Olympics at which Demosthenes defended
the histories of Thebes and Olynthos against the libels of one Lamachos, a pro-Macedonian encomiast; cf.
Plutarch, Demosthenes, 9.1-2.
9Badian, pp. 42-43, for the chronology of Harpalus' activities, and of Demosthenes' trial and exile.
Although it makes no difference to the relative chronology, Badian's modern dates ought, perhaps, to be
revised by one day in accord with B. D. Meritt, The Athenian Year, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1961, p. 133,
where the year of Antikles is reckoned as ending on July 22, 324 B.C. Meritt's dates are those used
throughout this paper unless otherwise specified.
"Mitchel, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), pp. 190, 210, et passim.
"Diodorus Siculus, xviii.9.1-4.
'Badian, pp. 25-28.
'3Badian, p. 43.
4D. M. Lewis, "Two Days," CR 19, 1969, p. 272.
'Diodorus Siculus, XVIII.9.4; Plutarch, Phokion, 22.3-4.
'6Meritt, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), p. 133.
102 STEPHEN G. MILLER
year. Leosthenes had been
oi-parrjqyoS
EMrt n dpaP in 324/3 B.C.,17 and his military
leadership was to continue into the war until his death during the seige of Lamia in the
winter of 323/2 B.C.18 Perhaps during his first year as strategos in 324/3 B.C., or perhaps
during the preceding year,19 Leosthenes was responsible for bringing a large number of
mercenaries to Tainaron.20 This group, plus other mercenaries already there and those
of Harpalus (see above), were those with whom Leosthenes entered into negotiations,
at first with the secret aid and consent of the Athenian Boule but, after the death of
Alexander had been confirmed, with the open
(OavEpcW)
support of the Demos.2" The
result was the acquisition of a substantial army for Athens.
The time was now the summer of 323 B.C., the archonship of Kephisodoros had
just begun, and the Athenians were ready to move toward open anti-Macedonian alli-
ances. The first of these, for which considerable groundwork had been done already
(above, footnote 7 and text ad loc.), was soon concluded with the Aitolians, almost
certainly after the confirmation of the death of Alexander.22 A general idea of the time
which was required for this diplomatic offensive comes from a list of the allies provided
"7G. Mathieu, "Notes sur Athenes 'a la veille de la guerre Lamiaque," RevPhil 3, 1929, p. 162. It is
possible that Leosthenes had been a general even earlier but I can find no proof of it. Mitchel, op.
cit.
(footnote 7 above), p. 16, paraphrasing Diodorus Siculus, xvii.110.1 and 111.3, says: "In the archonship
of
Antikles (325/4) Leosthenes was selected by the boule and went to treat with the Aitolians, who were
hostile to the king, concerning an alliance ... ." Even though Diodorus does list these activities of Leos-
thenes under the year of Antikles, I doubt that we can date them so confidently to 324/3 B.C. First of all,
Diodorus freqently gets ahead of himself. Just so he mentions, for example, the recall of the exiles which
was announced at the Olympic Games of 324/3 B.C. under his general heading for the archonship of Chre-
mes in 326/5 (xvII.109.1). Secondly, Diodorus represents Leosthenes' negotiations with the Aitolians as
occurring after his selection by the mercenaries at Tainaron as their leader, and this selection apparently
took some time (xvII.1 11.3: TO 8E TEXEvTa-LOV AEWOn-64 -v TO V'A0d vaio v ... IELoVVTO 0TpaTqyov
av'ToKpa-
Topa). Finally, these activities of Leosthenes with the mercenaries and later with the Aitolians are set off
by Diodorus against Alexander's campaign against the Kossians. This campaign took place after the death
of Hephaistion in the winter of 324/3 (Plutarch, Alexander, 72.3; Arrian, vii.15.1-3). Mitchel may be cor-
rect in placing the first negotiations of Leosthenes with the Aitolians before the death of Alexander but is
surely wrong to place them earlier than the winter of 324/3 B.C. That is, the negotiations belong, at. the
earliest, only a very few months before the death of the king. Indeed, Diodorus later (xviii.9.4) states that
the secret negotiations with the mercenaries were taking place before the death of Alexander had been
confirmed (i.e. after the rumors of his death?) but that the Aitolian negotiations followed the confirmation
of Alexander's death.
So too Badian (p. 38) seems to place Leosthenes' secret negotiations
with the mercenaries earlier
(autumn 324) than demanded by the text of Diodorus. It seems to me that Diodorus in xvii.111 is simply
describing the same situation which he discusses again in its proper chronological position at xviII.9. The
problem is not with Diodorus' facts but with his organization, style of presentation, and tendency
to
redundancy.
18Diodorus Siculus, xvuii.13.5.
'9Badian (pp. 26-27, cf. p. 38) places this repatriation in 325/4, but I can see no certain evidence for
this date. It appears that this activity of Leosthenes could have occurred during the early part of the ar-
chonship of Hegesias; that is, during the early part of Leosthenes' first attested year as strategos.
20Pausanias, 1.25.5; vii.52.5.
2'Diodorus Siculus, xvii.111.3; cf. above, footnote 17. Does the shift by Diodorus from the Boule to
the Demos imply that a formal vote was taken and a psephisma passed by the Ekklesia?
22Diodorus Siculus, xviii.10.5 and 11.1; cf. footnotes 7 and 17 above.
by Diodorus and from two Attic inscriptions. Diodorus' list is, ostensibly, in chronologi-
cal order of the time when each ally joined with Athens, and I give it here:23
Aitolians Athamanians
Thessalians, except Pelinna Leukadians
Oitians, except Heraklea Molossians (those subject to Aryptaios)
Phthiotian Achaians, except Thebes a few Illyrians
Melians, except Lamia a few Thracians
Dorians Karystos alone of the Euboians
Lokrians Argives
Phokians Sikyonians
Ainianians Eleans
Alyzaians Messenians
Dolopians inhabitants of Akte
We have epigraphic texts which pertain to two of these alliances: the Phokian and
the Sikyonian.24 Assuming that Diodorus' list is more or less chronologically correct in
its sequence, these inscriptions give the general range for the period of the Athenian
diplomatic push. The Phokian text dates to Pyanepsion 19 (October 27), 323, the Siky-
onian to Posideon 16 (December 23), 323.25 The quest for allies was thus well under
way by late October and continued until late December, with the greatest successes
enjoyed in the nearly two months between these two alliances.26 This fits well with
other evidence. For example, we hear that the Athenian ambassadors, including Hype-
reides,27 were joined by the still exiled Demosthenes, who was of considerable help to
them in the Peloponnesos. As a result of his efforts, Demosthenes was recalled,28 but
not in time to deliver the funeral oration for Leosthenes who had died during the
winter of 323/2 B.C.29 Thus Athens' military and diplomatic efforts, begun secretly
during the summer of 323, were bearing fruit during the autumn and early winter of
that year.
It is against this background that I would suggest that another decree of the Athe-
nians should be set. This is the long known, but largely ignored, IG JJ2, 365.30 The
23Diodorus Siculus, xvIII.11.1-2; cf. the shorter list of Pausanias, i.25.4 which is arranged geographical-
ly. So, too, within subdivisions, is the list of Diodorus, but that appears to reflect the concentration of
Athenian diplomatic effort in successive regions.
24 IG 112, 367 (SEG XXI, 295) and 448 (SEG XXI, 297), respectively.
25For the dates, see Meritt, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pp. 107-108, 133.
26This chronology might imply that the first alliance with the Aitolians had not been concluded until,
perhaps, a month before the Phokian alliance at the earliest. The Aitolian alliance might thus be dated in
mid- to late September (above, footnotes 17 and 22). This would accord well with the time necessary to
have received confirmation of the death of Alexander which can be estimated at about 90 days; cf. Badian,
p. 42.
27Justin, xiii.5.10.
28Plutarch, Demosthenes, 27.1-6.
29Diodorus Siculus, xviii.13.6.
30E.M. 7178 + 7179; SEG XXI, 294. Thanks to the kindness and efficiency of Mrs. Peppa-Delmousou
and her staff, I have been able to examine the stone but understand that it is to receive a full re-edition by
inscription is on a stele of Hymettian marble the right side and much of the central
surface of which are badly damaged. The decree's heading is fairly well preserved, and
the dating formula, although somewhat restored, is clear enough. It reveals that this law
was passed on the 11th of Hekatombaion in the archonship of Kephisodotos (July 23,
323/2). The law thus falls into that period about seven weeks after the death of Alexan-
der when his death had been reported but not yet confirmed, when Leosthenes and the
Athenians were beginning, but not yet openly, their preparations for revolt. It is thus
chronologically possible that IG I12, 365 had something to do with these early, as yet
tentative preparations.
Due to the damage of the stone's surface, the precise details of this law are not
easy to determine. Following the name of the orator, in lines 7-9, we have: [7r]
Ept
[COI v
Xe[yEdI
6 a[pKEOE9CpI o0 6' E
Ig Ta N [tI ea K [aIL A [alIrv [pusd
6
7r[p6EvoerI| TrS '7rOXEcs.
Although this passage is fairly heavily restored, the remaining preserved parts of the
text and the stoichedon requirements make the restorations secure. Below this passage
the text becomes very fragmentary, but it is clear that the Athenian archetheoros and
the proxenos Lapyris are, because of what they reported to the Demos, to receive some
recognition and payments.31 Next the number of proxenoi increases,32 and there is a
shift from provisions concerning the past and present to provisions for the future. This
begins to become clear on the second fragment of the stone,33 and is completely clear at
the end of the main text.34 After a slight uninscribed gap on the stone, there is a stan-
dard invitation extended to Lapyris, son of Kallias, from Kleonai, to deipnon in the
prytaneion, and a provision that this law is to be written "on the stele on the acropolis
on which was written the proxenia for Echembrotos of Kleonai, the ancestor of Lapy-
ris." In the event, and probably for reasons of space, our law was not written on the
stele of Echembrotos. This, too, survives and is of Pentelic marble with a thickness
much greater than that of the Lapyris stele.35 Dating from the first quarter
of the 4th
century B.C., it appears to document that Echembrotos' father had also been an Athe-
nian proxenos at Kleonai.36 Thus Lapyris stands in a long line, extending over at least a
century, of strong family ties with Athens.
What was it that Lapyris and the archetheoros reported to the Athenians? We
cannot know, but clearly it
pleased the Athenians who not
only
rewarded the
reporters
M. Walbank. Therefore, I offer here neither a text nor a photograph. I would, however, make two points
about the stone. First, the two parts of the stele, presented in IG as separate pieces fragmentsta duo mar-
moris Hymettii non contigua"), do join physically and have now been set together in the Epigraphical
Museum. In accord with IG I shall, however, refer to the two individual fragments. Secondly, the surface
of the stone is so badly chipped that I could make only a very few minor readings in addition to those
presented in IG. These readings make no substantive changes in the published text.
31Line 10: apKE6[Ewp--]; line 14: ap [ybvAptov]; line 15: XAa~.atPEP VITEp[--.
32Line
16:J[T1o0vt
Wrpo9vov[c--.
33Frag. b, line 5: Kaea Aa&WrptL 6 irpo6vok-. I
34Frag. b, lines 6-8: TOvn 8E a1TO8EKUas /uspl[ua Tci apKEI OE pco[LI os av aEt apKE6E[cop7 T7) roll
apyvptov.
35IG 112, 63; E.M. 6923.
36Lines 10-11: Ka6laITE[pl 6 d[aT' |p avrO--.
but also made provisions for the future, almost certainly tied specifically to the Nemean
Games.37 Remembering that at the time of this decree and of the Nemean Games in
32338 the rumors of Alexander's death must have been current, and remembering the
actions taken by the Athenians as a result of those rumors, it is tempting to see a con-
nection between the actions of Lapyris and the archetheoros, and the earliest stages of
the revolt against Macedon. The great Panhellenic festival at Nemea would have pro-
vided a very appropriate and convenient opportunity for the Athenians to sound out
potential allies. If this interpretation is correct, and if Lapyris was helping the Athenians
in these early and covert stages of the revolt, then we might expect that, once the Athe-
nian actions became open, Kleonai, Lapyris' home state, would have joined with the
Athenians. Yet the lists of allies in the Hellenic War do not include Kleonai (above,
footnote 23). Perhaps we are to understand the presence of Kleonai in the Argive entry
into the alliance; certainly the smaller polis was frequently to be seen acting in concert
with the larger,39 but we cannot assume the presence of Kleonai in every Argive action.
Nonetheless, some role by Kleonai in the Lamian War is implicit in the fact that, at the
conclusion of the war, Antipater went to KleonaiA0 This was after his victory at Krannon
37The mention in fragment b, lines 3 and 4, of theoroi, as well as of future archetheoroi in lines 6-8
(above, footnote 34), would seem appropriate only to a Panhellenic festival, and since the Nemean Games
have already been mentioned, and served in some way as the stimulus for this law, the future provisions
seem surely to relate to those games.
38The time of the Games cannot be established with great precision, but the careful investigations of
A. Boethius (Der argivische Kalendar, Uppsala 1922, p. 68) indicate a date in the first half of July.
39Co-operation between Argos and Kleonai begins at least as early as ca. 460 (Diodorus Siculus, xi.65;
cf. Strabo, viii.377 and Pausanias, ii.25.6), continues in 457 at Tanagra (Pausanias, i.29.7-9; cf. IG 12,
931/932), in 418 vs. the Spartans (Thucydides v.67.2), and well into the 4th century against the Corinthi-
ans (between 387 and 364; Plutarch, Timoleon, 4). For a possible brief period in the first half of the 5th
century when co-operation may have been lacking see W. G. Forrest, "Themistokles and Argos," CQ 10,
1960, pp. 230-231.
40The evidence for Antipater at Kleonai comes from two passages in Plutarch (Demosthenes, 28.4 and
Phokion, 29.1) both of which deal with the death of Hypereides who, together with others who had sought
refuge on Aigina, was sent to Antipater at Kleonai, there to be executed and have his tongue cut out.
[Plutarch], Decem oratorum vitae, 849 B-C, relates three variants on the place of the death of Hypereides:
at Corinth, in Macedonia, and at Kleonai. Of these, Kleonai is by far the most likely place for Hypereides'
death simply because it is the least obvious. One can imagine why it might have been thought in later
times that Hypereides was sent to Macedonia, or why someone might have thought of Kleonai as a mis-
take for Corinth, but why would Kleonai have ever entered the tradition unless it was actually the place
where Hypereides died?
F. Bdlte (RE, s.v. Kleonai 3) attempts to identify the site of Hypereides' death with a Kleonai in
Phokis. Plutarch, de mulierum virtutibus, 244 D, relates a battle between the Phokians and the Thessalians,
and places this battle at a Kleonai which he regards as so insignificant and unknown that he is obliged to
define its location more precisely as being in the territory of Hyampolis (7cEpt KXECVana Tr 'Yacqtii-8o6o).
When Plutarch mentions the rites which celebrate the battle and the events leading to it, he says simply
that they are celebrated E5t vVv rTEpL 'Ya'tiioXtv (244 B), and he elsewhere refers to the Phokian victory as
being'v e'YacqTi6Xt8 (244 E). He clearly realizes that his readers will not know anything about the Phokian
Kleonai and thus uses the more familiar landmark of Hyampolis. Aside from the improbability that Anti-
pater would have been in such an insignificant place when Hypereides was delivered to him, it is clear that
Plutarch felt that his readers would know to which Kleonai he was referring in his mention of the events of
322 B.C. He felt no need to define further its location. B6lte's arguments are not convincing, and he is
on Metageitnion 7 (August 6), 322,41 and after the garrisoning of Mounychia on Boedro-
mion 20 (September 18).42 Antipater was cleaning up loose ends, including revolution-
aries the last of whom was, appropriately, Demosthenes on Pyanepsion 16 (October 13),
322.43 A week earlier, on Pyanepsion .9,44 Hypereides had been handed over to Antipater
at Kleonai (above, footnote 40). It must have been at roughly this time, in early Octo-
ber, that Antipater was arranging the affairs of the Peloponnesos which included the
appointment of Deinarchos of Corinth as
ELLAEX'qT
s HIEX0oro'v7zrr-ov.45
It is, then, possible that Antipater was using Kleonai as his headquarters for his
post-war clean-up operations in the Peloponnesos, and his behavior in the month before
his appearance at Kleonai is instructive. Although he was then largely concerned with
organizing the situation in Athens, Antipater stayed at Thebes, making his camp among
the ruins of the city razed by Alexander.46 That choice of headquarters would appear to
have been motivated by the fact that Boiotia had remained loyal during the war and
therefore provided a safer, more secure base.47 Just so, in the previous year, Antipater
had used Lamia as a base because of her loyalty.48 Thus a clear and reasonable pattern
emerges, and we can see in Antipater's use of Kleonai the implication, which we have
also discerned in other sources, that Kleonai had not joined the revolt. That fact, plus
Kleonai's location on the main road into the Argolid and the southern Peloponnesos,
controlling the Tretos pass, made Kleonai a most suitable base for Antipater.
Kleonai's loyalty to the Macedonians means that, although a year earlier the Athe-
nians must have hoped that Kleonai would join with them, the faithful proxenos Lapy-
ris did not see his polis join the alliance. This also means that Kleonai had abandoned
its long-established policy of following the Argive lead in international affairs (above,
footnote 39). Why did Kleonai strike out on this independent course which must have
been at least a minor disappointment to the Athenians? Motivations are never
easy to
determine but one possible explanation can be offered.
Control of the Nemean Games, originally in the hands of Kleonai, had passed to
Argos at some time before 388 B.C.49 This shift in the control of the Games appears
to
have occurred with at least the tacit consent of Kleonai for, as we have seen
(above,
simply wrong when he says: "Dass es [the site of Antipater's stop after the Lamian War] nicht um K. im
Peloponnes handeln kann, ergibt sich aus Plut. Phok. 26 mit volikommener Sicherheit." I can find nothing to
suggest that the Kleonai in the cited text was anything other than the one in the Peloponnesos. The fact
that Antipater stopped for a time in Thebes before going on to Kleonai is hardly surprising, even though
Bblte seems to regard it as such. See the very appropriate remarks of K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte
IV, 2nd ed., i, Berlin and Leipzig 1925, p. 78, note 1.
41 Plutarch, Camillus, 19.5.
42Plutarch, Phokion, 28.1.
43Plutarch, Demosthenes, 30.4.
44
[Plutarch], Decem oratorum vitae, 849 C.
45Suidas, si'. AEtvapxo;;
cf. Plutarch, Timoleon, 21.2 and 24.4; Phokion, 33.3.
46Plutarch, Phokion, 26.3 and 27.1.
47Diodorus Siculus, xviii.11.3-5.
48Diodorus Siculus, xvnI.11.1 and 12.4.
49Xenophon, Hellenika IV.7.2.
footnote 39), co-operation between Kleonai and Argos continued after that time. As
recent excavations at Nemea have shown, the Games themselves were absent from
Nemea, having been moved almost certainly to Argos, from the time of a violent
destruction in the late 5th century B.C.50 until the 330's when a new program of con-
struction shows that the Games had returned to Nemea. This shift of the Games back
to Nemea, probably effected by Macedonian policy after Chaironeia, was not accompan-
ied by a shift of control back to Kleonai. Rather, Argos retained control of the Games
even though they were now at Nemea once again.5"
What were the reactions of Kleonai and Argos to this Macedonian relocation of the
Games to Nemea in the 330's B.C.? We can deduce a negative Argive reaction from the
fact that in the first half of the 3rd century, with Macedonian power in the Peloponne-
sos dissipated, the Argives moved the Games back to Argos.52 On the other hand, we
can suspect that Kleonai was very happy to have the Games at Nemea, and geography
reveals the reason. With the Games a scant three miles to the west on the main road
which passed by Kleonai,53 the latter was clearly a main source of supplies for the tens
of thousands of visitors to Nemea. Control of the Games may have carried prestige but
proximity to the Games was profitable.
Kleonai's loyalty to the Macedonians during the Lamian War is thus explicable in
terms of Macedonian policy toward the Nemean Games.54 It is very doubtful that Kleo-
nai's entry into the Athenian alliance would have affected the outcome of the war, but
the Athenian diplomatic failure with Kleonai, despite early and tentative successes at
the Nemean Games of 323 with the help of Lapyris of Kleonai, foreshadowed the
failure of the Lamian War, the end of any Athenian claim to international leadership,
and the beginning of economic problems which have been given such definition by
excavations in the Athenian Agora.
Addendum
A recent article by M. Pierart and J.-P. Thalmann, "Nouvelles inscriptions argiennes
I,"BCH, Suppl. IV, 1980, came to my attention too late to be incorporated in the text
above. On pp. 261-269 of that article is published a new inscription which shows con-
50S. G. Miller, "Excavations at Nemea, 1979," Hesperia 49, 1980, p. 186.
51S. G. Miller, "Excavations at Nemea, 1978," Hesperia 48, 1979, pp. 79-80.
52W. Vollgraff, Mnemosyne 44, 1916, pp. 65-69 and 221-232.
53Geographical proximity is combined with lines of communication which were particularly strong
between Kleonai and Nemea. For example, Pausanias (ii.15.2) goes directly from the former to the latter
on his way into the Argolid. Phlious, on the other hand, which lies roughly the same distance to the west
of Nemea as does Kleonai to the east, was visited by Pausanias from Sikyon rather than from Nemea.
54We can see the continuation of this policy during the two decades following the Lamian War in the
presidency of the Nemean Games by Cassander in 315 B.C. (Diodorus Siculus, xix.64.1), the use of Nemea
as the place for displaying a levy of troops from a league of Antigonos Monophthalmos in, probably, 311
B.C. (D. J. Geagan, "Inscriptions from Nemea," Hesperia 37, 1968, pp. 381-384), and the use of Nemea,
together with the other Panhellenic centers, as a meeting place for the league of Demetrios Poliorketes (IG
IV2, 1, line 68).
elusively that, in the period after the Lamian War (peut-etre en 318 ou peu apres, p.
268), Kleonai was incorporated politically into Argos. One is entitled to wonder if this
development might not, in some sense, have been a result of Kleonai's role in the
Lamian War.
STEPHEN G. MILLER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Dwinelle Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720
THE MISSION OF TRIPTOLEMOS
(PLATES 15 AND 16)
A STUDY of the Mission of Triptolemos seems to us an appropriate offering to
honor Homer A. Thompson; as the Attic Hero spread the knowledge of agricul-
ture to civilize the world, so has our friend, the scholar, generously given the fruit of
his work on Attic monuments to enlighten and inform our world.
The connection between artistic representations of Triptolemos and the political
history of Athens, hinted at by C. Dugas,1 has been more fully developed by J. W.
Day,2 who reached the conclusion that "during the fifth century Triptolemos was em-
ployed as a symbol of Athens' civilizing mission at the head of her imperial amphic-
tyony."
The mission of Triptolemos was a favorite topic in Athens even before the time of
Kimon and Perikles. Dugas, who was concerned almost exclusively with representations
on Attic vases, listed 15 black-figured examples; Grossman and Bindokat added four
and three (two of them fragments) respectively.3
La mission du Triptoleme d'apr's l'imagerie Athenienne," MelRome 62, 1950, pp. 7-31, esp. p. 14.
2
The Glory of Athens: The Popular Tradition as Reflected in the Panathenaicus of Aelius Aristides, Chicago
1980, pp. 15-39, esp. p. 24. J. P. Barron is going to include a chapter on the Eleusinian cult in his forth-
coming book on "Athenian propaganda," and M. Sakurai is preparing an English version of her article on
"The Eleusinian Cults and the Development of Athenian Democracy."
3B. Grossman, Eleusinian Gods and Heroes in Greek Art, diss. Washington University 1959, pp. 67-77
and 81-92; A. P. Bindokat, "Demeter und Persephone in der attischen Kunst des 6. bis 4. Jahrhunderts,"
JdI 87, 1972, pp. 78-157. A list of the black-figured vases is given here in the order in which they will be
mentioned in the first part of this essay: D refers to Dugas (see footnote 1 above), pp. 23-24, hos. 1-3
and p. 31, nos. 103, 104; G refers to Grossman, pp. 67-77 and 81-82; B refers to Bindokat.
1. Brussels A 130; CVA, Brussels 1 [Belgium 1], 7 [201:1; ABV, p. 308, no. 82 (Swing Painter); D 2; G
AP 18.
2. Gbttingen J 14; ABV, p. 309, no. 83 (Swing Painter); D 1; G AP 20, 39.
3. Compiegne 975; CVA, Compiegne [France 31, 10 [1081:4, 7; ABV, p. 331, no. 13 (Priam Painter); D
12; G AP 17.
4. Beverly Hills (Dr. Marion Prinzmetal); ABV, p. 478, no. 2, Paralipomena, p. 217 (Edinburgh Painter);
D 13.
5. Vatican 385; ABV, p. 374, no. 195 (Leagros Group); D 7; G AP 21.
6. Lenormant Collection (formerly); D 5; G AP 16.
7. WUrzburg 197; D 4; G AP 19.
8. Bologna, Mus. Civico 5; CVA, Bologna 2 [Italy 7], 14 [3131:4; D 11.
9. San Simeon 5503; D 9.
10. Hamburg; D 10.
11. Providence, Rhode Island School of Design 25.083; CVA, Providence 1 [USA 2], 10 [63]:1a; D 3.
12. Budapest 50.732; B V 53.
13. Munich 1539 (J 543); CVA, Munich 8 [Germany 37], 398 [18161:4, 402 [18201:2, 412 [18301:2; D 8; G
AP 37.
14. Acropolis 675; ABV, p. 377, no. 236, Paralipomena, p. 171, no. 9 (near Chiusi Painter); D 6; G AP 23.
15. Athens, National Museum 430 (CC 967); ABV, p. 587, no. 1 (Beldam Painter); D 104; G AP 40.
110 ISABELLE K. AND ANTONY E. RAUBITSCHEK
A grouping of these vases according to chronology and iconography permits a
better understanding of their representations. The earliest (nos. 1 and 2) show Tripto-
lemos sitting on a country cart,4 a bearded man holding ears of grain in his hand and
giving instructions to mortals about the cultivation of grain. These vases are attributed
to the Swing Painter and dated ca. 540-520 B.C. Both show the cart above the ground,
floating by levitation.'
On vases of the Leagros Period, the cart was rendered more majestic by transform-
ing the stool into a throne-like seat and by adding occasionally wings to carry it over
land and sea. The wings are probably related to the winged cart of Dionysos made for
him by Hephaistos.6 Dionysos sits on a winged cart on the black-figured amphora in
Compiegne (no. 3), while Triptolemos, on the other side of the same vase, has a wing-
less cart and a seat with arm rests. The only black-figured representation of Triptolemos
on a winged cart is on an amphora by the Edinburgh Painter (no. 4; see H. R. W..
Smith, "From Farthest West," AJA 49, 1945, pp. 470-471, fig. 4:1); there the hero is
not associated with Dionysos.7
Triptolemos appears with Demeter on a fragmentary black-figured amphora in
Reggio,8 where, identified by name, he is a member of a divine procession accompany-
ing Demeter; but here he is not on his mission. On the amphoras of the Leagros Period
(nos. 8-14), the attentive women on either side of Triptolemos cannot be securely
identified as Demeter and Kore; for no. 10, see R. Pagenstecher, "Zu unteritalischen
Terracotten," AA [JdI 23], 1917, p. 107, fig. 37. No. 13 has been assigned in the CVA
to "near the Chiusi Painter and the Antiope group."
The Mission of Triptolemos on three black-figured lekythoi reflects the already
established red-figured scenes with snakes as an aid in drawing the chariot (nos. 15-17).
These vases belong to the 5th century; two of them show the hero alone (nos. 15 and
16) and the third, the hero flanked by two unidentified women.
The iconography of these vases shows the policy of Peisistratos and his sons, who
fostered the cultivation of grain and of the vine and who promoted
the cults of Di-
onysos and Demeter.9 The City Eleusinion may have been founded
already in the age
16. Athens market; ABV, p. 518 (Haspels, ABL, no. 64: Theseus Painter); G AP 38.
17. Prague, National Museum 1867; ABV, p. 708, no. 19 (Emporium Painter); G AP 22.
4See H.- L. Lorimer, "The Country Cart of Ancient Greece," JHS 23, 1903, pp. 132-151.
5For illustrations of no. 2, see A. B. Cook, Zeus I, Cambridge 1914, p. 213, fig. 156; P. Jacobsthal,
Gattinger Vasen, Berlin 1912, pl. 5.
6This is suggested by the red-figured kylix in Berlin (2273) by the Ambrosios Painter (AR V2, p. 174,
no. 31; see Cook, op. cit., p. 216, fig. 159), and the hypothesis is strengthened by the appearance of He-
phaistos in such a cart on a kylix in Florence; see E. Simon, Gbtter der Griechen, Munich 1969, pp. 223-
224, fig. 209; M. Robertson, review of F. Brommer, Hephaistos, Mainz am Rhein, AJA 84, 1980, p. 104.
7Other amphoras with Dionysos on one side and Triptolemos on the other are nos. 5 (C. Albizzati,
Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano [n.p., n.d.], pl. 54, no. 385), 6 (Cook, op. cit. [footnote 5 above], p. 214,
figs. 157:a and b), 7 (E. Langlotz, Griechische Vasen in Wflrzburg, Munich 1932, p. 34, pl. 51, no. 197).
8Reggio, Mus. Nazionale 4001; ABV, p. 147, no. 6 (manner of Exekias); H. Metzger, L'imagerie athe-
nienne, Paris 1965, p. 8, pls. I and II.
9See A. Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants, London 1956, pp. 113-114.
THE MISSION OF TRIPTOLEMOS 111
of the tyrants.10 The association of Demeter and Triptolemos is implied by the scenes
on the black-figured vases (nos. 1-17) which depict the Mission. This mission is not
mentioned in the Hymn to Demeter which is not only earlier but also purely Eleusin-
ian.11 The elevation of Triptolemos as the hero who uses a "chariot of the gods" may
belong to the time of the establishment of the City Eleusinion, which should have
taken place according to the vases and the excavations in the reign of Peisistratos. The
poet Onomakritos, a friend of his son Hippias, is said to have composed poems and
oracles about Triptolemos which he attributed to Mousaios to give them greater author-
ity.12 Thus the vase paintings enrich our knowledge and understanding of the establish-
ment of the Eleusinian cult in the city of Athens by showing that the story of Triptole-
mos was added at that time, possibly taken from Argos, the home of Peisistratos' sec-
ond wife, Timonassa.13
The transformation of Triptolemos from an instructor of the Athenian farmers in
the art of agriculture into a hero, charged by Demeter to spread the knowledge of
farming throughout the world, took place, according to the vases illustrating this mis-
sion, between 510 and 480 B.C., when renewed activity is attested both in Eleusis and in
the Eleusinion in Athens.14 This propaganda effort with its emphasis on the Mission of
Triptolemos beyond the borders of Attica may be connected with the claims of the
newly founded Athenian democracy to be the mother city of all the Ionians.15
The skyphos painted by Oltos and found on the Akropolis is unfortunately so frag-
mentary that the composition of the three figures is not certain:16 Demeter, holding
ears of grain, sits on a throne; Triptolemos must be in his chariot of which only the
footrest is preserved; a second female figure, elaborately dressed in embroidered chiton
and mantle, is shown frontally. Details now missing from the skyphos by Oltos may be
seen on fragments of a contemporary phiale by the Euergides Painter, also from the
Akropolis.17 Boardman observed that this painter shared "Epiktetos' admiration for
Hipparchos."18 It seems that the Athenians of the early democracy continued the inter-
est of the tyrants in the Eleusinian cult. On neither vase is the head of Triptolemos
10See H. A. Thompson, "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1959," Hesperia 29, 1960, pp. 334-338; H.
A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, XIV, The Agora of Athens, Princeton 1972, pp.
152-153; R. E. Wycherley, Stones of Athens, Princeton 1978, pp. 71-72.
"1See N. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford 1974, pp. 194-196 and 301-302 with
notes on lines 476-482.
"See Herodotos, vii.6.3; Pausanias, i.14.2; 22.7; viii.37.5.
"See Aristotle, Athenaion Politeia, 17; Pausanias, I.14.2.
14See IG I2, 5 (818 is another copy) = IG I3, 5; L. H. Jeffery, "The Boustrophedon Sacral Inscriptions
from the Agora," Hesperia 17, 1948, pp. 86-111; J. Travlos, Pictorial Dictionary of Athens, New York 1971,
pp. 198-199; Wycherley, op. cit. (footnote 10 above), pp. 71-72; K. Clinton, "IG 12 5, The Eleusinia, and
the Eleusinians," AJP 100, 1979, pp. 1-12, esp. note 13 on pp. 4-5.
"See Herodotos, i.147; v.97; ix.97.
'6E 13; Graef-Langlotz, Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen, Berlin 1931, II, ii, p. 41, pl. 39,
449 a-d; ARV2, p. 66, no. 135.
'7Graef-Langlotz, op. cit., p. 11, no. 147, pl. 6; ARV2, p. 89, no. 19.
'Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Archaic Period, London 1975, p. 60.
preserved; we cannot tell, therefore, whether he was already beardless and long haired
as he appears in the canonical scenes of the 5th century.
After the Persian Wars representations of the Mission of Triptolemos on vases
became frequent, perhaps as an acknowledgment of the aid given by the Eleusinian
deities to the Athenians both at Marathon (Herodotos, viii.65) and at Salamis (Plutarch,
Themistocles, 15), perhaps in gratitude for Demeter's gifts to the Athenians and, through
the Athenians, to the world.19 It was at that time, in 468 B.C., that Sophokles' Triptolemos
was performed and favorably received. Although only fragments are preserved (A. C.
Pearson, Fragments II, Cambridge 1917, pp. 239-242), the play must have dealt with the
Mission of Triptolemos since some of the fragments contain references to details seen
on the vases: the dragons which pull the chariot (fragment 596) and Demeter's charge to
Triptolemos (fragment 597). The transmission of this message to certain unspecified
nations, to which Dionysios of Halikarnassos refers (Antiquitatum romanarum 1.12.2),
may have been part of Sophokles' play; an inscription of ca. 460 B.C. concerning the
proper conduct of the Mysteria refers in a fragmentarily preserved passage20 to "these
cities" meaning the cities who share the cult of Demeter and benefit from her gifts.
Later in the 5th century, the allies of the Athenians and the Greeks in general were
requested and invited to contribute wheat and barley, the "fruits of the earth", to the
sanctuary in Eleusis, certainly in return for the benefactions received from Demeter and
from the Athenians through the Mission of Triptolemos (IG 12, 76 = IG J3, 78).
The strongest indication of the importance of the Mission of Triptolemos and of the
benefactions of Athens is given by the vases of the period between the Persian and Pelo-
ponnesian Wars. Twelve of the 245 vases attributed by Beazley to the Berlin Painter
(AR V2, pp. 196-214) illustrate the Mission of Triptolemos. The earliest of these21 shows
the hero standing next to his chariot which is now winged for the longer trip outside Atti-
ca. He holds the Eleusinian scepter and Demeter hands him ears of grain; Persephone
and Hades appear on the reverse. Two fragmentary vases from the same period probably
echo the same scene, as suggested by the reconstruction offered by G. Schwarz.22
The missionary aspect of Triptolemos' travels was illustrated even more clearly by
showing him pouring a libation before his departure, evidently an adaptation of the
"warrior's departure", an invention of the Kleophrades Painter.23 The scene first ap-
peared on the Berlin Painter's hydria in Copenhagen (2696: ARV2, p. 210, no. 181) of
his middle period. Triptolemos is seated in his winged
chariot holding out a phiale
191n the "Ephebic Oath" (M. N. Tod, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions II, Oxford 1948,
no.
204; P. Siewert, "The Ephebic Oath in Fifth-Century Athens," JHS 97, 1977, pp. 102-111),
which surely
goes back to the Persian Wars, the young men swore by the fruits of the earth, and in the Panegyricus
of
Isokrates (which repeats details of the funeral orations which also go back to the Persian Wars) the gifts
of
Demeter to the Athenians and to the world are emphasized (28-29).
20IG 12, 6 and 9 (SEG X, 6 and XXVI, 2), lines 36-43 = IG I3, lines 36-43; copies of this text were
set up in Eleusis and in the Eleusinion in Athens.
21Karlsruhe 68.101, Paralipomena, p. 344, no. 131bis.
22"Zwei eleusinische Szenen auf einem Kelchkrater des Berliner Malers in Athen,"
AA [JdI 861,
1971,
pp. 178-182: ARV2, p. 211, no. 201 and p. 205, nos. 119 and 120.
23See E. Simon, Opfernde Gitter, Berlin 1953, p. 71.
towards Kore, who is about to pour a libation from an oinochoe in her right hand while
she holds a flaming torch in her left. The same scene is repeated on a hydria in Graz
from the painter's late period.24 To this period belong also two stamnoi in the Louvre
(G 371
=
ARV2, p. 208, no. 158 and C 10798
=
ARV2, p. 208, no. 159) with De-
meter, Triptolemos and Kore in a multifigured scene, perhaps not independent of
MakrQn's earlier skyphos.25
The invention of the multifigured scene, including Triptolemos with Demeter and
Kore, may be credited to Makron, who showed this group among six other figures on
his famous skyphos in the British Museum.26 Here all the characters are labeled: Trip-
tolemos, a beardless youth with long hair, myrtle crowned, with chiton and mantle,
seated in a chariot equipped with wings and snakes to carry him over land and sea;
behind him regal "Demetre" with embroidered chiton and mantle, a polos on her head,
a flaming torch in her right hand, three ears of grain in her left. In front of Triptolemos
is "Pherephatta" about to pour a libation from the oinochoe in her right hand into the
phiale held out to her by Triptolemos, while in her left she holds a flaming torch. Oth-
ers present include Triptolemos' parents "Eumolppos" and "Eleusis" as well as the
gods Zeus, Poseidon and Amphitrite. Of the 354 vases attributed to Makron, this sky-
phos of ca. 480 B.C. is the only one which shows Triptolemos and which depicts him in
a friezelike composition. One must, however, resist the temptation to claim that the
vase painter was inspired by and copied a contemporary mural. This caution is also
suggested by a vase painted by an unidentified member of Brygos' workshop which was
found in the same tomb at Capua as the Makron skyphos,27 and which contains an
eight-figure scene consisting of Triptolemos in a snakeless winged chariot, stretching
out his phiale to a draped woman who holds a flower in her right hand. She stands in a
building, indicated by two Doric columns; in this building yet another woman is stand-
ing and Hades is sitting on a throne. Behind Triptolemos is another woman and behind
her a warrior with a phiale, a woman with two torches and a winged female holding
both oinochoe and phiale. This ambitious composition, rather ineptly drawn, owes
nothing either to Makron's vase painting or to a hypothetical mural in the Eleusinion.28
During the following period, when Athens had become rich and powerful, the
Mission of Triptolemos gained in popularity to judge by its appearance on vase paintings
24Universitit G 30: see G. Schwarz, "Eine Hydria des Berliner Malers in Graz," OJh 50, 1972/73, pp.
125-133. On some vases, the Berlin Painter shows Triptolemos alone, but the wings on the chariot indicate
that he is on his mission: Vienna 3726 = ARV2, p. 205, no. 113; Dresden 289 = ARV2, p. 201, no. 69
(both vases are of the middle period); Robinson Collection = AR V2, p. 203, no. 97 (of his late period).
25B. Philippaki has observed a close connection in the manufacture of stamnoi in the workshops of the
Berlin Painter and of Makron (The Attic Stamnos, Oxford 1967, pp. 44 and 151).
26E 140 = ARV2, p. 459, no. 3; see Simon, op. cit. (footnote 6 above), pp. 111-112, fig. 105.
27J. D. Beazley, "The Brygos Tomb at Capua," AJA 49, 1945, pp. 153-158. This cup is now in Frank-
furt's Stddelsche Kunstinstitut V/7 = AR V2, p. 386; see also M. Wegner, Der Brygosmaler, Berlin 1973,
pp. 53-56.
28A fragmentary pelike in the Getty Museum in Malibu is probably to be dated to the same ripe Ar-
chaic period. It shows Triptolemos and another figure on one side, with a Dionysiac scene on the other. M.
Robertson, who will publish this vase, attributes it to the Pan Painter.
by distinguished artists working in the best workshops, for instance by the Altamura
Painter and by his "younger brother", the Niobid Painter. Among the six Triptolemos
pictures of the Altamura Painter there is one in Munich29 which recalls a vase by the
Berlin Painter (see footnote 21 above). Here the hero is standing behind his chariot
while an Eleusinian goddess is facing him, holding an oinochoe in her right hand. Two
of the eight Triptolemos vases attributed to the Niobid Painter have similar two-figure
scenes,30 while the canonical three-figure scene, with Triptolemos between Demeter
and Kore, appears on a number of vases painted by the two artists.31 On other vases,
the two painters include the three figures in multifigured compositions.32 The Niobid
Painter alone increased the number of figures in such a scene to eight on two kalyx-
kraters. The one in the Louvre (G 343 = AR V2, p. 600, no. 17), possibly in imitation
of the Altamura Painter's name vase in the British Museum (see above, footnote 32),
shows the Mission on one side of the neck, while on the krater from Spina (Ferrara
T13 = AR V2, p. 602, no. 24) it occurs on the lower of the two zones on side B. As on
the Altamura Painter's krater in Lyons (see above, footnote 31), Demeter and Perse-
phone stand in front of Triptolemos' chariot which is equipped with both wings and
snakes; the other five figures are depicted as participants in Eleusinian rites by the
bunches of grain or by the torches which they hold in their hands. The scene on the
reverse shows a Dionysiac thiasos, suggesting once again that Athens was the donor of
both grain and wine.33
292383
=
AR V2, p. 591, no. 23; K. Vierneisel generously sent us a picture.
30A neck amphora in Leiden (PC 76 = AR V2, p. 605, no. 59) and a Nolan amphora in the British
Museum (E 274 = ARV2, p. 604, no. 53) on which the chariot and the oinochoe are omitted (CVA,
British Museum 3 [Great Britain 41, 13 [1781:2a-c).
31Most pleasing is the scene on a kalyx-krater by the Altamura Painter in Lyons (E 120 = AR V2, p.
591, no. 24, illustrated by C. Dugas, "Le Peintre d'Altamura au Musee de Lyon," JHS 71, 1951, p. 58,
pls. 25, 26); more crowded are the four figures on another kalyx-krater in Leningrad (639 = AR V2, p.
591, no. 15, illustrated by A. A. Peredolskaya, Krasnofigurnye attischeskie vazy, Leningrad 1967, pp. 146-
147, no. 170, pl. 112:1). The Niobid Painter has two vases with three figures: a stamnos in Lugano (Paral-
ipomena, p. 395, no. 41ter, illustrated in Munzen und Medaillen A.G., Auktion 34, Basel 1967, no. 165, pl.
54) with a shape which is favored by the Altamura Painter; see Philippaki, op. cit. (footnote 25 above), pp.
73 and 153. This stamnos shows Triptolemos wearing only a mantle which leaves his right shoulder bare.
The other vase is a kalpis in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (41.162.98 = ARV2, p. 606, no. 80, illus-
trated in CVA, Fogg Museum, Gallatin Collection 1 [USA 81, 56 [4041:1); its representation reverts to
earlier details in showing the dress of Triptolemos as a chiton with mantle and in having snakes added to
the chariot, as on the British Museum skyphos by Makron (see footnote 26 above), although the vase is
assigned to the late work of the Niobid Painter by T. B. L. Webster, Niobidenmaler, Leipzig 1935, p. 22,
no. 50.
32The Altamura Painter used a crowded six-figure composition only once, in a miniature frieze on one
side of the neck of his name vase, the volute-krater in London, British Museum E 469 = ARV2, p. 589,
no. 1. The Niobid Painter employed five figures on the body of a bell-krater in Perugia (AR V2, p. 603, no.
34), and possibly on a kalyx-krater from Lokroi in Reggio (ARV2, p. 603, no. 40, illustrated in NSc, 1917,
p. 154, fig. 60) where two figures to the right of Triptolemos may be restored to balance the two on his left
behind his chariot.
33D. Feytmans claims ("Une representation inusitee du depart de Triptoleme," AntCI 14, 1945, pp.
285-295) that on a pelike in Brussels (R 235 = ARV2, p. 1121, no. 11) the youth standing in a chariot
drawn by horses is Triptolemos, although he has no attributes identifying him. Since the women standing
in front of the chariot hold, on one side, two torches, and, on the other, an oinochoe and a phiale, the
The continued popularity of the Mission is shown by the great number of vases on
which it was represented between 475 and 425 B.c.34 Five of these were decorated by
Polygnotos, a successor of the Niobid Painter, who was not so much influenced by wall
paintings as his master and his own followers have been assumed to have been.35 It is
clear, however, that Polygnotos imitated the Niobid Painter in his representations of the
Mission of Triptolemos.A6 These representations, in turn, may have inspired a member
of Polygnotos' group, the Kleophon Painter,37 to compose the picture on the volute-
krater in the Stanford University Museum of Art, 70.12. It seems, therefore, that there
was an unbroken tradition from the Berlin Painter to the Kleophon Painter, a tradition
probably independent of sculpture, relief, and wall or panel painting.
The fragmentary relief showing the Mission of Triptolemos which was found in the
Eleusinion in the Agora (S 1013) seems to be later than most of the representations on
vases, although it is proof that the worship of Triptolemos on his Mission took place
during the 5th century in the sanctuary which also contained a "temple" of the hero.38
The great relief from Eleusis in the National Museum of Athens is strictly Eleusinian
(see above, footnote 11) and does not seem to have influenced the representation of
the Mission of Triptolemos on vases which were painted in Athens.39
The Stanford krater shows on Side A (P1. 15) a unique scene of the Mission of
Triptolemos consisting of five figures. On the left is Demeter (P1. 15:b) sitting on the
"agelastos petra" which was located next to the well Kallichoron in the sanctuary in
Eleusis;40 she is identified by an inscription which is now difficult to read. In her left
scene is surely Eleusinian, possibly echoing representations of the Mission. Under one handle Herakles is
seated, under the other Dionysos is enthroned.
34Dugas, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), counted 36 in the second quarter of the 5th century B.C. (pp.
26-28) and 16 in the third quarter (pp. 28-29). To these should be added the oinochoe in the National
Museum, Athens 1545 with a two-figure libation scene; see E. Buschor in FR III, p. 262.
35See P. E. Arias and B. B. Shefton, A History of 1000 Years of Greek Vase Painting, New York 1962, p.
366; C. M. Robertson, "Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters," JHS 85, 1965, p. 97.
36None of the chariots on the five vases has snakes, and they all float, except for no. 1.
1. Stamnos in Florence, 75748 = ARV2, p. 1028, no. 8; this may be the latest.
2. Kalyx-krater in Duke University, Art Museum = Paralipomena, p. 442, no. 27bis. The four figures are
identified by inscriptions; the one behind Kore is "Hekate". The scene on the back, three mantled
youths, has no connection with the Mission.
3. Neck amphora in London, B.M. E 281 = AR V2, p. 1030, no. 36; here, the hero is clad only in a
mantle as on the Niobid Painter's stamnos in Lugano (see above, footnote 31).
4. Neck amphora in Cannes, private collection = AR V2, p. 1031, no. 37 =
Paralipomena, p. 442.
5. Stamnos in Capua, 7529 = AR V2, p. 1028, no. 7. Triptolemos is clad only in a mantle (see no. 3). The
three draped women on side B continue the Eleusinian scene since one carries an Eleusinian torch,
another a scepter.
37See Arias and Shefton, op. cit. (footnote 35 above), p. 368, on the relationship between the two
painters. The argument for the identification of the painter of the Stanford vase will be presented
elsewhere.
38See T. L. Shear, Hesperia 8, 1939, pp. 207-211, fig. 9; Travlos, op. cit. (footnote 14 above), pp.
198-201, fig. 262, to which there is no reference in the text.
39See R. Lullies, Greek Sculpture, London 1960, p. 80, figs. 172, 173; G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the
Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton 1961, pp. 192-193.
40See Apollodoros, i.5. 1; G. E. Mylonas, The Hymn to Demeter and her Sanctuary at Eleusis, St. Louis
1942, p. 69.
hand she holds a torch and in her missing right hand she probably held out a phiale into
which the maiden who is standing in front of her is pouring a libation out of an oino-
choe. This maiden, labeled "Parthenos", holds a torch in her left hand. The actual
mission scene (P1. 15:a) shows Triptolemos, Persephone and a second woman (possibly
Hekate). Triptolemos wears a crown of ears of grain, and he is holding others in his left
hand; his right hand is stretched out holding a phiale for the libation. His winged char-
iot equipped with two snakes is already afloat. The young woman standing in front of
him is labeled "Kore"; she may be the same person as the "Parthenos" standing in
front of Demeter, or the figure called "Parthenos" may refer to the well called Parthe-
nion which is an old name for Kallichoron.41 Kore pours the libation from the oinochoe
in her right hand while her left hand holds the Eleusinian torch reversed towards the
ground. Of the label for the figure behind her only the letter E is preserved; it may
have been Hekate; she stands quietly holding an Eleusinian scepter in her right hand.
Evidently, the vase painting shows two Eleusinian scenes, the arrival of Demeter in
Eleusis and her reception by the "Parthenos" Kallidike, the daughter of Keleos (Hymn,
line 145), and the departure of Triptolemos, sent off by Demeter in gratitude for the
reception she had received in Eleusis.
The other side of the krater
(B.
P1. 16:a) shows two pairs of two figures each. Di-
onysos (the first four letters of the name are still visible) stands quietly in right profile;
he holds a thyrsos in his right hand and a kantharos in his left. The young woman to
the right of the god stands frontally and holds an oinochoe in her right hand and an
Eleusinian torch in her left; she is about to pour wine into the kantharos held by Di-
onysos. Behind the god in a separate scene stands a frontal Papasilenos, white haired,
partially bald and bearded; he leans on a staff held in his right hand and carries a wine-
skin, decorated with an ivy garland, over his left shoulder; he is labeled Pom(po)s. The
young woman to the left of Papasilenos is named but her name cannot be restored with
confidence;42 she stands in right profile and plays the lyre held in her left hand; her
bent right wrist indicates the use of the plectrum. The use of the lyre, along with the
dignified poses of all four figures, indicates that the scene is no orgy but a solemn
religious procession with Eleusinian overtones.
The two sides of the krater present good illustrations of the benefactions of Demeter
and Dionysos which are praised by Teiresias in the Bacchai of Euripides (lines 271-286).
The scenes on the front and back are ingeniously connected by the figures under
the handles. Running away from the Triptolemos scene on Side A and towards the lyre
player on Side B is a vigorous satyr (P. -16:b), a thyrsos over his right arm and a spot-
ted animal skin over his left shoulder. More unexpected is the Pan (so labeled) under
the other handle (P1. 15:b), who, also wearing an animal skin, looks back at Demeter
on the "agelastos petra" while running towards the Dionysiac
scene. Although
no
connection is attested between Pan and either Dionysos or Demeter for Greek art of
41See Hymn to Demeter, line 99, and the comments by Richardson, op. cit. (footnote 11 above), pp.
326-327.
42See MUnzen und Medaillen, A.G. Auktion 40, Basel 1969, no. 108, pp. 65-67, pls. 45, 46:
(-
-
-)AIT(-
- -)A~VE.
the 5th century B.C.,43 the appearance of this god of open spaces on the same vase with
the deities of grain and of wine may be intended to emphasize the essentially agricul-
tural milieu of the setting as a whole. The political-historical note is again echoed when
we remember that Pan saved the Athenians in the Persian Wars by frightening their
enemies (Herodotos, vi.105, vii.65; Pausanias, i.28.4).
The Stanford volute-krater contains the most detailed representation of the Athe-
nian benefactions to the world, a claim which was the very basis of a contemporary
decree regulating the offering of the First Fruits (Aparchai) in the sanctuary of Eleusis
and ordering sacrifices to the goddesses and to Triptolemos (lines 36-38).4 This claim
of having benefited all mankind is also stressed by Plato in the Menexenos (238 A-B)
the dramatic date of which belongs to the same period, before the death of Perikles.
According to Isokrates (Panegyricus, 28-29) the Athenian benefactions were a standard
topic of the public funeral orations, the Epitaphioi, which contained a patriotic version
of Athenian history. It was to this tradition that the conservative Dadouchos Kallias,
the son of Hipponikos, referred when he delivered his speech in Sparta (Xenophon,
Hellenika vi.3.6): Sparta was to make peace with Athens because the Spartans were the
first beneficiaries of the gifts bestowed by Triptolemos.
During the last quarter of the 5th century B.C., when Athenian power and authority
over the allies began to wane, the Mission of Triptolemos was less often depicted on
Attic vases.45 In the 4th century B.C., the vase paintings of this scene correspond more
closely to the dedicatory reliefs which show Triptolemos along with many other El-
eusinian deities, including Dionysos;46 the Mission itself has become mythical history,
and it had lost its political relevance after the downfall of the Athenian Empire. The
religious and cultural significance of the Mission of Triptolemos continued into the
Hellenistic and Roman periods just as the cultural mission of Athens was cherished in
later times.47
ISABELLE K. RAUBITSCHEK
ANToNY E. RAUBITSCHEK
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Department of Art
Stanford, CA 94305
430ur negative results in a search for such a connection were affirmed by H. Walter (per litt.) in June
1980; cf. idem, Pans Wiederkehr, Munich 1980.
44
IG 12, 76 = IG I3, 78; see R. Meiggs and D. Lewis, A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Ox-
ford 1969, no. 73; a copy of this decree was to be set up in the Eleusinion in Athens, and a small fragment
of this copy has been found.
45Dugas (op. cit. [footnote 1 above], pp. 29-30, nos. 88-91) cites only five vases of this period, and
only one has been included in AR V2, p. 1315, no. 2a. -
46For example, the kalyx-krater by the Telos Painter, AR V2, p. 1427, no. 37, and the skyphos by the
Marsyas Painter, AR V2, p. 1475, no. 8, both omit the libation scene.
47See A. Alfbldi, "Frugifer Triptolemos im ptolemdisch-r6mischen Herrscherkult," Chiron 9, 1979,
pp. 553-606. G. Schwarz is preparing a monograph on the representations of Triptolemos in Hellenistic and
Roman Art.
PLATE 15
_ i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
^. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C4
10~ ~~
> ; 2~~~~~~
* _
Lt~~~~~
PLATE 16
0.
0
m
pat~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
C',
OF KOUROI AND KORAI-ATTIC VARIETY
(PLATE 17)
I HAVE LEARNED a great deal from Homer A. Thompson, through the years of my
acquaintance with him, and two of his teachings stand out with clarity in my mind: to
pay attention even to minute details, and to rise above them to view the greater whole.
The ensuing speculation and theories may not always be correct, but as long as they are
revised whenever new and contradictory evidence becomes available, the attempt should
be made. I hope that these lines, stemming from just such an approach, may not be
amiss as a modest offering. The minute details to be considered here are a set of swol-
len ears and a mantle. The larger picture concerns the possible inferences on the mean-
ing of kouroi and korai in Archaic Athens.1
The so-called Rayet Head (P1. 17:a) was found in Athens, "near the gas-works" at
the edge of the Kerameikos cemetery, in the early 1870's, and is now one of the glories
of the Archaic collection in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek in Copenhagen. Well known
to scholars, the head is often illustrated in monographs on Greek sculpture and is ana-
lytically described in Richter's Kouroi.2 There, however, no mention is made of the fact
that the head has "cauliflower ears" as befit a boxer (P1. 17:b, c).3 Other descriptions
comment on the thick, fleshy rendering of this anatomical detail, but treat it as a man-
nerism of its sculptor.4 I was able to inspect the Rayet Head in the spring of 1979 and
'Besides the standard abbreviations, the following will be used throughout:
AGA = G. M. A. Richter, The Archaic Gravestones of Attica, London 1961
A MA = H. Schrader, E. Langlotz, W.-H. Schuchhardt, Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke der Akro-
polis, Frankfurt am Main 1939
Archaic Style = B. S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture, Princeton 1977
Jeffery = L. H. Jeffery, "The Inscribed Gravestones of Archaic Attica," BSA 57, 1962, pp. 115-
153
Korai = G. M. A. Richter, Korai, Archaic Greek Maidens, London 1968
Kouroi = G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi, Archaic Greek Youths, London 1970
Olympic Games = N. Yalouris et al., The Olympic Games, Athens 1976
Raubitschek = A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis, Cambridge, Mass. 1949
Schmidt = G. Schmidt, "Kopf Rayet und Torso vom pir~Aischen Tor," AthMitt 84, 1969, pp. 65-75
Schneider = L. A. Schneider, Zur sozialen Bedeutung der archaischen Korenstatuen, Hamburg 1975
Willemsen = F. Willemsen, "Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der athener Stadtmauer," AthMitt 78,
1963, pp. 104-153
2Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek I.N. 418; F. Poulsen, Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny
Carlsberg Glyptotek, Copenhagen 1951, no. 11, pp. 28-29, dated in the third quarter of the 6th century.
Kouroi, no. 138, figs. 409, 410.
3The term is defined in Webster's Dictionary as "an ear deformed from injury and excessive growth of
reparative tissue, so as to suggest a cauliflower." Boxers, wrestlers and pankratiasts would suffer such inju-
ries in practicing their sport, either under the blows of their opponent or when the cartilage was broken by
the pulling of the ear. Present-day boxers and wrestlers often display similar ear configuration (P1. 17:d).
4See, e.g., Schmidt, p. 70: " ... das fleischige, wenig differenzierte, formelhafte Ohr ist bei Boxer und Kopf
Rayet sehr dhnlich ... "; p. 75: "Das Ohr ist nicht mehr so kompaktfleischig gebildet wie bei dem Kouros-Kopf
OF KOUROI AND KORAI-ATTIC VARIETY 119
can verify that this is an iconographic, not a stylistic, trait. Specifically, the central
orifice is quite small and the cartilage surrounding it (the antihelix) appears swollen,
with creases marking the puffiness of the area, which is barely distinguished from the
helix.5
This realistic rendering is well attested in 4th-century and Hellenistic sculpture; it
was, however, generally surmised that it would not occur before the time of increased
professionalism in sport and, specifically, of decreasing idealization in art. But the dis-
covery of the so-called Boxer Stele in 1953 forced a revision of this dating: the relief
can be ascribed to the mid-6th century B.C. on the bases of style and format, yet not
only does the bearded man on the stele display cauliflower ears and a broken nose but
his raised arm is clearly bound by the leather thongs of the boxer.6 The deceased is
intentionally characterized as a mature athlete who survived many encounters, although
it is perhaps unnecessary to speculate that he might have met his end in one last match.
This characterization, surprising as it might seem at this early a date, is not alto-
gether out of place on a gravestone. In the large corpus of Attic stelai, several Archaic
examples identify the deceased as an athlete, while others depict him as a warrior, a
priest or a man of status.7 But I did not know of any similar individualization in sculp-
ture in the round, specifically within the kouros type with its strict adherence to a neu-
tral formula. I have therefore made an (admittedly superficial) examination of the ears
of kouroi, without being able to find a close parallel to those of the Rayet Head. To be
sure, several male figures have thick and rather shapeless ears, and it is impossible in
many cases to determine whether the rendering is due to the early date or the small
size of the sculpture, the relative lack of skill of the sculptor or the desire to depict a
boxer's ear. In particular, it is not unusual to find that helix and antihelix are more or
less on a level, thus suggesting a degree of swelling. My criterion in such cases has
been the size of the opening into the middle ear: when normally large, I have assumed
that no deformity was meant and that the ear pattern had just been simplified. In fact,
some sphinxes and a few korai exhibit similar renderings. The Rayet Head stands
apart.8
... " (in comparison with the Potter's Relief on the Akropolis). For a more general statement see J.
Boardman, Greek Sculpture, The Archaic Period, London 1978, p. 83: "thick ears".
5For terminology and a diagram of the human ear see Kouroi, p. 17.
6Boxer Stele: AGA, no. 31, fig. 92; Jeffery, p. 128, Stelai, no. 1. She, however, interprets the nose as
possibly hooked rather than definitely broken.
70n characterization on stelai see Archaic Style, p. 169; cf. also p. 167. For various examples see AGA,
nos. 25-27 (athletes); 45, 46, 67 (warriors); 70 (priest or man of status).
Comments on the individualization of grave stelai and the youth of the kouroi during the Archaic
period are also made by B. Schmaltz, "Verwendung und Funktion attischer Grabmiler," MarbWinckPr,
1979, pp. 13-37; see especially pp. 35-36, where the Rayet head is mentioned as having swollen ears for
characterization. My point of view as regards the kouroi is somewhat different.
80ne possible example of cauliflower ear would be even earlier than the Boxer Stele: the head from
the Ptoion, Athens N.M. no. 15; Kouroi, no. 10, fig. 75 (ca. 580 B.C.). Only the left ear appears deformed,
but this is not unusual in later times (see footnote 28 below). A break and an imperfection in the stone
cross the feature, however, and may have been responsible for the undetailed rendering.
120 BRUNILDE SISMONDO RIDGWAY
Because of its alleged findspot, the Copenhagen Head is likely to have belonged to
a funerary statue, since many such monuments lined the road to Peiraieus near the
homonymous Gate. Several of them were incorporated into a stretch of the Them-
istoklean Wall in the vicinity and were excavated by J. Threpsiades in 1953.9 Among
them are the fragmentary torso and parts of the legs of a kouros which G. Schmidt has
connected with the Rayet Head.10 The latter, although larger than life-size, may be too
small for the body,1" and the torso, at least in its present state, displays no specific
athletic connotation. The attribution of head to body remains uncertain. The frag-
mentary kouros has also been tentatively associated with an inscribed base for a Sa-
mian, or with another set up for the Karian Tymnes,12 but no joins exist. In turn, the
Ny Carlsberg Head has been attributed to the as yet unidentified statue which stood
once on the so-called Ball Players Base in the Athens National Museum, also found
near by.13 That athletic contests, including wrestling, should be depicted on the pedestal
of a figure characterized as a boxer or a pankratiast seems particularly appropriate, but
again certainty is lacking; moreover, the Rayet Head may be too early (ca. 530?) for a
base generally placed within the last decade of the 6th century.
It has so far been assumed that the Rayet Head belonged to a kouros-type statue; I
wonder whether this was indeed the case. As late as the impressive Aristodikos (ca.
490) the standard formula for the nude male grave statue seems to have been retained,
and I have argued elsewhere that it may have borne little resemblance (in age, phys-
iognomy or otherwise) to the deceased it commemorated.14 A kouros, originally a
representation of Apollo, would have remained a symbol of heroization, while greater
sense of identity was attained by depictions on stelai. Toward the end of the 6th cen-
tury, with the widespread interest in the Panathenaic Festival and the Olympic Games,
9Besides the general account in Jeffery, pp. 126-128, see also Willemsen, and Archaic
Style,
pp. 292-
295. The excavation report by Threpsiades appeared in HpaKTrLKa, 1953 [19571, pp. 61-71.
I0Schmidt, pl. 32. The torso is preserved approximately from waist to mid-thighs, the nbn-joining right
leg preserves the lower thigh and the knee, the left extends from mid-kneecap to ankle. According to early
reports, a foot had been found with the Rayet Head but is now lost; this information, however, may serve
to discredit the further association of a plinth with a kouros' feet: Schmidt, p. 73, and W. Deyhle, "Meister-
fragen der archaischen Plastik Attikas," AthMitt 84, 1969, pp. 1-57, especially p. 29. On the body fragments
per se see U. Knigge, "Zum Kouros von pireiischen Tor," AthMitt 84, 1969, pp. 76-86, pls. 33-35.
11Cf. Schmidt, pl. 31, p. 69 and note 18, where the relative proportions are said to be at least not
incompatible.
12Cf. Schmidt, pp. 73-74 and notes 39, 41, 42; Knigge, op. cit. (footnote 10 above), pp. 85-86. For a
discussion of the bases see Willemsen, pp. 123-129.
13See Schmidt, p. 73, note 37, and Willemsen, p. 135. Note that not only the Ball Players Base was
found in that general area but also the Boxer Stele and the so-called Marathonomachos Stele: Jeffery, p.
128, Stelai, no. [2]. Since the helmeted youth is usually taken to be a hoplitodromos or a pyrrhic dancer,
the monuments from that vicinity would seem to be particularly connected with athletic representations.
For the monument of an Olympic victor see Willemsen, pp. 110-117; cf. also his pp. 129-136, for another
rendering of the ball-playing scene on a different base. Jeffery, p. 123, no. [4], lists the Rayet Head as
coming from a slightly different area, but see her statement on p. 116.
14Aristodikos: Kouroi, no. 165, figs. 492, 493. My comments are in Archaic Style, pp. 49-59, 77. Cf.
also Jeffery, p. 150.
OF KOUROI AND KORAI-ATTIC VARIETY 121
victors' statues began to be erected-some in the increasingly popular medium of
bronze, but some still in marble. In either case, their composition may have been more
animated than the traditional kouros pose, as suggested by some bases and even some
"narrative" monuments from the Athenian Akropolis.15 The same transformation may
have taken place among funerary statues, and the Rayet Head could indicate that it
occurred as early as ca. 530. Although the more symbolic and static kouros continued
to mark graves until almost the end of the Archaic period, a new athletic type may have
existed side by side with it, eventually replacing the generic kouros entirely and giving
rise to the long line of Severe athletes known in both life- and under life-size.
The Rayet Head has not been convincingly attributed to any of the known Archaic
masters active in Athens, although stylistic similarities with the Boxer Stele, the Pot-
ter's Relief and the Ball Players Base have been pointed out. Endoios and Aristokles are
known to have made monuments for burials in the vicinity of the Peiraieus Gate.16
More significantly, tombs for foreigners seem to have been gathered in that particular
area, as indicated by the Karian and Samian epitaphs already mentioned. Perhaps the
characterization of an athlete's statue was prompted by the wishes of a family from Asia
Minor, where wrestling was almost the national sport. The literary sources tell us that
the Olympic rules for boxing were established by Onomastos of Smyrna, the first Olym-
pic winner of the event in 688, and that Pythagoras of Samos, who won in 588, was the
first scientific boxer.17
Cauliflower ears, although with less picturesque language, are also mentioned by
the ancient authors. Plato refers to young oligarchs "with broken ears," who imitated
15Pausanias (vi.18.7) seems to ascribe the first victors' statues to the late 6th century; cf. C. Mattusch,
"The Berlin Foundry Cup," AJA 84, 1980, p. 443 and note 46. P. Levi, in his Pausanias: Guide to Greece
II, London [Penguin Books] 1971, p. 337, note 152, comments that a 7th-century victor's statue had al-
ready been mentioned by Pausanias at Olympia, but that "Probably it was a stiff, massive, primitive Pha-
raoh-like figure, and Pausanias was instinctively not thinking of it as an athletic portrait." This would imply
that the later statues looked different from the standard kouros.
For an analysis of male statues found on the Athenian Akropolis see Archaic Style, p. 49, note 3.
Raubitschek (pp. 80-82, no. 76) has suggested that the inscribed base E.M. 6379 held a dedication by
Phayllos of Kroton, who mentions that he won the pentathlon at Delphi three times; the base supported a
marble statue but apparently one more complex than a standard kouros. Raubitschek tentatively associates
with it the so-called Blond Boy (Akr. 689). I would question the Blond Boy as a depiction of a pentathlete
because of his elaborate hairstyle, unless he represented Theseus and thus only symbolically alluded to
Phayllos' prowess. For other comments on victors' monuments see Raubitschek, p. 464. For a typical
animated group, perhaps Theseus wrestling Skyron, see AMA, no. 410, pp. 281-283 and figs. 326, 327, pls.
155-157 (Akr. 145).
"6The stylistic grouping of the Rayet Head had already been attempted by Poulsen (footnote 2 above).
Boardman (footnote 4 above) seems to accept the connection with Endoios' workshop; cf. Deyhle (foot-
note 10 above), pp. 13-20 (Endoios); Schmidt; and Willemsen, p. 135.
171t is impossible to differentiate between a boxer's and a wrestler's ears; cf. footnote 3 above. For
Onomastos of Smyrna see Philostratos, de gymnastica, 12; for Pythagoras of Samos see Diogenes Laertius,
viii.47. These references are given by H. A. Harris, Greek Athletes and Athletics, London 1964, p. 98 and
note 49 on p. 206. For an Archaic relief with fat wrestlers from a Lycian tomb see E. Akurgal, Die Kunst
Anatoliens, Berlin 1961, p. 135, fig. 86. See also B. Schrbder, Der Sport im Altertum, Berlin 1927, pl. 23, for
coins of Aspendos showing wrestlers.
the Spartans in their fashions (including boxing) in order to publicize their political in-
clinations.18 A boxer's physique is described as otothladias.19 Various gods and heroes
are cited as the mythical predecessors of the Olympic athletes. Theseus, although sup-
posedly the inventor of wrestling, is shown with normal ears, even when his opponent
sometimes clearly exhibits the disfigurement.20 Apollo, another "inventor", was cred-
ited with outboxing Ares at Olympia.21 I have been unable to find a sure representation
of Apollo with cauliflower ears, but the Ares Ludovisi type, at least as reproduced by
Roman copyists, definitely displays the deformity.22
Herakles is shown with swollen ears as early as the Severe period. In the metope
with the Nemean Lion, from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, the hero is depicted
young and tired after his first labor,
apd
with the obviously swollen ears of the boxer;
yet the subsequent metopes, as far as we can tell in their present state of preservation,
omit this characteristic.23 Perhaps the Struggle with the Lion was so close to a typical
wrestling bout in its traditional iconographic schema that the Olympia master, although
electing to show a later moment in the event, wanted to allude to the more familiar
version. Conversely, the hero might have been portrayed progressively less human and
more divine. Among the other sculptures from the same building, the Lapith being
bitten by a Centaur, on the West pediment, has cauliflower ears, while the Centaur
being grabbed by the ear exemplifies the tackle which causes that kind of damage.24 The
rendering is therefore well attested by ca. 460 B.C. in undoubted Greek originals.
For the later periods our evidence increases, although some examples remain ques-
tionable. On the Parthenon frieze several riders seem to have swollen ears,25 and the
youthful head with a lion-skin helmet from the Tegea Temple has them beyond
doubt.26 The best known example is perhaps the bronze Boxer in the Terme Museum
in Rome; by the Roman period cauliflower ears identify primarily the professional,27 but
18Plato: Gorgias, 515e; Protagoras, 342b 8; cf. the comments by E. R. Dodds, Plato, Gorgias, Oxford
1959, p. 357.
I9Otothladias: Diogenes Laertius, v.67, speaking about the philosopher Lyko; Yalouris (Olympic Games,
p. 222) cites it as a boxer's name. For the effects of the palaistra on ears: Philostratos, Heroicus, 167.13.
2001ympic Games, pp. 82 and 202; fig. 108 illustrates a red-figured cup by the Kodros Painter, from
Vulci, in the British Museum: London E 84, Beazley, AR V, p. 739, no. 4, ca. 430 B.C. Theseus, with nor-
mal ears, is fighting Kerkyon, who has a swollen ear.
21 Olympic Games, pp. 35, 82, and 216.
22Ares Ludovisi: see S. Lattimore, "Ares and the Heads of Heroes," AJA 83, 1979, pp. 71-78, espe-
cially pl. 3, figs. 4, 5, pl. 6, fig. 13.
23Herakles and Nemean Lion: B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia, London 1967, fig. 147; contrast
the rendering of the ear in fig. 145. Only the Herakles of the metope with the eighth labor, the Mares of
Diomedes, may have the same swollen rendering: Olympia, fig. 177.
24Lapith, West Pediment, Figure Q: Olympia, fig. 88. Centaur, West Pediment, Figure D: Olympia, fig.
74.
25Parthenon Frieze: see, e.g., F. Brommer, Der Parthenonfries, Mainz 1977, pls. 131 (S XIII), 135 (S
XVII). Some such ears may occur also on the Lapiths and Centaurs of the South metopes but I cannot be
sure.
26Tegean Head: A. F. Stewart, Skopas of Paros, Park Ridge, N.J. 1977, cat. no. 16, pl. 13:b and pl. 52,
ear 2.
27Terme Boxer: Olympic Games, fig. 120; Roman boxers and practices, ibid., pp. 275-285 and fig. 153.
OF KOUROI AND KORAI- ATTIC VARIETY 123
a few Greek citizens continued to have themselves so portrayed during the Empire.28
Conversely, the Etruscans do not seem to have imitated Greek art in this respect.29 The
Rayet Head, if not the first, may represent one of the earliest examples of this ren-
dering in Greek sculpture in the round, in the shift from the funerary-Apollo/anon-
ymous-kouros representation to the more individualistic portrayal of athletes.
The question raised about the varying meaning of the kouros type in Attica can
also be formulated about the Akropolis korai, and although my comments must remain
considerably more tentative than in the case of athletic figures, some points are perhaps
worth making.
I had shared in the general surmise that these elegant female dedications (P1. 17:e)
on the Athenian citadel represented generic attendants to Athena, whether priestesses,
ergastinai or arrephoroi.30 Specifically, I accepted the theory that they displayed contemp-
orary fashions of the Athenian aristocracy, regardless of whether they depicted actual
Athenian girls or were simply pleasing images often donated by men. A monographic
study has even affirmed that these smiling creatures were the social expression of the
upper class and of a city state where women lent prestige to their husbands. They would
have been rendered as they appeared at festivals, the normal showcase for female
beauty, as sung by the lyric poets.31 I have now had occasion to re-examine the issue
and have come to question the diagonal mantle as an item of clothing worn by Athe-
nian women during the 6th century.
In chronological order, the facts seem to fall in this sequence:
1) The Athenian women used to wear a dress fastened with long pins; when they
turned these ornaments into weapons to kill the sole survivor of the Battle of Aigina,
they were made to change fashions and to adopt "Karian dress" as defined by Herodo-
tos.32 This statement has usually been taken to mean that women shifted from peplos to
a chiton/diagonal-himation combination.33 The Battle of Aigina is poorly dated but
seems to have occurred still in the 7th century. If this is the true nature of the change,
it is not reflected in any definite way either in vase painting or in sculpture. Perhaps the
28E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, I, Portrait Sculptures, Princeton 1953, no. 14 and note 2; no. 25,
note 11. The rendering is limited to only one ear.
29This conclusion was reached by Sarah U. Wisseman in her Bryn Mawr College dissertation (1981):
The Archaeological Evidence for Etruscan Games.
30Archaic Style, pp. 50, 108-112; see also the review by A. F. Stewart, ArtB 62, 1980, p. 486. Since I
have discussed the costume of the korai at some length in my book, I shall limit myself to brief allusions
here.
31Schneider, passim. See especially pp. 27-29 for the smile as a social expression of the upper class,
typical of the gods and therefore making man "godlike". Appendix 1, on vase paintings where korai appear
as spectators to heroes' deeds, suggests that they function as indication of the hero's aristocratic milieu,
not as literal participants to the scene.
32Herodotos, v.87, where mention is made only of linen tunics, and his footnote, where the dress is
called Karian.
33E.g., Korai, pp. 9-10. The change is dated to ca. 560 and attributed to both the lonian leanings of
Peisistratos and to the anecdote mentioned by Herodotos, with a consequent lowering of the date of the
Battle of Aigina.
change implied only the adoption of the chiton under a heavy, symmetrical mantle,
such as we see on one of the earliest Athenian korai, Akr. 593.34
2) The earliest korai with diagonal himation on the Akropolis (ca. 560 B.C.) are
imports or works by foreign masters: Akr. 619 and 677 are probably Cycladic; other,
later statues are Chian (Akr. 675); and the activity of Lakonian (Gorgias) and possibly
Ionian (Bion, Endoios) masters is attested by surviving signatures on dedications.35
That the diagonal mantle was at home in Asia Minor is not in question, although we
cannot be sure whether it was worn by humans or by cult images (Artemis?). The
literary sources conveniently collected by Schneider usually refer only to the trailing
chiton, or use more generic terms. In addition, most of the poets quoted belong to
Ionia or the islands.
3) By ca. 540 the wide distribution of the diagonal himation in all territories and
colonies inhabited by Greeks -regardless of climate -is surprising, especially since the
garment seems a latecomer within Archaic fashions, or at least it can be said not to
coincide with the beginning of monumental sculpture. Perhaps the reason for the diffu-
sion should be sought in the means of transmission: not in terms of the clothes per se
but of the many terracotta statuettes reproducing divinities, which reached even the
Western Greeks as copiously as those in Greece proper. If these statuettes depicted cult
images or Nymphs or other non-human beings of some kind, fidelity in reproducing the
costume may have been considered essential, although not paralleled by contemporary
daily fashions.36
4) The earliest Attic kore from the Akropolis to display the diagonal mantle wears
it with peculiar draping: the so-called Lyons Kore (ca. 540) shows no indication of
fasteners for the himation, and the rendering cannot be coherently explained. Later
Akropolis korai continue to show unusual variations: the himation appears to be in two
pieces, fastened along both shoulders (Akr. 605, 611, 678); or it is buttoned along the
right arm but then again pinned once over the left shoulder (Akr. 600 and 673); or it
hangs with balancing swags under both elbows, in unexplainable fashion (Akr. 685;
P1.
17:e)0.3
The diagonal border between the breasts is ornamented with an abundance of
frills that often defy understanding unless they were separately applied to the folded
garment.
5) It may be coincidence due to the chance of the finds, but none of the funerary
korai from Attica, both earlier and later than the Lyons Kore, wears the
diagonal
him-
34Kore Akr. 593: Archaic Style, pp. 104-105, fig. 29 and bibliography on p. 118. For the date of the
Battle of Aigina see, e.g., J. B. Bury, A History of Greece, 3rd ed., London 1955, p. 204, "probably near the
middle of the seventh century." L. H. Jeffery (Archaic Greece, London 1976, p. 84) would go as early as
the second half of the 8th century B.C.
35For a discussion of these korai see Archaic Style, pp. 104, 106, 118; the masters are mentioned on pp.
285-286 and in note 3.
36The idea of a famous cult statue in Miletos as a possible prototype for the East Greek korai has
already been advanced: B. Freyer-Schauenburg, Samos, XI, Bildwerke der archaischen Zeit und des strengen
Stils, Bonn 1974, p. 47; Archaic Style, p. 98.
37Lyons Kore: Archaic Style, pp. 105-106; the other renderings of the himation: pp. 92, 94.
ation. I once suggested that they are depicted with indoor attire,38 but the difference
may be of another nature. Korai from the Citadel wearing just the chiton are also
known, and may indicate that not all female statues should be interpreted in similar
manner; in particular, Akr. 683, the Red-slippers Kore, was probably the smaller figure
in a double dedication (by two men) which may therefore have had additional meaning,
such as that of a human votary next to a goddess.39
6) The inception of the fashion (diagonal himation) has been connected with Pei-
sistratos' ties with Ionia;40 yet the real popularity of the mode seems to occur after
Peisistratos' death, toward the end of the 6th century. According to statistics worked
out by A. Raubitschek and E. B. Harrison, approximately half of all surviving dedica-
tions to the Akropolis for the 6th and 5th centuries were made between 500 and 480.
Of the 56 more or less preserved korai catalogued by Langlotz, most were made be-
tween 530 and 490, and Ionic influence seems confined to them. The dedicators of
offerings on the Akropolis included some members of the aristocracy, but among the 18
women there were, remarkably, a washerwoman and an Ionian who used a Chian sculp-
tor. Korai were set up by a potter, a fuller and a tanner.41
7) The period around 530 coincides also with a marked increase in the number of
extant Panathenaic amphoras. A study by J. R. Brandt concludes that during the rule of
Peisistratos the Panathenaic Festival seems to have undergone decline and stagnation
rather than expansion, to judge from the number of extant vases. Standardization in the
pattern of the amphoras coincides with the rule of Peisistratos' sons, who may have
used the expansion of the event as a political means to re-establish friendship with the
alienated aristocracy.42 Korai earlier than 530 B.c. are therefore less likely to have rep-
resented aristocratic ergastinai or arrephoroi, and those which followed should not have
varied in their meaning.43
8) Attic black-figured vases before the last quarter of the 6th century do not depict
a diagonal himation, although the garment had already been seen on the Akropolis.
38Archaic Style, p. 103.
39Archaic Style, p. 107 and note 28, fig. 19; see also index for additional mentions and bibliography.
40Korai, pp. 9-10.
4'Raubitschek, pp. 464-467, especially p. 465; the washerwoman: no. 380 (dedicated a basin); the
lonian woman: no. 3; the potter: no. 197; the fuller: no. 49; the tanner: no. 58. E. B. Harrison, The Athe-
nian Agora, XI, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture, Princeton 1965, p. 8 and note 49.
42J. Rasmus Brandt, "Archaeologia Panathenaica I: Panathenaic Prize-vases from the sixth century
B.C.," Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia, Institutum Romanum Norvegiae 8, 1978, pp.
1-23, especially p. 19 and notes 6 and 11.
43We have no definite depiction of the Arrephoroi, even from later times, since the Erechtheion Ka-
ryatids, occasionally identified as such, hardly qualify. A fragmentary hydria by the Kleophon Painter in the
collection of the University of Tilbingen, E 112, supposedly shows Aphrodite between arrephoroi: Stewart,
loc. cit. (footnote 30 above); AthMitt 93, 1978, pl. 13:2. The young women, however, are not
distinguished
by objects carried on their heads (as described by Pausanias), and they wear mid-Sth-century costumes.
The only comparable trait may be the gesture of the first woman on the left, who lifts her (long) himation:
perhaps a misrepresentation of the pose of the korai, or an allusion to the Charites and the Horai, more
appropriate companions to Aphrodite.
Conversely, the fashion is rendered in red-figure scenes, but most of them are, either
openly or possibly, mythological in content. It is becoming increasingly apparent that
even what we take to be representations of daily life may have had heroic connotation
for the contemporary user." It seems difficult to reconcile the tempo of fashions in vase
painting and sculpture. Certainly nothing in the techniques made it inherently im-
possible for a black-figure painter to depict a diagonal himation or particularly appro-
priate for a red-figure master to do so.
9) Figures of non-human nature are clearly shown with the diagonal himation: the
korai flanking the chariot of Apollo on the East pediment of his temple at Delphi-a
site which has otherwise yielded no freestanding kore; the maidens on either side of the
central floral akroterion on the Temple of Aphaia at Aigina-a position usually reserved
for creatures of the air or at least endowed with special motion; Nikai at a variety of
sites, including the Akropolis. It should also be stressed that the diagonal ruffle be-
comes the distinctive trait of archaistic sculpture and that perirrhanterion-holders, idols
and karyatids are often depicted wearing such a mantle. Even when the costume actual-
ly shown is the peplos, the lower hem is treated as if it were part of a diagonal hima-
tion, a sign of venerability and antiquity. It seems remarkable that such a widespread
fashion should be abruptly dropped from sculpture everywhere at the inception of the
Severe style, just when statues became personalized rather than generic, and that the
few examples, either in the round or in relief, which retain the diagonal mantle betray
their later date only because of archaistic features.45
All this evidence is undoubtedly circumstantial and I want to stress once again the
extremely tentative nature of my suggestions. It is nevertheless worth considering the
possibility that the diagonal himation originated in Asia Minor, perhaps as part of the
dress of a famous cult image and maybe even under Anatolian influence. From there
the motif, carrying the same religious connotation, was distributed throughout the
Greek cities. On the Athenian Akropolis the garment arrived through the dedications of
foreigners, carved by foreign masters. When the Athenians imitated it, they did so with
some misunderstanding, since the fashion was not current in their city. The elaborate
dress became the hallmark of a "non-human" image, thus appropriate as a dedication to
a divinity that could then be offered by aristocracy and lower classes alike. The garment
disappeared in the Severe period, when each statue became individually characterized,
but was retained in archaistic art through the centuries.
If all the above is near the mark, to the question "Who are the Akropolis
Korai?"
we should answer: "Not Athenian aristocratic girls, ergastinai or arrephoroi, but Nymphs
44See, e.g., J. Neils, "The Group of the Negro Alabastra," AntK 23, 1980, pp. 13-23, esp. p. 23; idem,
"The Loves of Theseus: An Early Cup by Oltos," AJA 85, 1981, pp. 177-179.
451f fashions in sculpture are taken as true reflection of daily life, the change to the Severe peplos must
coincide with a change in costume in Athens and everywhere else. Patriotic reasons might have prompted
the rejection of an eastern garment, but this explanation seems less valid outside Greece proper, and in
any case it is not reflected in Attic red-figured vases until some years later. On Archaistic fashions see
Harrison, op. cit. (footnote 41 above), pp. 51-61; Archaic Style, chap. 11 and esp. pp. 313-316 and, on the
Archaic korai, pp. 113-114.
or lesser deities in distinctive attire; they may have originally portrayed a major god-
dess, but their meaning became diluted into generality in the course of the 6th century
in Athens."
BRUNILDE SISMONDo RIDGWAY
BRYN MAWR COLLEGE
Department of Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
PLATE 17
d. A modern cauliflower ear. Photo
courtesy of Douglas Nigro
a. The Rayet Head, Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg
Glyptothek
b. Rayet Head, right ear c. Rayet Head, left ear
e. Kore Akr. 685
BRUNILDE S. RIDGWAY: OF KouRol AND KORAI, ATTIc VARIETY
THE DEMOLISHED TEMPLE AT ELEUSIS
(PLATES 18-20)
T HE MUSE who governs the fortunes of excavators in the field has reserved it for
the giants alone to explore the remains of buildings which were never built, to
reconstruct monuments which stood on unknown sites, and to interpret the history of
structures demolished in antiquity. To ordinary mortals such feats may seem to require
a magician's arts of legerdemain; and yet when touched by Homer Thompson's skillful
hands, the stones of Athens have produced before our eyes the unbuilt stoas on the
Pnyx, the migratory Temple of Ares, and the Square Peristyle, demolished for the
construction of the Stoa of Attalos. In view of this history of archaeological conjuring, it
seems peculiarly appropriate to dedicate to him a story of two Attic buildings, one of
which disappeared in the 5th century B.C. to make way for the other which was never
constructed.
The long and complex history of the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Eleusis
finds its most graphic expression in the surviving remains of the Telesterion itself.
From a small Mycenaean megaron to the ceremonial hall of the Classical and later
periods, the temple doubled and redoubled its size in response to the ever-growing
popularity of the cult whose pilgrims and pageants it accommodated throughout antiq-
uity. Unique among the sanctuaries of Greece, the prosperity of the Great Mysteries
can be read in the physical expansion of the temple in which they were celebrated. The
building's vicissitudes were legion and have taxed the ingenuity of archaeologists no
less than the elusive secret of the Mysteries themselves has tantalized the historian of
religion. The ruins of the enormous hypostyle hall, which housed the Mysteries from
Periclean to Roman times, form a familiar landmark for every modern visitor to the site
(P1. 18:a). The tiers of rock-cut steps and the northwestern wall quarried deep into the
living rock of the acropolis so dominate the site today that it is easy to overlook the
predecessors of the Classical Telesterion; but beneath its floor, half a century of exca-
vation has revealed the tangled remains of five earlier structures which served the cult
continuously from the Bronze Age to the early 5th century B.C. Into this pit of fragmen-
tary walls and re-used foundations few but the most dedicated initiates of Eleusis have
ventured to descend. The investigations of earlier excavators have served to elucidate
the history of the Telesterion in all of its successive remodelings and enlargements so
that the general lines of the building's architectural development are now clearly under-
stood.1 There remains, however, a shadowy episode in the early history of the great hall
which appears as yet to have eluded explanation.
'The monumental publication of the sanctuary, F. Noack, Eleusis, die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung
des
Heiligtumes, Berlin 1927 (= Noack, Eleusis), has been considerably supplemented by
the excavations of K.
THE DEMOLISHED TEMPLE AT ELEUSIS 129
The Eleusinian epistatai, the overseers of the sanctuary, recorded in their annual
inventory for the year 408/7, and again in 407/6, the sacred funds and dedications
belonging to the Two Goddesses, the annual income and expenditures of the cult, and
in addition a considerable assortment of architectural blocks and building equipment
which was stored in the sanctuary.2 Included among the latter were building blocks of
Aiginetan poros and Pentelic marble, dressed blocks for the foundations, steps, and
stylobate of a colonnade, column drums and at least one capital, new and unused roof
tiles in large numbers, and an assortment of lumber, some of which was stored away
from the elements under a tent. Together with these were various builders' tools,
ropes, scaffolding, and wagons which lend color to the picture of a building site where
construction work is still in progress, or for some reason only temporarily suspended.
The overseers also catalogued and passed on to the custody of their successors another
collection of building materials evidently removed from an old building and stored in
the sanctuary against future re-use. This portion of the catalogue is introduced by the
notation: "taken down from the temple," and these materials will presently be seen to
yield some interesting information concerning one stage of that building's history, even
though they have perished long since and survive only in the epigraphical record. The
items in question are listed in IG 12, 313, lines 103-110 for the year 408/7, and in IG
12, 314, lines 113-120 for the year 407/6. The better preserved version of the text on
the obverse of the stele is quoted here.
aIo ro VEO KaOELpEzEva
KEpaUO ;EVYE: XIRHHF
105
or0xv8vXo:
IIIII rivE p]a.: ArI
xoivXa ErviTvXta: AAI
EY
81VOL)
KEKoXXEAE'Vo
I
0-EKLUKOL aro TEl oTOa'
KaOELpEqEVOL : AIIII
110 OvpOv ;EvyE:
III
:htKptT[Ep]a"
:A
Taken down from the temple:
1750 pairs of roof tiles,
105 54 column drums, 16 Ionic bases,
21 wooden epistyles,
Kourouniotes,
AEXT,13,
1930/31 [1933], Hapapr'ux pp. 17-30; 14, 1931/32 [1935], Hap'pr., PP. 1-30;
15, 1933/35 [1938], HapapT., PP. 1-48; idem, 'EEVO-LVLaKa , Athens 1937. Many of Noack's interpreta-
tions and chronological conclusions must be altered in the light of this work. See especially K. Kourouni-
otes and J. N. Travlos, "TEXE0cpwLOV KaL vaos Tr"j-
Ab)ji)Tpoc,"
AEXT 15, 1933/35 [1938], pp. 54-114 (
Kourouniotes-Travlos); Travlos, "To 'AVaKTopoV
T7'q 'EXEvcivo-q,"
'Apx'Eo,
1950-51, pp. 1-16 (= Trav-
los, "'AVaKTopoV"); 0. Rubensohn, "Das Weihehaus von Eleusis und sein Allerheiligstes," JdI 70, 1955,
pp. 1-49; G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton 1961 (-Mylonas, Eleusis). [Plate
29, illustrating "The Sacred Threshing Floor at Eleusis," by E. Vanderpool, shows the model of the Pei-
sistratid Telesterion.-Ed.]
2IG 12, 313, lines 70ff.; 314, lines 80ff.
130 T. LESLIE SHEAR, JR.
1 glued together from two,
18 rafters3 taken down
from the stoa,
110 3 pairs of doors, 10 roof timbers.4
Another document found at Eleusis mentions still more blocks which were taken
down from the temple. A decree of the Athenian Boule and Demos dating to the year
421/0 (P1. 18:b) authorizes the construction of a footbridge over one of the Rheitoi, the
two small lakes which formed the boundary between the plain of Athens and the Thri-
asian plain of Eleusis. The new bridge for the sacred procession of the initiates was to
be constructed entirely of re-used blocks, removed from the Archaic temple, which
were left over after some work on the walls of the sanctuary had been completed.5
[HI]pE'7T
EVtOEpo
E'ypa/JtacTEVE. STOIX: 26
E8OXc vE TEL JoXEL KaL TOL 8E.L0L
Ary7El
EI7TpVTaVEVE, HpEMr9 Euypa
[A]AaTEVE, HaTpOKX^; EITEOTaTE,
e
5 [ahos; ElTE rV EP(TOV TOU 7rapa TO [a]
OTEO'; yEfvpocrat xlo';
XpoAtE[vI
o' 'EXEvv[o61 EV
TOY Ka6ELPEJE[VI
OV EK TO VEO TO apXato, ho%' EAXrov
ES; TO TEtXO'; avaxLCtKOVTE';, ho' a'
10 v Ta%
htEpa% O'pocuv
hat hEpEat a
[okaAXEcrTaTa. 7TXaTOq 8E 7rItoVTOV
[7]EVTEI7ro8a, hiva jAE hataxca 8&E
XavvovrTat, a&Xa Tois; incV EL
Oa
[81'Ev EO Tar htEpa. Xos aE KaT
15 [aKlakvkOaL Ta% &appoaq TO8
PPE[T]
o KaOoln av Xo-vyyp(a)XkEL AEoAEUAEX
LE'; 6 apXlTEKTOV. E]al6 8E ME ocil E[.]
Prepis son of Eupheres was secretary. Resolved by the Council
and the Demos; Aigeis held the prytany; Prepis was secretary;
Patrokles was chairman; Theaios made the motion: to bridge over
5 the Rheitos on the side toward the city, making use of the blocks
at Eleusis which had been taken down from the Archaic temple,
3That 04-KiootK are the rafters of a roof is indicated by the use of the term in those
portions
of the
Erechtheion accounts dealing with the woodwork of the roof, see J. M. Paton and G. P.
Stevens,
The
Erechtheum, Cambridge, Mass. 1927, pp. 314, 353,
366-369. Cf. A. T.
Hodge,
The Woodwork of Greek
Roofs, Cambridge 1960, p. 119.
4The technical meaning of hLKpLOTEpaq is not clear, nor is their function in the Telesterion. They
are
certainly of wood and most likely part of the woodwork of the roof. In the
specifications
for the arsenal of
Philon, the term is applied to vertical posts supporting the shelves of the galleries,
IG
II2, 1668,
lines
78-80; translated as "posts" by K. Jeppesen, Paradeigmata,
Aarhus 1958, p. 73, commentary, p.
84. Cf. the
use of the term in the woodwork of ships, IG I12, 1629, line 1156; 1631,
line 339.
51G I2, 81, lines 5-9; for this interpretation of the work on the walls, lines 8-9, see SIG3, 86,
note 5;
for the Rheitoi, Pausanias, i.38.1; Hesychios, s.v. 'PELTOL.
and which they left aside when they re-used them in the wall,
in order that the priestesses may carry the sacred relics as
10 safely as possible. Let them make the width five feet so that
wagons may not drive across, but those going to the sacred rites
may cross on foot. And further to cover over with blocks the
15 channels of the Rheitos as the architect Demomeles shall specify.
But if they are not ....
There can be little doubt that the phrase ho VEOc, in an Eleusinian document refers
to no other building but the Telesterion itself, for it has been convincingly demonstra-
ted by Kourouniotes and Travlos that the great hall of the Mysteries was in fact the
temple of Demeter.6 In the 5th century, no other structure within the sanctuary could
have been described simply as "the temple" without further qualification. It has long
been recognized also that the building described as ho
VEoq
ho
a&pX'Cdo
in IG 12, 81,
line 8 and again more simply as ho VEO' in IG 12, 313, line 103 (= 314, line 113)
should be identified as the Telesterion of the 6th century B.C., the construction of which
is commonly attributed to the tyrant Peisistratos, although with more chronological
precision it ought preferably to be assigned to his sons.7 Two entries in the inventory of
408/7 will shortly be seen to confirm this identification of the building, for the over-
seers listed material from a stoa, which seems to have had some connection with the
temple, and three pairs of doors.8
The surviving foundations of the Archaic Telesterion were found buried beneath
the present eastern corner of the vast hypostyle hall which succeeded it on the site in the
second half of the 5th century. These remains, together with cuttings in the bedrock,
have yielded an accurate plan of the Archaic temple, almost exactly one quarter the size
of the later Classical structure. In addition to its foundations, the building survives today
in numerous fragments of its superstructure (Pls. 19:b, 20) which contribute their evi-
dence to the architectural reconstruction.9 The Archaic Telesterion was a large, square
6Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp. 54-114, and especially 59-61. The theory of Rubensohn (Die Mysterien-
heiligtumer in Eleusis und Samothrake, Berlin 1892, pp. 44ff.) that the temple of Demeter ought to have
been a canonical Greek temple separate from the Telesterion, was followed by Noack (Eleusis, pp. 48,
218), who attempted to locate the temple on the rock-cut terrace just north of the Classical Telesterion and
referred to it as "Temple F" (ibid., pp. 85-88). This attempt was unsuccessful and the cuttings proved
later to belong to a building of the Roman period, Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp. 72-75. Cf. also the dis-
cussion of G. E. Mylonas, The Hymn to Demeter and Her Sanctuary at Eleusis, St. Louis 1942, pp. 28-63.
7See E. Cavaignac, Le tresor sacred d'Eleusis jusqu'en 404, Versailles 1908, pp. 38-39, followed by
Noack, Eleusis, pp. 59-60, 68-70; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 82; cf. also Dittenberger's comment, SIG3, 86, note
4; Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp. 75ff.
81G 12, 313, lines 108-110. It may perhaps be questioned whether the entries in line 110 belong with
those immediately preceding since the line is separated from the others by a paragraph mark. But the
identical entries in IG I2, 314, line 120 are not so separated. Here the mason placed his paragraph mark
immediately before line 113, where it had been omitted in the previous inventory; thus he set apart all the
material removed from the temple. It is possible that the mark before IG I2, 313, line 110 is in fact an
error.
9For detailed description of the architectural remains, Noack, Eleusis, pp. 48-68; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp.
78-88. The restored plan is conveniently reproduced in A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, Baltimore
hall approached by three doorways on its southeastern side. Here a broad portico of ten
Doric columns10 crossed the facade of the building and projected two intercolumniations
to form a deep porch, of which many of the original poros paving slabs still remain in
place.1" The three other interior walls were ranged with banks of nine stone steps, except
in the western corner and extending half way along the southwestern wall, where there
stood a small enclosed chamber known as the Anaktoron, the sanctum sanctorum of the
Eleusinian cult.12 The building's roof was carried upon five parallel rows of interior
columns numbering 22 in all, and arranged with five columns in each row except on the
southwest side where two columns aligned with the front of the Anaktoron. Both the
centered row of columns on the axis of the building and the surviving marbles from the
decoration of its roof show that it was of the normal gabled type with a pediment crown-
ing the facade of the southeastern portico.
The colonnaded porch of the Archaic Telesterion was the only structure of its kind
built on the site before the great prostoon of Philon was added to the Classical building
in the late 4th century; and in fact it was the only building in the sanctuary during the
6th and 5th centuries to which the Greek word stoa could properly be applied. The
earlier Archaic temple of the beginning of the 6th century was a simple rectangular
structure with no evidence for a colonnade.13 The later, so-called "Kimonian" recon-
struction was designed to have its front wall founded on the old stylobate of the Archaic
porch and apparently dispensed with exterior columns.14 Although a stoa was projected
and actually begun for the Classical Telesterion, it was plainly never built; and indeed
we may suspect that the column drums, steps, and stylobate blocks listed in the inven-
tories of 408/7 and 407/6 are actually membra
disjecta
of this abortive project.15 Thus the
materials listed in the same inventories which are said to have been taken down from
the stoa could only have been removed from the porch of the Archaic Telesterion.
Included among these, it will be remembered, were also three pairs of doors, while the
existing foundations for the southeast wall of the Archaic temple preserve the thresh-
olds of three doorways. These were the only means of access to the hall of initiation
since its other three walls were lined with steps and its western corner was occupied by
the Anaktoron. Now the doors of the inscription can hardly have come from the Classi-
1957, p. 253, fig. 142; H. Berve, G. Gruben, M. Hirmer, Greek Temples, Theaters, and Shrines, New York
1962, p. 400, fig. 70.
'?Kourouniotes-Travlos, p. 75. Noack (Eleusis, pp. 57-58) restored three possible schemes for the stoa
with eight, nine, and ten columns, but he preferred the facade with nine columns; followed by W. B.
Dinsmoor, The Architecture of Ancient Greece, London 1950, p. 113.
11Noack, Eleusis, p1. 3.
12The existence of the enclosed chamber in the west corner and its identification as the Anaktoron
were first recognized and demonstrated by Travlos ("'Aa'aKTOpOI'," pp. 1-16, and especially p. 7, fig. 4).
For the steps lining the walls, see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 95-97. -
I3Ibid., pp. 16-23, and especially p. 19; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 67-70.
14Noack, Eleusis, pp. 99-101, fig. 47; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 111-113.
15Evidence for the beginning of work on a stoa for the Classical Telesterion can be seen at the east
corner of the building where the deep foundations step forward 4.21 m. beneath the later foundations for
the prostoon of Philon, Noack, Eleusis, p. 117, fig. 51; p1. 39:d.
cal Telesterion; for it seems unlikely that three of its six doors could have been re-
moved and discarded so soon after their installation as to be catalogued by the over-
seers of 408/7. On the other hand, the so-called "Kimonian" phase of the temple seems
to have been designed with only two entrances on its southeast facade and was, in any
event, not sufficiently completed for its doors to have been hung in place.16 Again one
is led to suppose that the three pairs of doors mentioned in IG 12, 313 and 314 hung
originally in the doorways of the Peisistratid temple. The two inventories and the decree
(IG I2, 81) of the late 5th century may then be assumed in all probability to refer to
building materials salvaged from the Archaic structure, the foundations of which are
preserved on the site today.
We may now inquire under what circumstances and at what time in the history of
the building its roof and columns, its porch and doors were dismantled and stored for
re-use in the sanctuary. Scholars have explained the fate of the Archaic Telesterion with
extraordinary unanimity of opinion, and the conclusion has been almost universally
accepted that the temple met its end in the Persian destruction of 480 B.C. Indeed, no
less a witness than Herodotos seemed to have made an explicit statement to this effect
when he recounted the personal revenge which Demeter exacted from the Persian
troops at Plataia. "It seems to me a marvelous thing that though the battle was fought
beside the grove of Demeter, none of the Persians died in the precinct or even entered
into it; and most of them fell round about the sanctuary on unconsecrated ground. But
I judge, if one may judge of the ways of heaven, that the goddess herself refused to
receive them because they had burned her sanctuary, the Anaktoron, at Eleusis."17
That the Persian army did, in fact, visit its wrath on the sanctuary at Eleusis with a fury
nearly equal to the sack of the Athenian Acropolis was apparent to the early excavators,
who report the discovery of burned and broken debris similar to that from the Acrop-
olis.18 The Archaic peribolos wall was apparently breached at a point just southeast of
the Telesterion, where a section of the early mud-brick wall was subsequently replaced
with fine pseudo-isodomic masonry founded on the original polygonal socle (P1. 19:a).19
Furthermore, other structures associated with the Archaic sanctuary, and in particular
the Sacred House, are known to have been destroyed at this time.20 In view of the
16Travlos restored three doors without comment in the "Kimonian" building as in its predecessor
("'Ava'Kropo0V," p. 13, fig. 4); followed by Lawrence and Gruben, locc. citt. (footnote 9 above); but see
Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 112, and Travlos' most recent version of the plan, ibid., fig. 26, C. On the incomplete
state of the structure, see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 94-103.
17Herodotos, ix.65.2: OC'ux &' got O'KCV' 7rapa rTs A
r-,urqpos
ro aXoos-
X
EuaXo/.tvwOv oi8E E'1s
eOalq
rC'V
HEPcTE'C)V
OV"TE EcTEXOC6 es ro TEqUIEVO- OVTE Eva7ro~ava'wv, 7rEpL TE TO LpOV OL 7rITXELcTOL E TZ
[3E,37)AX(
EI7rE-
cTOJ. OKEW 8E', Et Tt
ITEpL
TrVV OEL't
1p7)PffTWV
8OKEELV 86E,
-
6Eo% aVT- cr-Eaq OVK (E~KETO ETvp)caTava
[TO tpO Id TO% 4 'EXEVOrtiVL a vaKropovO.
18Noack, Eleusis, p. 93.
19The section of the peribolos reconstructed in pseudo-isodomic masonry is located between H 25 and
H 29 on the plan, Mylonas, Eleusis, fig. 6. For discussion of the repair of the wall, see ibid., pp. 107-108;
Noack, Eleusis, pp. 30-32, 90-92, and pl. 14 between C 6 and C 8.
20For the Sacred House, located to the south of the sanctuary just beyond the fortifications, see Kou-
rouniotes, HlpaKrtKa, 1937, pp. 42-52; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 101-103, 192.
archaeological remains and the statement by Herodotos that the Persians burned the
Anaktoron, the innermost chamber of the Telesterion, all the evidence seemed to
suggest the total destruction of the Archaic temple in 480/79. Scholars have maintained
this date almost without exception and have gone on to describe in vivid terms the
holocaust which engulfed the sanctuary.21
Closer examination will reveal a number of facts about the Archaic Telesterion
which are at variance with this picture of utter destruction and may suggest that the
building more likely succumbed to a rather different fate. In the first place, it should be
noted that much of its superstructure can be accounted for in the late 5th century.
There is no way of knowing how much material was re-used for repairing the peribolos
wall, but enough was left over after completion of that project so that the new bridge
over the Rheitos was to be built entirely of blocks salvaged from the old temple.22
Presumably blocks of the most regular and useful shapes would have been taken first,
the wall blocks, the triglyphs, and architraves from the stoa. A number of blocks from
the exterior Doric cornice were re-used in a short length of wall constructed on the
polygonal socle of the eastern Archaic peribolos wall. It has been suggested that this
may be part of the reconstruction es TELXOs of IG 12, 81, line 9;23 but whether or not
this is the wall mentioned in the inscription, its construction is certainly to be associated
with the building of underground granaries to the east of the Archaic peribolos wall in
the latter part of the 5th century. Still other blocks from the Archaic temple, including
another piece of the Doric cornice (PI. 19:b), were employed in a great supplementary
pier set against one of the interior piers of the Classical granaries at some time before
they were filled with earth and went out of use in the late 4th century.24 One interior
epicranitis block and possibly some of the wall blocks from the Archaic Telesterion were
used as backers for the fine pseudo-isodomic masonry which repaired the breach broken
by the Persians in the south peribolos wall.25 Another cornice block and a Doric anta
capital (P1. 20:a) were later built into the walls of the little Roman building, known as
"Temple F", on the rock-cut terrace northeast of the Telesterion,26 while still other
21
Ibid., pp. 88-90, 106-108; Noack, Eleusis, pp. 91f., 93; D. Philios, 'EXEVcTL', MvOrrTpuLa, 'EpEL'lna Kat
Movo-JOV Av r^s, Athens 1906, pp. 81, note 1, 90; idem, npaKTtKa, 1884, pp. 75ff.; and cf. Cavaignac, op.
cit. (footnote 7 above), p. 39; SIG3, 86, note 4; IG 12, 81, note on line 8.
221G12
1, lines 5-9 (p. 130 above).
23Such was the interpretation of Kourouniotes and Travlos, pp. 75-82. It is more likely that this wall
was built when the low-lying area beyond the Archaic peribolos was converted into underground granaries.
See Noack, Eleusis, pp. 189-193; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 125-127. The wall in question does not properly
align with the polygonal socle beneath it, and it abuts the northernmost pier of the granaries, Kourouni-
otes-Travlos, p. 76, figs. 11, 12. Cf. the plan Noack, Eleusis, p. 190, fig. 76, where the wall is indicated by
dotted lines running northwards at an oblique angle from the last pier in the right row. If this is one of the
three
cnpo%,
of which IG 12, 76, lines 10-12 authorizes the construction, then the date of that inscription,
ca. 422 B.c.(?), provides a terminus post quem for the re-use of the cornice blocks from the Archaic temple.
For a recent summary of the discussion concerning the date of IG 12, 76, see R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis,
Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford 1969, pp. 222-223.
24Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp. 79-82, fig. 15.
25Noack, Eleusis, p. 54.
26 Ibid., pp. 86-87. These were shown to belong to the Archaic Telesterion by Kourouniotes and Trav-
los (pp. 74-75); cf. Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 176.
Archaic architectural members of the same series are to be seen in the west wall of the
long Roman granary, near the southwest corner of the building. The well-known sima
block of Parian marble (P1. 20:b), adorned with its ornamental ram's head, which origi-
nally crowned the southern corner of the building, was found in the fill between the
post-Persian repair of the southern peribolos and the deep foundation for the crepidoma
of Philon's prostoon.27 The sima could have been buried already in the second quarter
of the 5th century, when the original filling was thrown in behind the Archaic peribolos
in order to enlarge the terrace of the Telesterion above; or the block might have found
its way into the fill which was replaced after the foundations for the prostoon had been
laid in the mid-4th century.
In addition to all these pieces of the Archaic temple which survive today by virtue
of their re-use in various later buildings at Eleusis, there were extant in the late 5th
century all the materials listed by the overseers of 408/7 and 407/6, which had not been
re-used in other construction up to that time. We have seen that these included 54 col-
umn drums and 16 Ionic column bases, which are to be assigned to the interior order of
the hall.28 No less than 1750 pairs of roof tiles had been salvaged from the building and
survived in the storerooms as late as 407/6. It was possibly part of this group, together
with several marble simas and antefixes (P1. 20:c, d), which was found in the excava-
tion of a small building, located on a rock-cut terrace rising two meters above the Sa-
cred Way, just south of the Hellenistic exedra.29 But by far the most striking entries in
the inventories are the 22 wooden epistyles, the 18 wooden rafters from the stoa, and
the ten roof timbers.30 The epistyles came almost certainly from the interior of the hall
and rested on the Ionic columns, 16 bases of which were still stored with them, while
the text states specifically that the rafters were "taken down from the stoa."
The foregoing synopsis of existing or recorded architectural members from the
Archaic Telesterion suggests that a remarkably large proportion of the building's super-
structure survived the Persian destruction of the sanctuary and was thought fit for re-
use throughout the 5th century and later. Now, except for the sima and roof tiles of
27D. Philios, TIpaKrtKa, 1883, p. 63.
28For the attribution of these to the Archaic temple, see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 60-61; Mylonas, Eleusis,
p. 82; W. B. Dinsmoor (op. cit. [footnote 10 above], p. 195, note 4) thought that they might have come
from the post-Persian reconstruction of the Telesterion, no doubt because they survived to the end of the
century, while the Archaic temple he had already consigned to destruction by Xerxes (p. 113). A. W.
Lawrence (op. cit. [footnote 9 above], p. 252) assumed Dinsmoor's suggestion to be certain.
29Philios, 'EXEVrq- (footnote 21 above), p. 86, note 1. It has been suggested to identify this building
(Mylonas, Eleusis, fig. 4, no. 22) with one of the two treasuries in the sanctuary which are mentioned in
the overseers' accounts of 329/8, IG I12, 1672, lines 300-302; see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 83-84; Mylonas, op.
cit., p. 144. It is not impossible that some of the roof tiles from the Archaic temple were stored here dur-
ing later periods. The fact that it would seem strange to us to store secondhand building materials in a
treasury does not reflect the view of antiquity. We have only to recall that the treasurers of Athena for
369/8 recorded among the dedications in the west room of the Parthenon eight and one half boxes of
rotten and useless arrows (IG 112, 1424a, lines 344-345: G-dipaKOL Pill Ka[l 7].upaKLOr T[o(]EVa'Tuwv
rairpciv
axp-q~rwrw)).
Their successors in 368/7 were perhaps tidier housekeepers, for they seem to have
reduced the useless arrows in the Parthenon to one small box, IG I12, 1425, lines 280-282.
30See above, p. 129, lines 106, 108-110.
Parian marble, the building was entirely constructed of fine poros stone, of the kind
which is easily calcined on the surface and becomes extremely fragile and friable when
exposed to the heat of fire. It seems unlikely that severely damaged blocks would have
been so carefully stored, recorded, and re-used, especially in the construction of the
bridge across the Rheitos. Far more surprising is the very existence in the late 5th
century of so many wooden members, epistyles, rafters, beams, and doors, of a build-
ing which had been fired by the Persians. There is, after all, rather little inflammable
material in a stone building apart from the doors and the roof timbers; and it is scarcely
credible that a fire, of such intensity as to destroy even the chamber of the Anakto-
ron,31 could have left the roof in such a state that it was worth salvaging. It is well to
recall that the walls of the Athenian Acropolis appeared scorched by fire in the time of
Herodotos (v.77.3), a generation after the Persian sack. Moreover, Pausanias, traveling
in the 2nd century after Christ, saw a number of buildings which had been burned by
the Persians and were never repaired. Of one he writes in particular, "On the way from
Phaleron to Athens is a temple of Hera that has neither doors nor roof; they say it was
fired by Mardonios the son of Gobryas."32 The roof was the one part of the building
which was certain to perish in any extensive fire; and yet wooden epistyles, rafters, and
timbers, together with a large quantity of roof tiles, seem to have survived in suffi-
ciently good condition to make it worth the trouble of storing them for 70 years.
An examination of the extant architectural members will increase one's doubts that
the Archaic Telesterion can have suffered extensive damage at the hands of the Per-
sians. These blocks have all in common their extraordinarily fine state of preservation
upon which the excavators have especially commented. Particularly noteworthy in this
respect are the pieces of the marble roof and the poros cornice blocks. A considerable
number of marble sima tiles and antefixes of the cover tiles have survived, and far
from showing signs of damage by fire, many retain to this day traces of their original
painted decoration (P1. 20:c, d). The palmettes of the antefixes had 11 red petals out-
lined in blue, while the raking sima was decorated with a band of alternating lotus and
palmettes surmounted by a narrow bead-and-reel pattern. Again the petals of the blos-
soms and the beads were painted red and outlined in blue.33 Equally without trace of
burning is the corner sima (P1. 20:b) of which the ornamental ram's head displays a
remarkable freshness. The original paint was partially preserved
at the time of its dis-
covery, red for the eyes and blue for the tight curls of hair.34
More interesting still is the series of poros cornice blocks built into the west wall of
the granaries in the late 5th century.35
If a building is deliberately destroyed,
its cornice
31Herodotos, ix.65.2.
32Pausanias, i.1.5; and vII.5.5, x.35.2.
33See A. K. Orlandos in Noack, Eleusis, pp. 66-67; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 80.
34Philios, HpaKTLKa, 1883, p. 63; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 81. Orlandos saw the traces of blue as green,
Noack, Eleusis, p. 64.
35For detailed discussion and interpretation of these cornice blocks, see Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp.
75-82. One block in the series was found in "Temple F", Noack, Eleusis, pp. 86-87. Another was built
might be expected to show clearer signs of damage than some other parts of the super-
structure. If its roof collapses in a fire, we should expect many cornice blocks to be
dislodged from their positions high on the building and to shatter in their fall to the
ground. But the evidence of the preserved pieces is precisely' the reverse. Almost all are
complete blocks, some carved with one mutule and one via and others with two mu-
tules and two vias. The edges of the mutules are crisp and sharp; on some the guttae
have scarcely even been chipped. The moldings on the faces of the blocks have natu-
rally not fared quite so well as the more protected undersides, but on many the geison
drip still comes nearly to a point and the corona retains its smooth face undamaged (P1.
19:b). Patches of ancient stucco still cling to the less exposed surfaces, the undercut of
the geison drip, and the corners of the vias. Some of these bits of stucco still show
traces of color, but much has been lost because of their exposure to the weather since
the time of their discovery. There are no visible signs of damage by fire.36 The com-
ments of the excavators are explicit on the excellent condition of the blocks and are
worth quoting at some length.37 "The architectural members used in the construction of
the little wall, at any rate the greater part of them, have not suffered great damage; and
on some of them there are quite well preserved even the very sensitive, delicate edges,
on which depends part of the architectural function of the poros cornices. On almost all
the original color was preserved in lively tones at the time of their discovery. This, too,
is evidence that these blocks did not suffer very badly through careless handling or bad
keeping during the interval between their removal from the building to which they
originally belonged and their construction in the little wall here in question." Inevitably
it follows likewise that they cannot have been heavily damaged while in their original
positions on the Archaic temple.
All the available evidence appears to suggest that the building, whose wooden
timbers were recorded in the inventories, and whose poros and marble blocks we pos-
sess today, cannot in fact have been the same temple which Herodotos says that the
Persians burned. The careful and detailed lists in the inventories of 408/7 and 407/6
reflect considerable administrative labor such as is not likely to have been expended
upon ruinous debris. Furthermore, the condition of the building's surviving members
indicates that it did not meet its end in conflagration. On the contrary, the phraseology
into the later pier, which was constructed in the underground granaries beside the northernmost pier in the
east row and was removed by Kourouniotes in 1923, op. cit., p. 79, and note 1; fig. 15. The location of the
pier is shown as a dotted rectangle on the plan, Noack, Eleusis, p. 190, fig. 76. Still another of the Archaic
cornice blocks is still built into the west wall of the Roman granaries.
36The block of the interior epicranitis, now re-used as a backer in the post-Persian repair of the peri-
bolos wall, was described by Noack (Eleusis, p. 54) as heavily burned. This, like the cornice blocks, it
should be noted, is a complete block; and while the upper curve of its hawksbeak is largely broken away,
its other surfaces are not badly damaged. The slightly friable condition of the surface may well be due to
weathering; and there are today no obvious traces of calcination or discoloration which need be attributed
to the action of fire. Noack (Eleusis, p. 93) likewise reported signs of what he took to be burning on the
marble roof tiles, but he admitted that the roof did not appear to have fallen.
37Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp. 78-79.
of the inscriptions is uniform and explicit. All the building materials salvaged from the
Archaic temple are described as &ro' To VEO KaOELpELEva or aTro TEs -r0ois
KaOEpEg-
vot or
KaOEpEgEvov
EK To VEO To apXawo.38 The natural inference from these expres-
sions is that the blocks were actually taken down from their positions on the
building
and committed to the charge of the overseers for storage in the sanctuary. The
pre-
served inventories of 408/7 and 407/6 presumably listed only those materials which had
not yet been re-used in other construction. The simplest explanation of the building's
fate is systematic demolition: it was deliberately dismantled to make way for another
building. Only this solution will account for the survival of its wooden timbers and the
care of the overseers in recording the salvaged material in exact detail; only this can
have prompted the description of this material as Ka6EapEgJva in all the epigraphical
documents; and only this can explain satisfactorily the excellent condition of the surviv-
ing architectural blocks.
It remains to discover, if possible, at what time the old Archaic Telesterion was
torn down and its successor begun. The circumstances surrounding the construction of
the building which is generally called "Kimonian" may provide a clue to the correct
chronology of that event. The Archaic hall of initiation, of which the surviving
blocks
have been considered above, was succeeded on the same site, at a date yet to be deter-
mined in the early 5th century, by a far more commodious hall apparently designed
expressly for the purpose of accommodating double the number of initiates within the
temple.39 The fixed feature of the site which determined the plan of the whole building
was evidently the little chamber of the Anaktoron; for Travlos has demonstrated con-
vincingly that this structure remained the same and inviolable through each successive
reconstruction of the Telesterion from early Archaic to late Roman times.40 The narrow
walled sanctuary, built around an uncut outcropping of natural bedrock (P1. 19:c,
fore-
ground), protected a spot hallowed by the long traditions of the cult and was plainly
of
central importance to the performance of the Mysteries. The Anaktoron had occupied
the western corner of the Archaic temple, and although in its successor it was to
retain
precisely the same physical position on the site, the new hall was to have been laid
out
about the Anaktoron so that it was centrally disposed on the long southwest wall. The
new Telesterion was thus designed to have nearly twice the length of the Archaic
build-
ing, although
the width remained exactly the same. The plan called for 21
interior
columns, larger in diameter and more widely spaced than before, arranged in three
rows
of seven columns each. Also like its predecessor, the new building was intended
to
have tiers of steps, now seven in number, ranged around at least three sides of the
hall.
The front wall was pushed
forward to stand on the stylobate of the earlier Doric portico,
thus enlarging the interior of the hall itself at the expense of its exterior facade.
38G I12, 313, lines 103, 108-109 = 314, lines 113, 118-119;
IG
12, 81,
lines 7-8.
39The architectural remains are discussed in detail by
Noack (Eleusis, pp. 93-106); Mylonas,
Eleusis,
pp. 111-113. For convenient reproduction of the restored plan, see Lawrence and
Gruben,
locc. citt. (foot-
note 9 above).
40Travlos, "'Ava&K-opOv," pp. 1-16.
Evidence for the reconstruction of this plan comes chiefly from the beddings and
foundations prepared for the interior columns, and from the rock-cut steps along the
northeast wall. The smooth, rock-cut floor in the north corner of the existing Teles-
terion preserves circular beddings for three rows of three columns of smaller diameter
and spaced slightly closer together than the later Classical and Roman columns (P1.
18:a, foreground). These three rows of beddings align with three rows of foundations
further to the southeast, where individual piers for each column were set down on
bedrock, deep beneath the floor of the Archaic temple.41 The pattern of the interior
columns can thus be reconstructed with accuracy. The existence of the beddings in the
floor of the present building shows that masses of the living, black rock of the hillside
must have been quarried away at this time in order to increase the floor area of the
initiation hall toward the northwest. The same thing is suggested by the new founda-
tions below the floor of the Archaic building, for these are composed of unworked and
irregular slabs of Eleusinian limestone, which still show traces of the wooden wedges
used to pry them out of the hill.42 It is a natural inference that they were quarried in the
northwest extension of the building. Along the northeast wall of the Archaic temple the
nine original rock-cut steps were at this time reworked so as to become seven wider
steps in the new building. In the course of quarrying operations for the northwest ex-
tension of the Telesterion, seven steps of similar dimensions were cut along the contin-
uation of this wall; and these are visible today beneath the later marble steps of the
Classical building just where the northernmost portal passes into the initiation hall (P1.
19:d) .43
This phase in the history of the temple, the so-called "Kimonian" Telesterion, has
been almost universally attributed to a reconstruction of the building undertaken after
the Persian invasion, which has been seen as the cause of its predecessor's demise.
Now, its scant remains bear witness to the new building's most striking feature, that is
the extraordinarily early stage at which the project was abandoned. It is obvious that
parts of the building never got above the ground. Here it is important to emphasize that
no bedding was ever prepared for the foundations of the southwest wall beyond the
corner of the Anaktoron. The rock-cut trench which served as bedding for the western
corner of the Peisistratid temple and of the Anaktoron can be seen in Plate 19:c (lower
left). Clearly, however, no westward extension of the cutting to carry the wall of the
later structure was ever begun; and there is no indication that any remodeling of the
Anaktoron had taken place. As we have seen, the black limestone of the Eleusinian
acropolis was cut down sufficiently to carve the steps along the northeastern wall, where
they are preserved under the marble steps of the Classical Telesterion. But Noack44 has
4"The evidence for the interior columns is discussed by Noack (Eleusis, pp. 94, 99-102) and appears
on the actual-state plan, pl. 3.
42Cf. Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 112.
43For the rock-cut steps, see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 94-98, figs. 44, 46.
44Loc. cit. Those parts of the building for which there is evidence that work was carried out are illus-
trated on the plan, ibid., p. 100, fig. 47.
shown that even the cutting of these steps was not fully carried out at the north corner
of the building. As noted above, the spacing of the interior columns was determined,
and rock-cut beddings and limestone foundations were prepared to carry them. Not a
single fragment of the superstructure has been identified; and in view of the incomplete
state even of the foundations, it is hard to imagine that many blocks were ever fully
worked and set in place. It should be equally obvious that the doors, roof tiles, and
wooden timbers of the inscriptions cannot have belonged to this phase of the temple.
The early and sudden abandonment of this abortive project to enlarge the Archaic
Telesterion is strikingly reminiscent of the fate of the Older Parthenon on the Athenian
Acropolis. While this is not the place to indulge in further discussion of the contro-
versies surrounding the chronology of that celebrated monument, its conspicuous aban-
donment at an early stage of construction is still most easily explained by Xerxes'
destruction of the Acropolis in 480 B.C. The evidence at Eleusis now suggests a precisely
analogous chain of events. If the construction of the enlarged Telesterion was cut short
by the Persian sack, at that moment when the earlier Archaic building had been largely
dismantled and the new building was just beginning to be built, we can then more
easily understand both the survival into the late 5th century of blocks and beams from
the Archaic temple and the unfinished state in which its successor was left abandoned.
All the evidence here reviewed suggests the following reconstruction of events in the
sanctuary at Eleusis. At some time during the decade 490-480 B.C., the decision was
made to replace the old Archaic Telesterion with a building of twice its capacity. The
Archaic temple was carefully and systematically taken apart, and the quarrying of the
hill and preparation of foundations for its successor was just begun when the Persian
invasion of 480 B.C. caused the work to stop abruptly. It is possibly for this reason that
Herodotos45 explicitly emphasized the Persian destruction of the Anaktoron, the inner
sanctum of the temple. This small chamber was very likely the only part of the building
standing above ground when the Persians sacked Eleusis. In any event, the destruction
of Eleusis had the same effect as the destruction of the Athenian Acropolis; for De-
meter's temple, like that of her sister Athena, was allowed to lie in ruins for a genera-
tion before its reconstruction was again undertaken in the Periclean period.
T. LESLIE SHEAR, JR.
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Department of Art and Archaeology
Princeton, NJ 08544
45Herodotos, ix.65.2, footnote 17 above.
PLATE 18
ZY ~~~~~~~~~~~~00 -
-Z -i~ ~~~~~,~-
Al ~ ~ ~ A
e
Cl~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R
-;V
*er v<
.
\: jU, Cf
-. *~~~~~~ '
N1,~~~~0 W
4 0t
- ~~~~C ~~ ~
I~~j ~~ ).'k:4%JtylV' ~ ~
V-
- I
PLATE 19
V ~v
S j , s '
Al M
44i11
3
W
4,
I
" \ . :. TV , :.: . a*.. C
S
I
X
* A j i C
~~~~~~~ 'A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
E 1'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
IsL
,
'0
7E
.0
4
jg~~~~~~~
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F-
CZ
PLATE 20
'c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H
S = E,_ ..,E~~~~s, a.
L ,H'' TIC
_
a;."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 } _C 'S~~~~~~~~~~~~
#tf
5 E _.~~~~~~~~~~
= ^ E t i t l.
C~~~ofi it )~
.D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i-)
;S s ads 1 | - --- --- S Is.,, =~~~~~I
*'v_ 5- _ Ev~
I
< * M:~~~~~~
~~~~~~* 1 V
0 |
,0~~~~~~~
V c |
THE PREHISTORIC KLEPSYDRA: SOME NOTES
(PLATES 21 AND 22)
D EEP EXPLORATION of the Klepsydra and the area immediately around it and the
adjoining
Paved Court on the northwest slope
of the
Acropolis
was undertaken
initially by A. W. Parsons as an adjunct to the campaigns of 1937-1940 in the Athenian
Agora.1 These excavations led to his enduring study in Hesperia 12, 1943, which, con-
centrating on the Classical and later history of that remarkable spring, mentioned only in
passing indications of earlier prehistoric installations tapping the same source.2 These
earlier remains were examined and a selection of finds from them published by Sara
Immerwahr in her comprehensive study of the Bronze Age material from the Agora
Excavations.3 Conspicuous among them are Late Mycenaean deposits from cuttings
beneath the Classical Paved Court, which she attributed to "the very end of the Myce-
naean period," and which formed "a transition to the Submycenaean Well U 26:4,"4 also
cleared by Parsons to the east of the Court. It was the need to define more precisely its
relation to this "Submycenaean" deposit that prompted my closer study of the Klepsydra
material.5 Several problems have emerged, but the evidence, despite a wealth of new
finds elsewhere and some additional cleaning around the cuttings themselves, is still too
limited for definitive answers. I summarize three here in the spirit of puzzles, in the
hope that others may find them intriguing and join in their solution, in the manner that
Homer Thompson invites others to wrestle Protean problems and hold them to ques-
tion, if not always to rest. These concern (1) the physical form of the cuttings and char-
acter of their filling, (2) their use and architectural setting, and (3) the date of the latest
regular activity around them prior to the reoccupation of the Acropolis northwest slopes
in Archaic times. To place these questions in their setting, it will be necessary to look
back again at the history of the Paved Court and the prehistoric cuttings beneath it.6
'Discussions with friends and colleagues have helped this paper. I am particularly grateful to Dr. John
McK. Camp II, Mr. William B. Dinsmoor, Jr., Professor Sara A. Immerwahr, and Dr. John Travlos. The
photographs are the work of M. Alison Frantz (P1. 21:a), Eugene Vanderpool, Jr. (P1. 21:b), and Robert K.
Vincent, Jr. (the rest); my deepest thanks to them all.
2A. W. Parsons, "Klepsydra and the Paved Court of the Pythion," Hesperia 12, 1943, pp. 191-267.
3S. A. Immerwahr, The Athenian Agora, XIII, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages (= Agora XIII), Princeton
1971.
4lbid., p. 261: deposit T 26-27:2.
50n U 26:4 and the Klepsydra finds, E. L. Smithson, "'Submycenaean' and LH IIIC Domestic Depos-
its in Athens," AJA 81, 1977, pp. 78-79; for reasons noted there, I found the term "Submycenaean"
confusing and of no practical application to domestic deposits. J. B. Rutter ("A Plea for the Abandonment
of the Term 'Submycenaean'," Temple University Aegean Symposium 3, Philadelphia 1978, pp. 58-65) asks
that it be dropped altogether, a tidier and more rigorous proposal that I would endorse; see fig. 1 for his
dating of these and related deposits.
6What follows is a summary that of necessity skirts many difficulties and omits much supporting mate-
rial; a full presentation of the finds from the Klepsydra, U 26:4, and related deposits from the Agora Ex-
cavations is in preparation.
142 EVELYN LORD SMITHSON
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0O
U1
V)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lox)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
01
THE PREHISTORIC KLEPSYDRA: SOME NOTES 143
1. The physicalform of the cuttings and the nature of their filling
Parsons' study presents the main outlines of the excavation, the form of the Paved
Court, and its dating. The Court, whatever its functional relation to the Spring House,
was built at the same time with it in the second quarter of the 5th century B.C. A drain-
age channel (Fig. 1:A) that carried overflow out beneath the north wall of the Paved
Court (Fig. 1:N) was cut at the same time or not long afterward.7 Following the collapse
of a large piece of Acropolis rock onto the center of the Court, extensive repairs were
carried out in the mid-Ist century after Christ, including the addition of a north-south
cross wall (Fig. 1:C) that bisected the Court, the filling in of the Classical drainage
channel, and the opening of a new one (Fig. 1:B) a little to the west of it. Finally, the
Late Roman Fortification Wall in its course down from the Acropolis crossed the west-
ern part of the Court and the line of the drainage channels. All these intrusions left
their mark on the early deposits in question. Parsons was able to examine the fill be-
neath the Court only in a limited area where the paving slabs, each weighing something
over two thirds of a ton, had been removed or displaced in the past, and hazardous
digging conditions soon brought excavation to a halt. Three decades later, in 1969,
while cleaning and repairing the Paved Court, the Greek Archaeological Service was
able to clarify and extend the area probed by Parsons.8 A new plan and section, made at
that time by Dr. John Travlos, are reproduced here, through his kind generosity (Fig.
1). But in all, the area investigated beneath the Court covered a maximum area of
about seven meters east-west by ca. 4.50 m. north-south, and only a small portion of
that could be taken to bedrock. Physical impediments virtually preclude further explora-
tion,9 so that the evidence for the prehistoric installation is in hand, however frustrating
it may seem.
Two pits were found in bedrock beneath the Court, the precise physical relation
between them obscured beneath the Early Roman cross wall. The eastern pit ("East
Cutting", Fig. 1:E), with its neatly parallel sides, is surely manmade, the outline of the
northern part nearly square, about two meters to the side, with slightly rounded corners;
the floor, about 2.0 m. below the surface of bedrock at the north, sloped slightly to the
east. On its bottom lay at least a half meter of undisturbed Late Mycenaean fill, a green-
ish gray mud, diminishing toward the north and west but rising nearly to the full height
of the cutting at the southeast corner, suggesting that it had been dumped or swept in
from that point. Above this was another layer, sandy and gravelly, of undisturbed Late
Mycenaean fill, and on that a shallow fill, dumped in to bed the Roman cross wall,
contained a sprinkling of Late Mycenaean sherds like those in the lower filling and
presumably churned up from it. 0.50 m. above the floor, the south face of the cutting
was stepped back, and on this "step", 0.65 m. back from and parallel to its northern
7See p. 149 and footnote 35.
8G. Dontas, AEXr 25, 1970, B' [1972], pp. 26-28, pl. 39; K. Demacopoulou, "MvKMvauKd
irTrMX&'v-
KEfaX7J," AEXr 25, 1970, A' [1971], pp. 174-183.
9Dontas, op. cit., p. 28.
edge, was a Late Mycenaean wall running east-west (Fig. 1:M); it is made of neatly
fitted, large and small stones, carefully finished on its northern face, as if to be visible,
Th. 1.20, p.H. 0.60, p.L. 1.55 m.10 Above and behind the wall was compressed dug
bedrock that increased in thickness toward the south; in it were Late Mycenaean sherds
and pieces mending to two splendid wide-mouthed pithoi.1" The cutting was traced,
then, something over four meters to the south before excavation had to be abandoned
beneath undisturbed paving slabs. Any extension of the wall outside the cutting is un-
known, and its functional relationship, if any, to the square basin is one of our problems.
The configuration of the western pit ("West Cutting", Fig. 1:W) is far from clear.
The area probed, again restricted by intact paving slabs, lay between the north wall of
the Court, the Roman drainage channel, and the boulder collapsed from the Acropolis
cliffs around which it was diverted.'2 This pit is considerably deeper than the East Cut-
ting. Bedrock or compressed dug bedrock lay 3.40 m. below the floor of the Paved
Court. Beneath the cross wall, digging was suspended at 3.50 m. among "boulders" and
water; a crowbar, thrust down into the fill another 1.50 mi., did not strike bottom. It is
likely that we are dealing with a deep fissure, perhaps a continuation of the same natu-
ral reservoir against which the Classical Klepsydra was set, seven meters further west.'3
The surface outlines of the western pit may have been regularized somewhat, as a
rounded corner (northeast?) found beneath the cross wall suggests. Something over a
meter of pure Late Mycenaean fill was excavated, resting on bedrock or compressed
dug bedrock to the west (cf. East Cutting, south of the Mycenaean wall), and appar-
ently still going down in places under the cross wall. As in the East Cutting, a few Late
Mycenaean sherds, displaced from these deposits, were found in the dumped Roman fill
above them.
Apart from three small pieces in the West Cutting, two probably of tiles and one
clay packing of some sort, the deposits were free of architectural debris or quantities of
carbonized matter that might suggest destroyed or dilapidated buildings near by. A
single piece of "miscellaneous clay", also from the West Cutting, most clearly resem-
bles in form and size the "enigmatic unbaked clay spools" from a house of developed
LH IIIC date at Lefkandi.'4 But grinders and pestles, among the most common and
'0Ibid., pl. 39:y.
11 Ibid., pl. 39:a, H. 0.82, D. mouth 0.62; pl. 39:,8 H. 0.98, D. mouth 0.70, D. base ca. 0.20 m. I thank
Dr. Dontas for his kind permission to measure these, and to examine sherds recovered in 1969. They
include nothing inconsistent with Parsons' finds and have not been included in any statistics. Parsons
reached the step, and probably the wall ("pieces of schist"), and noted "many pieces of pithos" in dug
bedrock, some of which might fill gaps in the 1969 jars; we did not try for joins.
12" ... boulder ... sinking ... beneath the ground level," Parsons, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), pp.
243-245, esp. p. 244.
13Jbid., p. 212, where the Classical draw basin is likened to a "bait-box" set into a natural reservoir.
14M. Popham and L. H. Sackett, Let kandi, Preliminary Report, London 1968, p. 13, fig. 16, lower row,
found with pottery of Phase lb (M. Popham and E. Milburn, "The Late Helladic IIIC Pottery of Xeropolis
(Lefkandi), A Summary," BSA 66, 1971, pp. 334-336). The Klepsydra object is baked, however lightly,
and has a stone, about half its thickness, encased at one end; L. 0.068, D. 0.035 m.
durable discards in fillings drawn from general household refuse, are lacking, and the
assortment of pottery here is quite unsuitable. Finally, and most interesting of all the
small finds, is the fragment of a fine female head, found in the West Cutting in 1969,
suited in scale to a figurine approaching 40 centimeters in height.15 Otherwise, all finds
from the two pits were pottery, so consistent in chronological range, condition, fabrics,
and shapes, as to leave little doubt that the two, if not actually part of the same estab-
lishment, were filled in and covered by material drawn from a common source.
Sherds were few for the quantity of earth removed: 1100 from the East Cutting,'6
mostly small and few obviously from the same pot; 535 from the West Cutting, some
fairly large or mending to sizeable fragments, though no pot was anywhere near com-
plete.17 The assortment is quite unlike deposits of ordinary household refuse," ceme-
teries,19 or sanctuaries,20 all of which, beyond certain furnishings favored by each, are
characterized by a plentiful number of open vessels, large craters as well as smaller
15K. Demacopoulou (op. cit. [footnote 8 above], p. 182) considered the possibility that it came from a
figure like those from the Citadel House at Mycenae but ultimately favored a sphinx. More recent finds
show such large figurines to have been fairly common in late sanctuary contexts; particularly striking are
the numbers associated with the bench sanctuaries against the circuit wall of the Lower Citadel at Tiryns
(AA [JdI 93], 1978, pp. 461-464; AA [JdI 94], 1979, pp. 389-391). Such an identification seems prefer-
able. Her suggestion that the head and the filling in which it was found had been brought in from Myce-
naean installations further east along the slope is not supported by the distribution of shapes in this filling
(see next paragraph).
16See above, footnote 11.
17A single lot of Klepsydra pottery could not be found in 1957, when Parsons' pottery was transferred
to permanent storage. Margaret Crosby, who undertook that Herculean task, noted "the barest possibility"
that another lot of 330 sherds, ticketless, came from the cuttings, and saved it in the hope that positive
evidence might emerge later; none has, but I think that provenience likely. Its character and composition
are like the other lots, though in the distribution of open shapes (17% of the total), painted kylikes and
conical cups (FS 242) are more numerous. This lot has not been included in any figures here.
18As e.g. E. French, on early LH IIIC deposits at Tarsus ("A Reassessment of the Mycenaean Pottery
at Tarsus," AnatSt 25, 1975, p. 56): "small proportion of closed vessels is typical of settlement pottery and
can be compared with the proportions at Mycenae itself"; at that site 20% of closed vessels is high. At
Korakou, see J. B. Rutter, The Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC Periods at Korakou and Gonia in the Corinthia
(University Microfilms International), 1974, e.g. East Alley Deposit, p. 97. The same is true of the
dumped filling in the Mycenaean Fountain at Athens, whatever its source; though figures are not recover-
able, Broneer clearly states ("A Mycenaean Fountain on the Acropolis," Hesperia 8, 1939) that among the
fragmentary pottery in the dumped filling, "most common ... among larger vases is the large bowl or
krater (p. 351), ... of all shapes ... is the skyphos (p. 362), ...
among the closed vases is the stirrup
vase" (p. 389).
19E.g. S. Jakovides, HEpar4, Athens 1969-1970; W. Kraiker and K. Kiibler, Kerameikos I, Berlin
1939, pp. 1-88 (except Grave S 112), and note the "Submycenaean" pieces from the Grave Mound, pls.
38, 39, 48, 50.
20To the long-familiar examples from Knossos (A. Evans, Palace of Minos at Knossos II, London 1928,
pp. 123-138, Underground Spring-Chamber; pp. 335-343, Shrine of the Double Axes) and Asine, House
G (0. Frodin and A. Persson, Asine, Stockholm 1938, p. 298), may now be added the shrines on the
Lower Citadel at Tiryns (AA [JdI 93], 1978, pp. 460-465, 495-497; AA [JdI 94], 1979, pp. 379-394).
Preliminary notices of the finds from the shrines at Mycenae (Antiquity 44, 1970, pp. 270-280; AAA 3,
1970, pp. 72-80), on Kea (Hesperia 41, 1972, pp. 400-401), and on Melos (JHS-AR for 1977-78, No. 24,
pp. 52-54; Antiquity 52, 1978, pp. 7-15) also indicate an assortment quite different from that found here.
drinking vessels, a wide range in size with the smaller in scale well represented, and a
component of certain shapes, such as stirrup-jugs or an equivalent, lacking here. In each
of the cuttings, pieces from large closed pots suited to drawing and, especially, trans-
porting water made up nearly two thirds (63% E, 62% W) of the pottery; the largest
component in each cutting appears to be hydriai. Open shapes, almost entirely cups of
some kind, amounted to less than a fifth (17% E, 14% W); cooking and light coarse
ware, mostly suited to though not designed for water work, about a tenth (10% E, 8%
W). The slight discrepancy in pithos or vat fragments (5% E, 11% W) will have been
more than equalized by the pithoi recovered by the Greek Archaeological Service in the
East Cutting. Apart from the size of the fragments, the only other difference, possibly
significant, is a slightly greater number of pieces from small closed vases in the East
Cutting, which, if not incidental garbage, might suggest a slightly different orientation
in water interests. Among these are an intact miniature hydria (P1. 21:a, b)21 and a large
fragment of an amphoriskos (Fig. 6),22 both totally unsuited to water collection or
transport. That both were found in the area of the step or "bench" in front of the Late
Mycenaean Wall, the hydria at most ten centimeters above, if not actually on it, may
also prove of interest.
The date of the finds in the cuttings has been summarized elsewhere.23 With the
exception of a handful of earlier pieces, all of the material belongs to LH IIIC, with
some of the forms beginning early in that period but of uncertain duration. The bulk,
however, consists of Advanced IIIC types, but nothing clearly from the end of that
period. J. B. Rutter has assigned the Klepsydra material to his "Phase 4" of IIIC, leav-
ing open the possibility that it may continue into "Phase 5", his ultimate stage, in
which he places U 26:4. This seems acceptable. Except for the presence of a few one-
handled conical cups (FS 242), Klepsydra might equally satisfy his Phase 3, though the
longevity here of "Phase 3-features" has yet to be established. The absence of large
closed deposits in Athens precludes very detailed local refinements for the present.
Phase 1 is surely represented in the North Slope Houses, as he notes, but Phase 2, as
distinct from 1, and Phase 3, as distinct from 4, await verification. But that is another
problem: "Phase 4" or "Advanced, but not ultimate" LH IIIC is sufficient for the filling
in the cuttings.
2. The use of the cuttings and their architectural setting
The most obvious function for the East Cutting is a broad open basin for drawing
water, filled by seepage neatly channeled into it along the shallow extension of the
cutting to the- south. Abundant water collected after excavation, and judging from the
21p 16758, Agora XIII, p. 262, no. 482, pl. 64 (= P1. 21:a; cf. P1. 21:b), p. 125; H. 0.099 m., D. 0.085 m.
22Lot OA 327-1; H. est. ca. 0.105 m., D. ca. 0.10 m. Thick wavy line, cf.
collar-amphoriskos,
A. J. B.
Wace, Chamber Tombs at Mycenae (Archaeologia 82, 1932), pl. XI, 11, Tomb 502, last burial, there as
more commonly with bands edging the panel. Shape, cf. Kerameikos I, pl. 17, inv. no. 424,
Gr. S
2,
with
wide mouth, depressed shoulder, and greatest diameter low set.
23Smithson, op. cit. (footnote 5 above), pp. 78-79; Rutter, op. cit. (footnote 5 above), p. 65, fig. 1.
lie of the fill, at times actually rushed in from the southeast corner. The wall con-
struction is not so tight as to have impeded flow under normal circumstances,24 though
the line may have become clogged at some stage during use or after the abandonment
of the installation, diverting the flow to the corner. There is no characteristic "period-
of-use filling" in the basin, i.e. large fragments of broken or lost water jars, of the sort
familiar from later wells. But with a maximum depth of 0.50 m., the basin is shallow
enough that larger fragments might have been retrieved as they fell in or piled up so as
to obstruct bailing. It was a practice of the Mycenaeans generally, unlike their Dark Age
and Classical successors, to keep their wells clean, whether through periodic clean-out
or a preference for non-ceramic buckets.25 Also pointing to such buckets is the fact that
most of the sherds come from large to very large water pots, mainly in the range of H.
ca. 0.40 m., a size more suited to transport than buckets, which in wells of later periods
are in the medium-sized range, H. ca. 0.25-0.30 m. (as the standard Protogeometric
oinochoe, trefoil lipped to facilitate the transfer of liquids to a transport container).
Pieces in the basin were mostly too small to repay removal; other bits, fallen to the
ground outside the basin, may have washed in after its partial or complete abandon-
ment. The size of the fragments, then, is not against use as a basin, and the kind of
pottery is very much in its favor.26
Broad draw basins of this sort are unusual in Mycenaean times. Wells, like U 26:4
to the east, are the common source, the smaller mouth (D. ca. 1.0 M.)27 insuring cool
water, more easily protected against contaminants and accidents involving animals,
children, or the infirm. Basins belong more properly with piped-in water,28 hardly neces-
sary in this location. A comparable installation, further afield and somewhat earlier in
its initial construction, is the Underground Spring-Chamber adjoining the Caravanserai
at Knossos.29 It is smaller, ca. 1.15 x 0.75 in., but the depth, 0.45 m., is about the
same as the East basin. Like the basin, it was fed by seepage, there oozing up through
the pebbled floor. That in its last phase at least, choked with debris, the basin was a
24But see J. C. Wright, "Mycenaean Palatial Terraces," AthMitt 95, 1980, p. 81; "weepers" may have
been advisable.
25Wooden or metal. On lead buckets, see Agora XIII, p. 259, no. 471.
26The great number of large jars noted at Lefkandi was attributed by the excavators to the need for
storage on a waterless hill (Popham and Sackett, op. cit. [footnote 14
above], p. 17). Though storage could
be a factor here, I think transport more likely, especially since the smallness of the pieces implies that most
jars were taken elsewhere.
27A number of Mycenaean wells, unlike their successors, have shafts that are square or rectangular in
section: Agora S 13:2 (1.0 x 0.65 m.; LH IIIA 1), S 27:7 (1.10-1.15 m. to the side, Agora XIII, pp. 259-
261; Early LH IIIC), U 26:4 (Depth, 14.0 m., the lower two thirds roughly square, 0.90-1.0 m. to the side;
Late LH IIIC). Cf. the Rhyton Well at Mycenae, with square coping, ca. 1.0 m. to the side, set against a
circular shaft (BSA 24, 1919/20-1920/21, p. 200).
28As, e.g., the aqueduct and plastered reservoir at Pylos, Area 102, only slightly larger than this basin
(C. W. Blegen and M. Rawson, Palace of Nestor at Pylos I, Princeton 1966, pp. 329-336); perhaps coinci-
dentally the floor of the East Cutting also has a slight slope. Cf. the "foot-bath" of the Caravanserai at
Knossos (1.52 x 1.38 x D. 0.45 m.), Evans, op. cit. (footnote 20 above), pp. 116-121.
29Evans, op. cit., pp. 123-138; surface dimensions scaled from fig. 60, p. 125.
shrine invites further speculation, for one would like somehow to accommodate our
"votive" hydria, and perhaps the terracotta head. The "bench", too, calls to mind a
shrine, and the small size of the "room" would have parallels,30 but since the bench
and the basin are mutually exclusive one would have to choose between them. But the
mere fact of these features-votive hydria, terracotta head from a large figurine, and a
bench or basin-does not make a shrine, and there are no other figurines or sanctuary
equipment to reinforce such an identification. What is undeniable, I think, is that the
East Cutting was used as a water basin, unless we are to associate the fragments with
activity solely around the West Cutting, a possibility. In any case, this is no ordinary
Mycenaean water installation, and as one thinks of the later Paved Court and ponders
its purpose, one wonders if some primordial holiness prompted its monumental setting.
No continuity is attested by the surviving remains on the slope, but rediscovery by
chance, in the Archaic period if not before, is not ruled out. I wonder, then, if the West
Cutting were not the business end of the establishment, and that the East Cutting was
not something special, the preserve of water nymphs who guaranteed the continued
productivity of the springs.
So little is known of the Late Mycenaean wall that, beyond a few bare facts, the
field is free for speculation. The sherds from it are of the same date as those in the
cuttings. It runs parallel to the cliffs below the Sanctuary of Apollo, at a distance of only
five meters from their sheer face. It is sturdy but hardly comparable in scale to the
Cyclopean blocks of the Acropolis circuit; it cannot be pressed, alone, to fortify the
northwest corner of the citadel.31 The unfinished inner face suggests a terrace or re-
taining wall, as does the dug bedrock filling behind it, which would come most con-
veniently from the construction of the East basin, a circumstance that would support
their having been parts of the same project. That the dug bedrock appears to spread
over around the West Cutting suggests that the construction extended over to that area
as well. The wall and terrace may well have supported construction above them, per-
haps a stairway leading to the Apollo Terrace, and from there to the citadel above;
it
may also have incorporated storage chambers beneath or adjoining the staircase,
con-
ceivably the source of the pithoi behind the wall. The construction and use of the Klep-
sydra installation is later than the Mycenaean Fountain and is its logical successor. The
Fountain is, at best, a cumbersome arrangement, difficult to maintain, and very restrict-
ed and difficult of access. The Klepsydra, as a replacement, offers an abundant supply
of
water, and with a stairway, easy access for those on the citadel, as well as on the slopes,
providing water for as long as it seemed necessary or advisable to live in the immediate
shelter of the citadel. How long that need continued, we may consider next.
30Tiryns, Lower Citadel, Room 110: 3.0 x 1.28 m. (AA [JdI 93], 1978, p. 463), including the depth of
the bench at the rear; Shrine of the Double Axes at Knossos: 1.50 m. square (Evans, op. cit. [footnote
20
above], p. 336).
31Any speculation must take into account the "Pelargikon Problem",
which goes
far
beyond
the limits
of this paper. I do believe, though, that the Klepsydra spring, along with U 26:4 twelve meters to the east,
cannot have been outside it.
3. The latest pre-Archaic activity around the cuttings
Evidence which has bearing on the latest prehistoric activity in this area comes not
from the cuttings themselves but from the filling dumped in to close the overflow
channel of the Classical Klepsydra (Fig. 1:A). This channel appears to begin in the West
Cutting,32 pass under the north wall of the Paved Court, and continue straight some
nine meters to the north before it was sheared off by late construction; W. 0.60-0.75
m., D. ca. 1.0-1.50 m. Fewer than 400 sherds were recovered by Parsons, a density not
appreciably less than in the cuttings. The channel was closed in the mid-Ist century
after Christ with filling deposited in three layers. Sherds in the lower two layers are in
similar proportions: a handful of Classical, the majority late Hellenistic and Early Ro-
man to mid-ist century after Christ;33 the rest, a little over a quarter, were LH IIIC,
except that from each layer came one piece of indisputable Protogeometric,34 and five
or six others that might be. The proportions in the top layer had altered: Classical and
Hellenistic were negligible; Roman had dropped to 26% and included a fair number of
mid-3rd century (after Christ) sherds that intruded with the Late Roman Fortification
Wall; early sherds now comprised 69% of the total, again LH IIIC, but also eight that
are certainly Protogeometric, and as many as 15 others that might be. Excluding the
black glaze in the mud at the bottom which may come from the construction of the
channel,35 the filling suggests reverse stratigraphy: the heavily Roman component of the
lower levels drawn from debris contemporary with the closing, the light admixture of
early material coming from disturbed levels that lay beneath it. The predominantly early
material in the top layer would represent deeper penetration into less disturbed early
levels (cf. upper levels in the cuttings). A
selection,
from these early pieces appears on
Plates 21 and 22 and Figures 2-5, 7-11.36
32Parsons suggested (op. cit. [footnote 2 above], p. 223) that the connection was with the East Cutting,
near its northeast corner. Dr. Travlos reports, in conversation, that subsequent cleaning shows that the
channel entered the Court beneath the cross wall, where it seems, rather, to have been linked to the
fissure of the West Cutting.
33Dr. Barbara Johnson very kindly re-examined the channel lots, OA 314-316, for their Hellenistic
and Roman content in the summer of 1978.
34Lot OA 316-1, P1. 21:c. Lip from a high-footed cup of standard large size, D. rim ca. 0.10 m. Cf.
Heidelberg Grave B, G 82 e, f (Kerameikos I, pl. 37), miniatures from a very early Protogeometric grave.
Lot OA 315-3, P1. 21:c. From shoulder of large closed pot; D. circles, ca. 0.08 m. Three arcs from
compass-drawn circles, carelessly executed, as if from inexperience. Dull dark brown glaze, streaking to
thin orange; earliest Protogeometric.
35Eight black-glazed pieces came from the mud, none giving positive support to a Kimonian date.
Among them are two skyphoi, nearly complete, with closest parallels around 525 B.C. They are shoddy,
like mass-produced sanctuary pots; their source and how they were preserved to enter the drain nearly
whole are unclear. The only other datable piece is from a Pheidias mug, ribbed and stamped, that cannot
be earlier than the beginning of the last quarter of the 5th century. I thank Dr. John McK. Camp II for as-
sistance with these pieces.
36CLOSED SHAPES. Lips (Fig. 2), Hydriai/Neck-amphoras: OA 314-32, IIIC; the second band inside dis-
appears before EPG. The glazed neck of OA 314-13, if from a hydria, is exceptional in either 111C or EPG,
and may be a contamination from other belly-handled forms, amphoriskoi or amphoras, where the neck is
always glazed; it looks ahead to developed PG, when glazed necks will be mandatory on hydriai as well,
150
EVELYN LORD SMITHSON
D.
-0.Q.4........
D. c a0.I12~. D. cao .IO... D. co 0.1-1 D. co 0.18 ....
OA 314
-= OA 314
OAN4-32 ~
~~OA
314-9
O
1-l/OA 314 -12
I
OA 314-1
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OA 314 -13
OA314-34 D.ca0.13
FIG. 2. Lips and a base fragment
OA 314-7
7
OA 314-18
7
FIG. 3. Lip and neck FIG. 5. Belly fragment
D. co 0.13-0.14_
, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~OA
327-1l
-~~~~~~~~~-~
OA 314-14
FIG. 4. Shoulder fragment
FIG. 6. Amphoriskos
FIGS. 2-6. Late Helladic IIIC/Early Protogeometric closed shapes. Scale 1:3
D. co 0.14 Oco .40.I4O6. D.caoIO,,----- U cO 010.
.
iccao52 2 X Xa 0i0n
A4*
Q~~~~~A
314-39
OA 314-I
O
0314-2
\
w
~~~~~~~~~~~~OA 314 -1
FIG. 8. Lips: skyphos and
cups
OA 315-1
FIG. 7. Ring-stemmed kylix
D. co 0 16 _ . .......
OA 314-6 OA
314-5
FIG. 9. Lips: bowls
D.coO.047 D. co0.038-004 D. co 0.045 D. co 0.055 D.co0.048
D.cO.Qm 0.4XTD08
OA 314-4 OA314-3 OA 315-2 OA 314-37 OA 314-38 OA 314-36-
C34i
35.
FIG. 10. Bases
FIG.
1
l-. Bases
FIGS. 7-11. Late Helladic IIIC open shapes. Scale 1:3
The early pottery in the channel, both LH IIIC and Protogeometric, is exactly
comparable to the pottery in the cuttings: mostly small pieces but a few of fair size,
predominantly from large closed pots, most of them hydriai. It is likely that the same
source that filled the cuttings also provided the material for the channel. If, as Margaret
Crosby suggested,37 the channel filling was actually drawn from beneath the Paved
Court, it will have been displaced in bedding the cross wall, settling the boulder, and in
cutting the new drainage channel around it; the few larger pieces are consonant with the
West Cutting. If at some later time thorough exploration beneath the Court should be
undertaken and fail to produce any Protogeometric, we should then have to look else-
where. But in any case, Early Protogeometric water jars and at least two cups were in
service high on the northwest slopes of the Acropolis.
The LH IIIC in the channel belongs mostly to the Advanced phase of the cuttings.
Ambiguous or certainly later pieces, possibly approaching 20%, go beyond at least one
stylistic phase into Early Protogeometric;38 there is nothing of a developed Protogeo-
metric stage.39 Again, we feel sorely the lack in Athens of stratified large closed deposits
connecting these phases, but we may question, nonetheless, whether the channel is, in
fact, a mixed deposit composed of chance rubbish from several discrete periods, or
whether it may not be made up primarily of types in current use, whenever they may
have been introduced into the Athenian repertory. Well deposits on the slopes and in
the lower Agora area, now fairly numerous, are either clearly "Advanced IIIC" in date,
or "Early Protogeometric", though both contain some slightly earlier pieces, presumed
"intrusive" and to have entered as incidental contents of the filling earth. Grave
groups, too, have tended to reinforce this dichotomy, being furnished exclusively with
IIIC types, or with those of Early Protogeometric. I had elsewhere suspected a gap in
time, a missing phase that would supply a convincing mixture of old and new, along
but there are no intermediary pieces to mark this as the beginning of a trend. OA 314-7 (Fig. 3, P1. 22:c),
EPG hydria; the broad band and wavy line (or "zigzag capping"), common on PG light-ground oinochoai,
may be a refinement of the wavy line at mid-neck, the only "decorative innovation" of Rutter's "Phase 5"
(Rutter, op. cit. [footnote 5 above], p. 60). Base: OA 314-34 (Fig. 2), IIIC/EPG. Shoulders (Fig. 4, Pls.
21:d, 22:c): antithetical pendant spirals (OA 314-30) and streamers (OA 314-31), IIIC; nedklace, OA 314-
28 and OA 314-29 (EPG?); OA 314-14, EPG neck-amphora (as Kerameikos I, pl. 29, inv. no. 522, Gr. A);
OA 314-26 (handle-ring at left) and OA 314-27, EPG. Bellies (Fig. 5, Pls. 21:d, 22:c): OA 314-18,
OA 314-
16 and OA 314-22, IIIC; EPG, OA 314-15 and OA 314-25 (the glaze at the top of the fragment is from the
ring of a vertical handle without finial; there are no finials in this deposit). The wavy line is optional
on
bellies of hydriai in IIIC and EPG, the clear belly becoming mandatory only in developed
PG.
OPEN SHAPES (Figs. 7-11). All IIIC. Ring-stemmed kylix: OA 315-1 (as P 17328, U 26:4). Skyphoi: OA
314-1 and OA 314-2, and another with reserved band inside the lip. Cups: OA 314-39 and OA 314-40.
Bowls(?): OA 314-5 and OA 314-6. Bases: OA 314-35 through OA 314-38, OA 315-2; bases like OA 314-3
and OA 314-4, though a little low, occur in EPG deposits. EPG high-footed skyphos: OA 314-41 (PI. 21:e),
D. rim est. ca. 0.23 in., light-ground, "circle-and-panel" type, as K. Kubler, Kerameikos IV, Berlin 1943,
pl. 23, inv. no. 2012, Gr. PG 34, a little later than this piece; the base was probably higher than any pre-
served in this deposit.
37See above, footnote 17.
38As, e.g., Kerameikos Graves PG A, 1, 13, 4; Agora Wells J 14:2, N 12:3.
39As, e.g., Kerameikos Graves PG 15, 34; Agora Wells A 20:5, K 12:1.
with transitional types that would provide a simple link between them. But
graves and
wells tend to be highly selective, representing the tastes of individual families and the
cast-offs from individual workshops. A communal source, as we assume Klepsydra to
have been, need not have been so discriminating. If we assume, for the moment, that
the Protogeometric in the channel is not intrusive in a substantially earlier filling,40 but
rather that it and some of the IIIC pieces were in concurrent use, then we may suggest
a further possibility-that there is no gap, and that Protogeometric erupted quite sud-
denly, in the corner of a largely bankrupt industry. Like red figure, it may have been
the invention of one potter, one painter, who substituted a compass for spirals, on the
shapes and in the decorative syntax current in IIIC. Such experiments are known (P1.
22:a),41 and it need not require an intermediate chronological phase to produce the new
style.
Our picture of the last years of IIIC in Athens may not be entirely fair, and to
some extent it may be of our own creation, since we have tended to emphasize its poor
and drab aspects and to assign what is good and experimental to a later "Earliest Proto-
geometric" phase. It is hard to imagine that a totally bankrupt industry could have been
the first to progress to the Protogeometric style. But there is more going on in latest
IIIC than the routine output suggests. Even on traditional forms there is some excep-
tional draftsmanship. The stylish spirals on hydria fragments in the dumped filling of
the Fountain42 are not unique; they can be duplicated in U 26:4 and other "Phase 5"
wells in the Agora. Even the wavy line in the hands of gifted painters fairly leaps along
with assurance and grace. There is experimentation, too, in the decoration of these tra-
ditional pots, in the configuration of bands, where they are to be placed, and what areas
will ultimately be preferred for patterned decoration. The "two-pair system", i.e. a pair
of pendant spirals in front, a pair at the rear flanking the handle, with drops separating
them at the sides, is a creation of this period (P1. 22:b);43 substituting compass-drawn
circles or semicircles, it becomes a mainstay of Protogeometric decoration on oinochai
and hydriai. And there are many other signs, both in shapes and decoration, that a
small part of the industry, at least, is laying foundations for the future.
It is a painter like these, an accomplished draftsman, with a good eye and an exper-
imental frame of mind, that I would expect to have turned to the compass. He and his
associates will have progressed overnight to trim and ambitious products in what we call
the Early Protogeometric style, some staying closely within the traditional framework,
others, inspired by exotic products or immigrant potters, in the bold exuberance of
40A single Protogeometric sherd, perhaps coincidentally, came from the disturbed upper levels of the
wash deposits in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, a "Phase 5" deposit at Corinth, Rutter, op. cit.
(footnote 5 above), p. 60.
41p 8141: krater wall, monochrome inside; the central core is drawn with a compass; max. dim. 0.081
m. From disturbed filling in a cemetery containing LH IIIC and Protogeometric burials, Kolonos Agoraios,
B-C 9-10:1.
42Broneer, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), p. 398, fig. 79.
43P 17315, U 26:4: H. 0.407, D. 0.315 m.; four others, substantially complete, imaginatively decorated,
came from the same deposit.
Desborough's "Wild Style", progressing hand-in-hand with experiment in shapes. At
the same time, others will have continued for a generation or more to turn out a drab
and limited repertory, presumably the cheaper, mass-produced products. The difference
between progressive and routine may have been quite pronounced at this time. Only
ample stratified deposits will answer this question fully, but for the time, at least, we
might try considering the sequence complete, and not require, as I have in the past, a
step-by-step and uniform progression of the entire industry from the old to the new
style. The alternative, a gap, would require the Klepsydra to have lain fallow for a
period, to be revisited only just briefly during some crisis in the earliest years of Proto-
geometric,44 before the Acropolis slopes and the protection it still may have afforded are
abandoned until the Peisistratid period.
EVELYN LORD SMITHSON
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO
Clemens Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260
14Protogeometric is rare on the slopes. A few pieces came from the dumped filling in the Fountain,
Broneer, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pp. 403, 404, fig. 85:h, j, k, 1, n. Only one other lot from Section OA
contained any; the field ticket was lost during the War, and the provenience
cannot be fixed more pre-
cisely. 620 of 650 sherds were Protogeometric, but the selection is quite unlike that in the channel. Several
phases are represented, and closed and open shapes are in equal proportion (42% each);
some purely
grave
types are present, and a handful of later sherds included pieces from Middle Geometric pyxides,
smoke
darkened as if from pyres. The lot has nothing to do with the Klepsydra and comes more likely
from
disturbed graves, the closest evidence for which is now 160 m. northwest on the Areopagus.
A
very
few
pieces of Advanced IIIC or Early Protogeometric date are recorded from the
Acropolis
itself. See B. Graef,
Die antiken Vasen von der Akropolis zu Athen I, Berlin 1909, pl. 7:212 (krater),
213 (shoulder, large
closed
pot); pl. 8:237 (amphoriskos), 239 (and 240, not illustrated, lekythoi); only
the krater fragment, pl.
9:273,
has compass-drawn circles.
PLATE 21
V'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
a. P 16758. Miniature hydria, side view
b. p
16758. Miniature hydria,
top view
OA 314-30 OA 314-31
_ t ~~~~OA 316
-
I
il~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
OA 315-3 I
-I ''- -an
c. Protogeometric sherds from channel A
OA 314-22
OA 314 -16
d. Late Helladic IIIC body sherds
OA 314-41
e. Protogeometric high-footed skyphos from channel A
EVELYN LORD SMITHSON: THE PREHISTORIC KLEPSYDRA. SOME NOTES
PLATE 22
. ' . . .......
j .\' ;/
f I t :
b. Late Helladic IIIC hydria, well U 26:4. Scale 1:5
OA: 314 .>1 s7OA3t4-26O3
0 A314-29
OA 314-7O -27
OA 314-42
OA 314-15
CA 314-25
c. Late Helladic IIIC and Protogeometric pottery from Klepsydra East Cutting and channel A
EVELYN LORD SMITHSON: THE PREHISTORIC KLEPSYDRA. SOME NOTES
A DOVE FOR DIONE
(PLATES 23-27)
N THE MUSEUM OF IOANNINA, one of the most charming in all Greece, a room
is dedicated to objects from the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona. In the middle of this
room a case presents two small boys in bronze, one a stocky little ball player, the other
a slim youngster of six or seven years tenderly holding a fluttering bird. This latter
figure immediately arrests attention.' He seems strangely modern in the world of an-
cient Dodona, among the warriors, gods, goddesses, arms and jewelry that surround
him. Nevertheless, we recognize him as Greek, a traditional figure and yet a unique
piece. His type was created through hundreds of years of tradition, reaching back to the
beginnings of the sanctuary of Dodona, but his essence is classical, even philosophical.
Can we understand him?
Herodotos (ii.55) tells the local story of the founding of the oracle: how a priestess,
a iTEXEMa gLEvkaw (black dove) from Egypt, established it under an oak tree. She served
the shrine of the primeval goddess, the Earth Mother, who was originally associated
with doves2-inevitably, as all visitors to Greece and Asia Minor know how their repeti-
tive call still throbs in the summer shade.' Later her shrine was taken over by the
goddess Dione, wife of Zeus, whose priestesses themselves still were called "doves",
Peliades. Strabo (vii.7.10) has a common-sense explanation of this story:
As for the myths that are told about the oak tree and the doves ... they are
in part more appropriate to poetry.
'lIoannina Museum, inv. no. 1371. J. P. Vokotopoulou,
'O8,qjy'
MovO-Elov 'Iwavvivwv, Athens 1973,
p. 66, pls. 22-23 (Pls. 23, 24). Measurements: H. 16 cm., H. of head 2.7 cm., H. of face 2.2 cm., chin to
navel 4.2 cm., width at armpits 3.3 cm., base of neck to genitals 4.8 cm. The surface is in fair condition,
showing ancient rectangular patches on chest and abdomen, modern mending on right thigh and back and
details elsewhere. The incised areas of the hair, bird's feathers, fingers and toes are sharply reproduced
from the wax model without much reworking. No base was found. This figure was excavated in 1965 by
the Greek Archaeological Service near the theater. I am deeply indebted to Professor S. I. Dakaris, Ephor
of Epeiros, and to the Director of the Museum, Dr. Andreou and to Mrs. Andreou for their permission to
publish this piece and their generous cooperation in arranging for study and photography. The photographs
in the Ioannina Museum are by R. K. Vincent who gave generously of his time and talent. I must also
acknowledge, with much appreciation, help from the American Council of Learned Societies by a Grant-in-
Aid, in 1980, for the travel and photography related to the preparation of this article. Finally, I was also as-
sisted by the honorand himself, my husband, who helped me measure and study the bronze, unknowing (I
trust) that he was enhancing the quality of his own
Festschrift.
2Full bibliography in S. I. Dakaris, Archaeological Guide to Dodona, Ioannina 1971, p. 107; bronze
figure, p. 105, pl. 35:1. The figure was found buried in a disturbed deposit with two bronze coins; one of
Kassiopeia, dating 342 B.C., the other of the Molossians, dating 168 B.C. These imply that the bronze suf-
fered in the Roman destruction of Dodona, 167 B.C.
3D'Arcy W. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds, Oxford 1895, pp. 129-134; on the doves of Do-
dona, pp. 133-134. This is the "fan-tailed" type of dove; see R. Peterson, A Field Guide to the Birds of
Britain and Europe, London 1971, p. 80.
156 DOROTHY BURR THOMPSON
and (fragment 1):
In the language of the Molossians (the people of Epeiros) old women are
called "peliai". Perhaps the much talked of Peliades were not birds, but three
old women who busied themselves around the sanctuary.
(translation by H. L. Jones)
A lovely bronze of one of these priestesses of the early 5th century survives from
Dodona with her sacred dove confidently perched on her hand.4 The blood of a dove
was employed even in Athens for ritual cleansing of the sanctuary of Aphrodite Pan-
demos,5 probably because it was not forgotten that Aphrodite was the daughter of
Dione according, at least, to the Epeirote tradition. Though earlier figures show the
dove in the hand of the goddess or priestess, by the late 5th to early 4th century chil-
dren are frequently shown handling doves as pets with no apparent intention of sacri-
fice. We all know two famous reliefs of little girls, one with two doves and another
holding out a dove to her baby brother.6 In the 4th century many other such charming
grave stelai may still hold a faint reference to Aphrodite or to the Great Mother her-
self.7 Parents must have gained a certain confidence in seeing their child on happy
terms with the goddess' own birds. When the child tired of the pet, perhaps he was
induced to learn reverence for the deity by offering her his bird as a votive.
Pondering these things, we feel more deeply the emotional content of this bronze
statuette; the boy's wistful glance may well mean that the child is about to offer the
bird to Dione or to Aphrodite herself. Professor Dakaris, in a sensitive description of
the figure,8 thought that the gesture of the right hand (P1. 24:d) was "trying to attract
the bird's interest or pull a string attached to the bird's leg." Perhaps. Or also it is
possible that the thumb and finger of the right hand held the stem of a missing bunch
of grapes that excites the dove. Or again, the boy may have extended a prospective
mate in the right hand, held only by the wings.9 But the implication of the gesture may
remain forever beyond our grasp, though its intent creates a charming cross play
of
glances.
Should the child seem merely a genre figure in his home, consider for a moment
his peculiar hair dressing. Little boys on the Attic Choes vases,10 who are sketched
4For Mycenaean doves of the Earth Mother, see Dakaris, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), pl. 38:1 and 3.
Early figurines, R. A. Higgins, Catalogue of Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities
in
the British Museum I, London 1954, pls. 52, no. 336; 164,
no. 1201 and J. N.
Coldstream, Knossos,
The
Sanctuary of Demeter, BSA, supply. vol. VIII, London 1973, pls. 59, nos. 213,
214. In
bronze,
H. Schrader,
Phidias, Frankfurt 1924, p. 152, figs. 129, 130.
5L. Deubner, Attische Feste, Hildesheim 1962, p. 215.
61) G. M. A. Richter, Catalogue of Greek Sculpture, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cambridge, Mass.
1954, pl. LX, no. 73, pp. 73-74; 2) S. Papaspyridi-Karouzou,
National Museum, Illustrated Guide,
Athens
1980, pp. 58, 60, no. 3845.
7See below, footnote 25.
8Qp. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 105.
9E.g., footnote 6 above (2) and H. Diepolder, Die attischen Grabreliefs, Darmstadt 1965, pl. 33:2.
10G. van Hoorn, Choes and Anthesteria, Leiden 1951, passim.
A DOVE FOR DIONE 157
playing with animals, wear their hair short but loose and curly. Our Boy's hair is
strange; it could fall to the shoulders, but it is meticulously bound tight to the head (P1.
24:c, e). Behind the ears, the hair is parted; the front ends are brushed forward and
braided into a plait reaching from part to forehead; likewise, at the back, the hair is
brushed downward to form a similar braid from part to nape. The braids are thin, not
thick as on most children who wear this central plait (o-KopfLo'?) l11 The hair in such
plaits often was reserved for dedication by the child to one of the divinities who watch
over children, the Kourotrophoi, Asklepios and Aphrodite, Demeter and Artemis.
Originally, the plait marks a votary, a child who will ultimately give his lock or who
himself has been offered to a divinity for service throughout his childhood.'2 That
Dione received such children seems clear when we look also at the bronze Ball Player'3
who stands beside our Boy in the Museum (P1. 25).
This chubby fellow holds a leather ball and moves to throw it. He too is naked, and
he too wears a strange, even fantastic, hairdress. His abundant locks are plaited and
twisted into a complex erection not unlike those fancy coiffures of Trajanic court ladies
or bewigged women from the Fayum. Their closest early parallels are Boiotian figurines
who carry fillets and baskets as offerings to the gods at the Kabeirion. Many of these
boys carry cocks or doves and wear immense and complicated hairdresses.14 The custom
of protecting the sensitive head has been common throughout the ages. Since the hair
is a seat of personal power, it must be cautiously treated (as witness, the tale of Sam-
son)."5 Our boys from Dodona show that Dione was happy to receive such votaries.
It is probable that these bronzes refer to living boys who were, according to the
long tradition, vowed to the goddess at birth and dedicated until puberty. Both bronzes
show boys well below that age-either because the parents removed them at an early
time or possibly because the child died in the sanctuary. The unusually sentimental
mood of our bronze may suggest that the parents dedicated the statue more in sorrow
than in pride. They chose a distinguished sculptor who caught the mood and preserved
it for us. Can we guess at his artistic tradition?
Small bronzes of the late Classical period are surprisingly rare; most are heroic or
athletic, not portraits. Our Boy is certainly earlier as well as older in age than the chub-
by Ball Player. The legs of the Ball Player are widely spread; he moves at a diagonal to
express the impending thrust of the ball, a centrifugal pose that swings outward. The
RE, s. v. Haaropfer und Haartracht, col. 2125 (Bremer). It seems impossible to define the Greek
terms with precision. See D. B. Thompson, Troy, supplementary monograph 3, pp. 40-44.
12V. von Gonzenbach, Untersuchungen zu den Knabenweihen im Isiscult der rimischen Kaiserzeit, Bonn
1957, pp. 27-29; p. 31 for the Hellenistic plait in Greece.
13loannina Museum, inv. no. 1410, Vokotopoulou, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 66, pl. 21; Dakaris,
op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 105, pl. 35:2. I am much indebted to Dr. Andreou for permitting me to
publish these photographs by R. K. Vincent (P1. 25).
"4B. Schmaltz, Terrakotten aus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, Berlin 1974, pl. 11, no. 152; pl. 12,
nos. 153, 159, 167.
"5A. Gotsmich, "Volkstiimliche Ausschauungen in der griechischen Kunst," International Kongress,
Berichte VI, Berlin 1939, pp. 436-438, pl. 42:c and f.
Boy with the Dove, in contrast, stands quietly, to concentrate on his charge. The move-
ment of his head and arms creates a centripetal composition. His left relaxed leg is set
forward to stabilize the stance. The axis of the body, seen best from the back, runs in a
very faint curve from nape to buttocks to right heel. The body sways, but very slightly;
it also leans a trifle backward so that the left shoulder and the abdomen are advanced.
The movement of the arms raises the left shoulder and lowers the left hip, but the
chiasmos is too delicate to be called Praxitelean. It is a quiet pose, balanced, but not
lazy. It is, fundamentally, the pose of Lysippos' Agias (dated somewhere between 340
and 334 B.C.). It even more closely resembles the pose of the very youthful bronze
athlete recently acquired by the Getty Museum (P1. 26).16 Allowing for the difference in
age of the subjects, the balanced pose, the profiles of the bodies and the restrained
modeling certainly relate our bronze to the Lysippian tradition. The soft musculature of
the child is keenly observed but not exaggerated. The stomach is not plump but swells
slightly out below the navel to the immature genitals. The thighs are slender, the lower
legs are a little short, and the head is realistically proportioned for the subject's age to
about one fifth of the height. The child has come into its own as a subject for realistic
portraiture, a novelty perhaps initiated by Lysippos himself when in the 340's he under-
took portraits of the child Alexander, "a pueritia eius ortus" (Pliny, xxxiv.63), thus no
doubt setting a fashion among the well-to-do who were proud of their sons.
Let us look our Boy in the face for a moment. It is a round childish face with a
high forehead under tightly combed hair (P1. 24:c). The long, narrow eyes, under
drooping upper lids, have delicately pricked eyeballs. The nose is aquiline, not stubby
like the nose of a baby Eros. The large ears are set rather high. The mouth, a thin line
with deep corners and a wide lower lip, shows barely a trace of a smile. In many of
these details, as well as in the treatment of hair and thin plait, the head resembles that
of an Eros often considered Lysippian,17 which also has a wistful air. Our Boy is not
Eros but a serious bird-watcher offering his pet affection, not teasing it with rough pos-
sessiveness. In this expression we already read character or ethos. The sculptor must
have felt a real affection for children, perhaps for this child in particular.
It is this lively expression of ethos that places our bronze in the later years of the
4th century, just at the time when Aristotle had expressed the growing interest in
naturalism in art and in reasonableness in raising children. He believed (Politics vii.17)
that children were trainable by models that fit the ideals of their society. Perhaps chil-
dren's pets were chosen also with purpose: cocks to encourage a pugnacious spirit in
boys, doves to develop the gentler
character of girls
and of the sons of "gentlemen".
These figures of votaries, in bronze and also in marble, were dedicated in many
sanctuaries, but particularly, as we have noted,
in those of the various deities,
the
160n the Lysippian pose, F. P. Johnson, Lysippos, Durham 1927, pp. 128-131, pl. 20;
E. Sjdqvist,
Lysippus (Semple Lectures), Cincinnati 1966, pp. 13-14, pl. 3. J. Frel, The Getty Bronze (preliminary
text),
p. 12; I am most grateful to Dr. Frel for supplying the photograph.
17For our head type, cf. Johnson, op. cit., pp. 114-115, pl. 18, an Eros head in Copenhagen
with close
hair, heavy-lidded eyes, a thin nose, a straight mouth.
Kourotrophoi, that protected children. In particular, the precinct of Artemis at Brauron
which was destroyed by flooding at the end of the 4th century has produced many
examples of our period.18 We must look carefully at these child-votaries for a fuller
understanding of our Boy.
The marble statues from Brauron present an engaging picture of the little devotees
who lived, like the Athenian Arrephoroi, in the sanctuary, as in a convent, to serve
their goddess. All are aristocrats: the girls know how to wear their long dresses, the
boys how to bear themselves in nudity. One girl, whose head is about one fifth of her
height, carries a pet hare, another, a trifle more advanced in style, holds a dove in the
overfold of her dress and looks down at it, as deeply concerned as our Boy (P1. 24:a).19
Her spare features are also very like his, as are the eyelids of the "Blind Child" (PI.
27:a)0.2
A little boy also carrying a dove has a similar serious face.2" Closest of all the
Brauron votaries to our bronze is the statue of a little boy clasping two doves closely to
his chest and listening with delight to their cooing (P1. 27:b).22
Our Boy with the dove has been dated in the "early Hellenistic period,"23 a date
entirely plausible in the wider sense, since realistic figures of children were most popu-
lar just at that time. Many portraits of children, however, were created well before the
end of the 4th century.24 The history of this type is clear, particularly from the long
series on Attic grave reliefs. Of all the pets with which these children play, the bird and
the dog are by far the most popular. They are rendered in many poses, often together,
in delightful cross movements between the eager dog and the timid bird. By the 320's
the children on grave reliefs have attained realistic proportions.25 Other close examples
are seen in a group of marble statues found in Athens near the Ilissos.26 One of these is
reminiscent of the statue of the girl with the dove from Brauron; it could be by the
same sculptor.27 Both girls stand quietly like our Boy. Both wear ample dresses with a
crinkled surface, a treatment known also in major sculpture of the late 4th century. The
18The material from Brauron is in process of publication. For preliminary reports, see P. G. Themelis,
Brauron, Guide to the Site and Museum, Athens 1971, bibliography, p. 35.
19Themelis, op. cit., pl. 71:b. Photo R. K. Vincent.
20Themelis, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pp. 22-23 and p. 26. See S. Karouzou,
'ApX'E0,
1957 [1961],
pp. 68-83.
21Themelis, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pl. 71:c.
22Brauron, inv. no. 1239. Photo Emil, through the kindness of Lilly Kahil with generous permission of
Dr. V. Petrakos.
23Dakaris, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 105.
24E.g., Diepolder, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pls. 33, 38, 39:2, all of the later 4th century.
25A. Conze (Die attischen Grabreliefs, Berlin 1893-1922) gives the full development. Note particularly
vol. I, no. 108 (for heavy eyelids), no. 290 (for elaborate hair); vol. II, nos. 938, 969, 977, 1100 (for
doves).
26I. Svoronos,
"Ao-KXq71rtaKa ArvrqAE'a
Kal KIovoXarpdta 4V 'AO'4vas,"
'ApX'E0,
1917, pl. I:a (Athens,
N.M. inv. no. 695), pl. II:f8 (inv. no. 696). M. Bieber, The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, New York 1955,
fig. 542.
27Svoronos, op. cit., pl. II:-y (inv. no. 693); cf. Themelis, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pl. 71:b. The
style of the Ilissos figure seems a little more advanced than that of the Brauronian and may run to the end
of the century. I owe Professor Evelyn Harrison much enlightenment on this group of sculpture.
lowest date for these statues must be close to 317 B.C. when Demetrios of Phaleron
passed sumptuary laws that ended exuberant funerary sculpture in Attica.28 The subse-
quent miserable rule of Demetrios Poliorketes (317-307) produced no sculptural reviv-
al. A deposit of clay figurines in the Athenian Agora illustrates the later, freer style, our
lower limit. Twenty-one figures of boys wearing Macedonian dress, chlamys and kausia,
show us the taste of the period, 307 to 287 B.c.29 These figurines have chubby faces,
thick curls to the shoulder, slimmer proportions, and they show more animated move-
ments than those of the funerary sculpture. In style they are obviously more advanced
than the elegant Boy from Dodona. His date, therefore, so far as we can now tell, must
fall in the late 30's or early 20's of the 4th century.
Not only do the close parallels in Brauron and Athens indicate that the artist of our
bronze statuette worked in Attica, but more evidence is at hand. On the South and
West of the Athenian Agora, the American School of Classical Studies has uncovered
the remains of modest houses in a wide industrial area. When, in 1932, I excavated
there myself, the best preserved ancient remains on the rocky surface were channels
and drains built to organize the overflow of abundant water that poured out in springs
from the rocks above. Certain drains, which ran near several of the dwellings of artisans
in clay, marble, and bronze, were carefully built with stone walls deep set into bedrock
and packed with earth filling, including wasters from the near-by shops. The date of the
pottery from this filling lies in the late 4th and early 3rd centuries when a need for
water was badly felt.30 The quality of the fragments of certain terracotta figurines from
this filling is remarkably high, even at times sculptural in style. Among them a mold
turned up that startles us by its resemblance to the Dodona Boy (P1. 24:f).31 A modern
clay cast from this mold shows the head and upper part of a naked boy (P1. 27:c, d).
The head looks sharply down a trifle to its left. The arms are cut off at the elbows since
the forearms would have been added later. The child's face with its long eyes under
drooping lids, its slim nose and wide mouth are almost identical with those of the
bronze. The bronze is regularly a little larger than the mold; a consistent difference in
measurements is more than eight percent between bronze and clay figures.32 Variations
occur on the mold, such as the bunches of curls of later style
which were added over
28For the style, see 0. Palagia, Euphranor, Leiden 1980, p. 31, fig. 27.
29Stella G. Miller, "Menon's Cistern," Hesperia 43, 1974, pp. 194-245; chronology, pp. 209-210. For
the period, see C. Habicht, Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. ( Ves-
tigia 30), Munich 1979, pp. 22-33. I am most grateful to Professor Habicht for giving me references on
this period.
30Miller, op. cit., pp. 209-210; see particularly pl. 37. R. S. Young, "Sepulturae intra urbem," Hesperia
20, 1951, pp. 113-114 and W. Judeich, Topographie von Athen, 2nd ed., Munich 1931, p. 86.
31Agora T 153 from Area H 16 in the city grid on the slope of the Areopagus. Measurements: P. H.
9.5 cm., H. head 2.7 cm., navel to base of neck 3.5 cm., width across body at armpits 2.8 cm. These meas-
urements should be compared with those in footnote 1 above. They are also identical with those of Agora
T 2960/2, a much damaged copy of the same type, to be published in the Agora volume on terracottas of
the Hellenistic period.
32In general, R. V. Nicholls, "Type, Group and Series," BSA 47, 1952, pp. 217-226; B. Neutsch,
Studies zur vortanagrdisch-attischen Koroplastik, JdI-EH XVII, Berlin 1952, pp. 10-12, well illustrated.
the ears and the less open position of the arms. Moreover, fragments of other related
pieces also have been found in the Agora which help us develop the story of this Attic
type. These will be discussed in the forthcoming Catalogue of the Agora terracottas.
Whatever the history of the clay descendants of the bronze Boy, they definitely
identify the sculptor as an Athenian. He too must have worked near the Agora, beside
the sculptors of marble grave reliefs and of dedicatory statues of children. Possibly he
copied one of them, or, more likely as a bronzeworker, he created the models from
which the sculptors worked, which, in turn, were bought or borrowed by coroplasts to
make their own models.33
How did this bronze statuette come to Dodona? Fortunately, orators recount in
detail the story of Athenian relations with Dodona from 343 to 325 B.C.34 They tell how
Athens, in fear of Macedonian expansion, sought advice from the oracle of Zeus at
Dodona. In 343 B.C. an Athenian embassy was advised to beware of her commanders,
who were too ready for self-advancement, and, above all, to keep the city unified. The
Athenians nevertheless continued to squabble over policy, although they expressed
their respect for the oracles by obeying Zeus' command to refurbish the statue of Dione
and to make rich offerings in Dodona. In 330 B.c., Olympias, the mother of Alexander,
who had fled to her old home Molossia (in Epeiros), entered the scene. First, she gave
the Athenians a silver phiale for the statue of Hygieia that had been erected at Oropos
by a generous citizen, Euxenippos, trierarch in 333/2 B.C. He was later accused of im-
propriety in accepting the gift.35 Olympias in angry letters warned the Athenians to stay
out of Molossia, her land, she claimed, after she had driven away her daughter Kleo-
patra. She said that the Athenians had no right to build at Dodona or to bring gifts
there.36 Demosthenes, however, succeeded in defending Euxenippos' conduct, and
embassies continued during this period (ca. 330-325 B.C.).37 Usually such delegations,
as we see on inscriptions relating to Delphi and Oropos,38 were composed of distin-
guished citizens-like Lykourgos and Demades. On such an embassy at this period a
rich aristocrat (perhaps Euxenippos himself?) must have carried the votive statuette to
Dione. Perhaps he had a special request of the goddess-that she remember the at-
tractive little boy who brought her a dove to sacrifice on his behalf.
This statuette of the Boy with the Dove for Dione was thrown out from her temple
either when it was looted by the Aitolians in 219 B.C. or, more likely, in 167 when the
33The process of copying metalwork in clay is studied by W. Zuchner, "Von Toreuten und T6pfern,"
JdI 65/66, 1950/51, pp. 175-205.
34P. R. Franke, Alt-Epirus und das Konigtum der Molossier, Kallmunz 1955, pp. 55-67; N. G. L. Ham-
mond, Epirus, Oxford 1967, pp. 543-546, 583.
3Hypereides, 111.13, 19; 32, on the character of Euxenippos. A. N. Oikonomides (Neov 'A@rjva'v 1,
1955, pp. 57-59) identifies Euxenippos as a trierarch in 333/2 B.C. F. W. Mitchel, Lykourgan Athens
(Semple Lectures), Cincinnati 1970, pp. 24-25.
36Hypereides, ni.24-26. G. Bartolini, Iperide, Padua 1977, pp. 70-71. A. N. Oikonomides, 'YlrEapdbov
AloyoL A"Evevh7rrou, Athens 1958.
37Demosthenes, xix.298; xvII.253; Deinarchos, 0.78.
38E.g., SIG3, I, 296 (330-326 B.C.), 298 (329 B.C.).
Romans burned the sanctuary.39 It lay buried for some two thousand years until Dione
graciously permitted its resurrection in 1965. Now, in a strange world, the Boy brings
his dove as one of the many offerings presented with gratitude and affection to a phil-
hellene who, like Dione, loves small children, birds and a fine bit of sculpture.
DOROTHY BURR THOMPSON
Princeton, NJ 08540
39See footnote 2 above for the context.
PLATE 23
C)
C)
0$ :
9A~~~~~A
E:
0 >~
0)
N
0 09
0)0
0
0t * :?
a) E
PLATE 24
'r)
iA
04V
CZ
PLATE 25
0)
_ 0
> 0
E
._ s
0
C a
I-
PLATE 26
I s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
oor,
Add
a a-
. 0
~ H
a)
0:
PLATE 27
.X~'d /
Sb
U C
C)
C- ~ ~ ~ C >
U~~~~t
H~~ 0
REFLECTIONS ON THE ATHENIAN
IMPERIAL COINAGE
(PLATE 28)
AMONG
THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES of ancient art and artifacts
represented in
X' \.this volume, the coins are unique in that they have something to say about all
three aspects of the chosen theme: Athenian
architecture, sculpture, and
topography. It
is especially appropriate, too, that coins be included in a tribute to the eminent archaeo-
logist whose name is indelibly linked with the Athenian Agora, for they comprised a
high proportion of the excavation finds, coming from the
ground in such abundance
that they might be said to have littered the site. Although often lacking in aesthetic
appeal, these small records of the city's economy, like everything else from the Agora,
were important to Homer Thompson, who took a keen interest in the analysis of the
numismatic material and its ultimate publication. This article is an inadequate expres-
sion of admiration and appreciation from one who has had the rewarding experience of
working with him.1
A Roman numismatist recently described the Athenian coinage as "among the
most boring ever produced by man" -a veritable numismatic desert2 and it must be
admitted that there is some truth in the judgment. For centuries the mint of Athens
put out a silver currency of such probity that it found universal acceptance but one
characterized by a rigid retention of traditional types: Athena's head on the obverse,
Athena's owl on the reverse. Eventually as the trend in coinage introduced larger and
thinner flans, Athens adopted the new format but with scant alteration of the basic
types. Athena's head was now that of the Parthenos statue, her owl rested on a Pan-
athenaic amphora, and the abbreviated ethnic of the reverse was supplemented by
names, dates and control marks. The style was new but the repertoire of types re-
mained conventional.
Undoubtedly the standardized simplicity of design was the result of official policy and
not of engraving incompetence. Individual dies of Archaic and Classical date are of high
quality, attesting a skill which could have dealt with far more elaborate motifs. Even in
the Hellenistic period when the general level of artistic achievement was lower, there are
'The only substantial compilation of Athenian Imperial material and hence the basic work for the
present discussion is J. N. Svoronos and B. Pick, Les monnaies d'Athenes, Munich 1923-1926 (hereafter Sv.
followed by the plate and coin numbers). Publication of the coins from the Agora, now being undertaken
by John H. Kroll, will add hundreds and perhaps thousands of specimens to the existing record.
I am indebted to G. Dembski, 0. Morkholm, M. Oeconomides, M. Price, H.-D. Schultz and T. Volk
for casts of coins in the cabinets of Vienna, Copenhagen, Athens, London, Berlin and Cambridge (England).
A scholar in this country has kindly supplied the photograph of the coin of Bizya, which is in his collection.
2T. V. Buttrey, "The Athenian Currency Law of 375/4 B.C.," Greek Numismatics and Archaeology.
Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, Wetteren 1979, p. 33.
164 MARGARET THOMPSON
examples of superior workmanship.3 The die-cutters of Athens were surely able to repro-
duce more complicated and imaginative types. That they failed to do so must have been a
decision of the state, aware of the advantages for a major trading center in having a coin-
age which was easily recognizable and hence readily acceptable. The "owls" of Athens
traveled widely and were welcome everywhere. If one deplores their stereotyped monot-
ony, one must agree that it made good sense from a commercial point of view.4
Only in the bronze coinage, primarily for local circulation, was there a degree of
innovation, but as a late development. On some of the Hellenistic bronzes, a fulmin-
ating Zeus or a fighting Athena replaced the owl on the reverses; a few issues showed
unusual types such as a Gorgoneion, a Sphinx or a seated Dionysus. These, however,
were mainly supplements to the Athena head-owl representations which dominated the
coinage as a whole.
With the period of Roman hegemony the situation changed, and it is with this late
Athenian coinage that we are concerned. As Rome extended her empire to embrace
Greece and most of Asia Minor, she imposed currency restrictions. The hitherto inde-
pendent Greek cities and states, with few exceptions, were no longer free to strike in
gold and silver. They were allowed to issue bronze coins and these, known to numis-
matists as Greek Imperials, were hybrid pieces.5 Obeisance to Caesar was obligatory, or
at least politically expedient. The obverses of the coins carried the portrait and name of
the ruling Roman emperor. For the reverses, the cities were apparently at liberty to
choose their own types and these can often be interpreted as expressions of civic pride.
The present might offer little more than subsistence under the shadow of Rome but the
past had been glorious, and it was the past that the best coin types evoked with their em-
phasis on the buildings, works of art, and legends for which the cities had been famous.
This was the standard pattern. At Athens, however, there were notable deviations
from the norm. From beginning to end the Athenian Imperial coinage carried the head
of Athena as its basic obverse type. Rome's rulers were never represented. That this
was approved policy at the Imperial level is almost certain and since the coinage began
at the time of Hadrian,6 it would seem to have been his personal admiration for Athens
that dictated this concession to Athenian pride.
3Considering the difficulties of cutting an ancient die with rather primitive
tools and a lack of sophis-
ticated magnifying devices, one marvels at the anonymous engraver
of the
early
2nd
century
B.C. who
adorned the neckguard of Athena's helmet with a tiny biga and charioteer,
a personal signature
which
formed no part of the original design and would have passed unnoticed by
the
average
Athenian. See M.
Thompson, The New Style Silver Coinage of Athens, New York 1961, pl. 1:1-3 and frontispiece.
4Nothing better illustrates the range and influence of Athenian coinage than the extent to which it was
imitated in the Near and Middle East once the Athenian mint had curtailed or cut off
exports. Only
the
regnal coinages of Philip II, Alexander and Lysimachus were copied on a comparable
scale.
5Even among museum curators there is no agreement as to where these coins belong:
with the Greek
material, or the Roman, or as a separate category.
6The latest discussion of the chronology is that of J. Kroll,
"The Eleusis Hoard of Greek Imperial
Coins and Some Deposits from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 42, 1973, pp. 312-333. He dates the in-
ception of the coinage to the reign of Hadrian and its termination to the Herulian invasion of A.D. 267.
REFLECTIONS ON THE ATHENIAN IMPERIAL COINAGE 165
It is more difficult to understand the limited repertoire of distinctive reverse types.
The coins of other cities provide a rich legacy of topographical and architectural repre-
sentations.7 From Pergamum we have at least six different temples and a detailed ren-
dering of the great altar of Zeus; from Tarsus a long series of temples, shrines, city
walls, and gates; from Corinth not only eight temples but representations of Acro-
corinth, the harbor of Cenchreae, Peirene, the Agora, the shrine of Melicertes, and the
tomb of Lais. These were great cities but so was Athens, and the Athenian coinage is
almost a travesty by comparison. Of all the splendid civic monuments which might have
been featured, only two are reproduced on the coins: the theater of Dionysus and the
Acropolis. The workmanship is indifferent, and the types themselves are scarcely
models of artistic design.
No greater contrast could be presented than the juxtaposition of the two Athenian
issues (P1. 28:1, 2) and one from the obscure Thracian city of Bizya (P1. 28:3), whose
bronze coinage of late date has left us a remarkable record of the topography of the site.
With imagination and skill the northern die-cutter has reproduced the entire civic center
surrounded by massive walls and towers. Within to the left are two stoas, one above or
behind the other, then a small adjacent temple, several statues in the open area leading
to a sizeable building at the right, which may represent the public baths. The city gate is
depicted with notable attention to detail, its entrance flanked by niches within which we
see a horse and rider, perhaps the emperor, and a group of three standing figures,
perhaps the Graces. Above are seven smaller niches, each with a statue, and across the
top of the gate a quadriga driven by Nike with striding figures to left and right.
It is impossible to believe that the die-cutters of Athens were incapable of pro-
ducing a similarly graphic view of the Acropolis or at least one with a better sense of
proportion. As it is, the detailed rendering of the rocks and masonry of the foundation
together with the oversized stairway take up so much space that there is scant room for
the magnificent buildings on the hill. The Propylaea and the Erechtheum8 are sketchily
depicted; of the Parthenon there is no trace. Furthermore, the type is standardized.
Even when we have what seems to be a view from a different direction, showing the
stairway to the left instead of the right, it is really only a mirror image of the original
design, for it is still the Erechtheum and not the Parthenon that we see. The Acropolis
type persists through several stages of the coinage, but it is as though one die-cutter
simply copied the work of a predecessor with no thought of innovation.
It seems strange indeed that the most renowned of Greek cities gave so little nu-
mismatic prominence to her splendid buildings and monuments. One almost wonders if
the dearth of architectural types was not in itself an expression of civic pride. Did Ath-
ens feel that her great temples, stoas and sanctuaries were so well known that no one
needed a numismatic reminder of the glorious past? Who can say?
7These have recently been collected by M. J. Price and B. L. Trell, Coins and Their Cities, London 1977.
8For the identification of the building see Price and Trell (op. cit.), p. 77. The two Athenian coins
illustrated here (P1. 28:1, 2) are from the British Museum; enlarged reverses are shown as figs. 130 and
133 in Price and Trell.
Architecture, of course, was not the whole story. The Athenian Imperial coin types
are predominantly animate, and in the beginning at least the choice is imaginative.
Some of the earliest coins reproduce celebrated events in Athenian legend and history.
On the divine level Athena and Poseidon are shown in their struggle for the land of
Attica.9 Three exploits of the Athenian hero Theseus are depicted: the battle with the
Minotaur, raising the stone at Troezen, and the subjugation of the Marathonian bull.10
Finally, on the human level, there are the famous victories of two men of Athens:
Themistocles on a galley at Salamis and Miltiades leading a Persian captive toward a
trophy at Marathon.11 These are the most interesting of the animate'
types,
but they are
overshadowed by the numerous banal renderings of various gods, anda goddesses
of the
Greek Pantheon with emphasis, understandably enough, on Athena.
Since Pausanias has given us an invaluable record of the temples atrd cult statues to
be seen in and around Athens at the time of his visit in the 2nd century after Christ,
it
is inevitable that attempts have been made to link the coin types with the literary evi-
dence. The pioneer commentary by Imhoof-Gardner and the more recent study by
Lacroix are basic works on the subject.12 Both draw obvious parallels but both are some-
what guarded with respect to firm identifications. In essence, the question is whether
the coin types faithfully copied particular statues or were merely inspired by certain
sculptural prototypes with individual engravers adapting their models as they saw fit. In
the final publication of the Greek coins of the Agora, a discussion of Imperial types will
surely be included. Any detailed analysis at this point would be premature, and beyond
the author's capacity, but a few words of caution may not be amiss.
Clearly the gold and silver coinage of a particular city or ruler was a matter of great
importance, and it is to be assumed that the choice of basic types was made at the high-
est level. One can scarcely believe that anyone other than Alexander the Great decided
the format of his international currency, or that it was a mint master or some other
minor official who decreed the longevity of the "owls" of Athens or the "Pegasi" of
Corinth. When the coins carry a propagandistic message, an association with the ruling
authority is even more implicit. It must have been Demetrius Poliorcetes himself who
chose to commemorate his naval victory at Cypriote Salamis by a beautiful series of
tetradrachms showing Nike on a galley, and Lysimachus and Ptolemy who chose to
underscore their relationship with Alexander by placing his deified head on their silver.
Once the decision as to types had been made and perhaps confirmed by approval of
a particular design, it seems that the die-cutters had a certain amount of freedom in
working out the details. Even the stereotyped money of Alexander and the Successors
shows a degree of deviation: Nike is seen in a stiffly frontal position or advancing grace-
fully left; she occasionally carries a
long palm
branch instead of the customary stylis;
9Sv. 89, 1-18.
?0Sv. 95, 16-36; 96, 1-19 and 30-36.
"Sv. 97, 1-35.
'2F. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner, A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias (reprinted from JHS 6-8,
1885-1887), Chicago 1964. L. Lacroix, Les reproductions de statues sur les monnaies grecques, Liege 1949.
the helmet of Athena, normally decorated with a coiled serpent, is sometimes adorned
with a griffin or a sphinx. These are matters of small moment; the form of the legend
was of greater significance but here, too, there was no rigid conformity. Tetradrachms
of Side are inscribed BAUIAE01 AAE-zXNAPOY while drachms, with the same control
marks and hence contemporaneous, read simply AAE-ANAPOY. This might be ex-
plained by the smaller flans of the fractional pieces13 were it not that coins of the same
size at other mints reveal a similar inconsistency. At Sardes a stater reverse with the
title and one without it share an obverse die.
To what extent the bronze coinage was regulated is another matter. Since it was
primarily for local circulation and hence less important as an instrument of state policy,
the decision on types may well have been made on a lower level, perhaps at the mint
itself. On the large Athenian Imperial coins the obverse type is always the head of
Athena,14 but details of the representation seem to have been left to the individual
engraver. The great majority of dies show the goddess facing right, wearing a Cor-
inthian helmet, and a border of dots surrounds the design. On some dies she has "an
Attic helmet and although this type is most frequently found on early issues, it recurs
occasionally at a later period. In the long bucranium series there are two coins sharing a
reverse die (P1. 28:4, 5);15 for the obverses one die-cutter has chosen an Attic helmet
and the other the Corinthian version. A few obverse dies show Athena facing left
instead of right,16 and quite clearly these are the work of the same hand. The wreath,
which replaces the border of dots on various obverses, has been taken as an indication
of special commemorative issues17 but here again it seems rather to have been the
personal preference of an individual engraver. In all probability the same man cut the
wreathed obverses used with the diverse types of Athena and Poseidon, Themistocles
on a galley, Miltiades with captive, and Theseus battling the Minotaur (P1. 28:9-13).18
At a later stage of production the obverse of a coin with the running Athena type (Sv.
85, 20) is wreathed but another coin from the same reverse die (Sv. 85, 19) has a
dotted obverse. Occasionally there is an isolated wreathed reverse: one of Athena in a
chariot (Sv. 88, 18) and one with the goddess standing (Sv. 83, 24-26 from the same
die). Since other reverses of the same type and the same period are unwreathed, the
addition must surely be that of the individual die-cutter.
It has been suggested that the reverse types commemorate major civic festivals and
that the coins were issued on these occasions.19 A particular type may, of course, have
"It should be noted, however, that die-cutters at other mints were able to place both name and title
on their drachms.
"4The smaller denominations sometimes use a different type such as the head of Heracles or Theseus
or a bucranium.
'5Sv. 99, 20 and 21.
16Sv. 99, 14 and 22, e.g.
7J. P. Shear, "Athenian Imperial Coinage," Hesperia 5, 1936, pp. 296-298.
'8Stylistic comparisons based on photographs distributed through Svoronos' plates present difficulties.
Bringing the coins themselves together would surely produce additional examples of a single hand at work.
The coins illustrated here are Sv. 89, 3 and 5; 96, 30; 97, 2 and 34.
"9J. P. Shear, op. cit. (footnote 17 above), pp. 296-316.
been chosen because of an especially lavish celebration of a particular festival, but in
general it would be difficult to draw the line between a type inspired by a festival and
one inspired by a cult statue associated with the festival. Was it the Greater Dionysia or
simply a statue of Dionysus that prompted the representation of the seated god on the
coins? Certainly it is unlikely that there was any direct temporal connection between
the appearance of the coin type and the celebration of the festival. The pattern of die-
linkage argues against it. Examples of different reverse types sharing an obverse die are
fairly frequent. Even within the small collection of the American Numismatic Society
and without prolonged search, the following connections were noted:
Theseus and Minotaur (as Sv. 96, 34)
Miltiades and captive (as Sv. 97, 32)
Themistocles on galley (as Sv. 97, 9)
Bucranium (as Sv. 99, 5)
Apollo. (as Sv. 93, 8)
Athena Parthenos (die not in Svoronos; type of Sv. 82)
Athena "Promachos" (P1. 28:6)
Demeter in chariot (P1. 28:7)
Bucranium (P1. 28:8)
Dionysus (Sv. 92, 17)20
Acropolis (Sv. 98, 22)
Careful die comparison of the Agora coins would undoubtedly supply many additional
examples, but even these few links indicate that various types were being issued at the
same time and not spaced to coincide with the dates of the festivals with
which they
might be thought to be connected. Nor does there seem to be any ostensible correlation
among these contemporary emissions. It is as though the engraver had a list of ap-
proved types from which he was free to make a selection, and this indeed may have
been the case.
Whatever the procedure for choosing the reverse type, its reproduction, too, was
not rigidly controlled. Of all types, those depicting Athena are the most numerous and
most varied. Pausanias refers to 17 statues of the goddess and an additional four tem-
ples or shrines devoted to her worship.21 Svoronos' plates
include an even
greater num-
ber of representations identified with particular statues or as differentt types".
The Athe-
nian engraver with Athena as his subject had an abundance of
sculptural
models in and
about the city, and he must have been influenced to some extent
by
these familiar
monuments. It would be
strange
indeed if that were not the
case,
but there is
always
the problem: is he consciously portraying a particular statue and,
if
so,
how accurate is
the reproduction?
OThe die identity derives from Svoronos' plates; there are no comparable coins in the ANS collection.
2IThese are listed by Imhoof-Blumer, op. cit. (footnote 12 above), pp. 125-126.
Minor variations in adjunct symbols are numerous. The type identified as Athena
Parthenos (Sv. 82 and 83, 1-14) is frequently shown with a coiled serpent in the left
field; on a few dies the serpent is placed to the right and a facing bucranium occupies the
space to the left; one die replaces the serpent with an owl while others are without sym-
bol. Svoronos' Athena Medici (?) may hold her patera over an altar, over a serpent or
over an empty field (Sv. 86, 30 and 40-42). These are insignificant differences which do
not affect the basic type but one wonders how much further artistic license extended.
It is evident that Svoronos accepted certain variations in the type itself as com-
patible with a single model. His Athena Parthenos stands facing, head to the left, hold-
ing a Nike in her outstretched right hand while her left supports an upright spear and a
shield seen side view at her feet. Also identified with the Parthenos is a version (Sv. 83,
15-19) in which the shield is seen face on, obscuring the lower part of Athena's body,
and the spear is tucked into her left arm as she holds the shield. Tentatively associated
with the same statue are variants of the first and dominant type with Athena holding an
owl or a patera instead of a Nike (Sv. 83, 38 and 40; 87, 13 and 14). One might suggest
that some of Svoronos' "autre types de lAthena Nikephoros" (83, 20-28) are similar
adaptations of the Parthenos with Athena's arm raised as she holds the spear while her
shield may be shown behind her or on her arm close to her body.
Numerous reverses have an advancing Athena. Some are described as the goddess
of the east pediment of the Parthenon (Sv. 85, 8-37 and possibly 38-40). If such di-
verse renderings as nos. 36-40 are to be construed as adaptations of the basic type, one
may ask whether other versions of the running goddess on the same plate may not also
derive from the same model. The differences are not great.
Assuming the die-cutters had an existing statue or sculptural group in mind, it
would seem as though the dominance of a particular representation might indicate a
more or less faithful copy, but this is not necessarily the case. An interesting series of
reverses pertain to the Theseus saga. Since Pausanias mentions three monuments on
the Acropolis commemorating his exploits and since the coins deal with the same three
themes,22 there should be, prima face, some connection between sculptural and numis-
matic representations. All reverses showing the hero raising the stone at Troezen to
uncover the proofs of his identity are consistent;23 in all probability the coins furnish an
accurate reproduction of the sculptural type. The other two exploits are diversely de-
picted. On one reverse die (Sv. 95, 23 and 24) Theseus is leading the Marathonian bull
toward a seated figure; all other dies show only Theseus standing behind the bull with
upraised club. Elimination of the seated figure, if it formed part of the Acropolis group,
is understandable in view of the difficulty of compressing an elaborate motif into a flan
22Pausanias, i.24.1 and i.27.8-10; P1. 28:14-19 (= Sv. 95, 17, 23 and 30; 96, 5, 17 and 36). The prove-
nances of Sv. 95, 16 and 17 have been transposed; our no. 15 is the Cambridge coin (= Sv. 95, 17). Our
no. 18 (Sv. 96, 17) is not in the Berlin collection.
23Representations on coins of Troezen are also consistent with the Athenian type. Cf. A Catalogue Qf
the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Peloponnesus (hereafter BMC followed by the district), pl. 31:5 and
9.
of small dimensions, but we cannot be sure that one imaginative engraver did not add it
to make the story more explicit.24 There are three numismatic versions of the struggle
with the Minotaur. Earlier coins show Theseus and the monster confronting each other
as the battle begins; later dies portray a fallen Minotaur with Theseus first towering
over him with upraised club and then kneeling on the prostrate figure with club tucked
into his arm. Versions one and two are linked by an obverse die (P1. 28:17, 18; Sv. 96,
36 and 17); the striking change in representation occurs within the lifetime of this
obverse. It is the third version, however, which is dominant during the later stages of
the coinage despite the fact that it lacks the vitality of the previous renderings. Which,.
if any, of the numismatic types is to be related to the sculptural group of Pausanias is a
question the coins alone cannot answer.25
24There is also the possibility, here and elsewhere, of a pictorial rather than a sculptural prototype.
Evelyn Harrison, who has kindly read this article and offered helpful comments, has called my attention to
the similarity between this rare coin type and the representation on a cup by the Penthesilea Painter which
she illustrates in "The Iconography of the Eponymous Heroes on the Parthenon and in the Agora," Essays
Thompson (footnote 2 above), pl. 6. As she says in a letter, although we have no literary reference to a
painting of Theseus bringing home the bull, it is probable that there was one somewhere in Athens.
Without doubt coin types were at times inspired by paintings. Notable examples include a bronze of
Abydus depicting the Hero and Leander legend (BMC Troas, pl. 3:2) and a Heracles medallion published
by M. Thompson, "A Greek Imperial Medallion from Pautalia," ANSMN 22, 1977, pp. 29-36.
On occasion the decoration on a vase would seem to have provided the model. The fighting-Athena
type on coins of Ptolemy I and other Hellenistic rulers has recently been discussed by C. Havelock, "The
Archaistic Athena Promachos in Early Hellenistic Coinages," AJA 84, 1980, pp. 41-50. Citing (her note 3)
L. Lacroix and E. B. Harrison as against A. B. Brett and others, she rejects the identification of the coin
type as the Athena Alkis statue of Pella and connects it with the fighting Athena of the Panathenaic vases.
In this she is almost certainly right, but I think she goes too far in reading subtle propagandistic messages
into the choice of the type by Ptolemy and others. For one thing, propaganda to be effective needs to be
disseminated widely. Ptolemy's Athenas did not circulate outside the country, and indeed Ptolemy's own
fiscal policies prevented their moving about freely. Forty-one hoards with coins of Ptolemy I are recorded
in An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, edited by M. Thompson, 0. Morkholm and C. M. Kraay, New York
1973, p. 392, with no. 226 omitted since the presence of the tetradrachm of Ptolemy I is uncertain. Of
these, 24 were found outside Egypt, and in all but four the type of coinage can be identified. Exactly two
deposits contained Athena tetradrachms: one example of a Sidonian issue unearthed at near-by Byblus
(IGCH 1515) and more in a hoard from Chiliomodi near Corinth (IGCH 85) where the Ptolemaic garri-
son of 308-306 B.C. explains their presence.
Even less plausible is the argument that Seleucus I copied Ptolemy's type and used it for the same
propagandistic reasons. The Athena of Seleucus appears not on his silver or gold, which did travel, but on
bronze issues, which could have had little more than local impact since bronze coins rarely circulated far
from their place of emission.
There seems to me nothing particularly significant about the choice of the Athena Promachos type
for various Hellenistic coinages. If a king wanted -to stress his military prowess, at home or abroad, an
obvious device was the warring Athena, whose representation on Panathenaic amphoras must have been
familiar to his die-cutters.
25A fragmentary sculptural representation of Theseus and the Minotaur is discussed briefly by S. Ka-
rouzou, National Archaeological Museum. Collection of Sculpture, Athens 1968, pp. 43-44. Evelyn Harrison,
who has helpfully checked this out for me, tells me it is a Roman Group in which the Minotaur was a
fountain with water flowing from his mouth. The torsos were found in the area of the "Valerian Wall"
between the Library of Hadrian and the Acropolis; where the figures originally stood is not known. Even if
this is a copy of the statues Pausanias saw on the Acropolis, which is quite uncertain, a detailed recon-
There is no need to labor the point. The Athenian Imperial coins are not unique in
their ambiguity; the same phenomenon can be observed in the Greek Imperial coinages
of Asia Minor. One outstanding example is that of the famous temple of the Ephesian
Artemis. This was a popular type, appearing at a number of cities as well as at Ephesus
itself. There is no doubt as to what is being represented for the distinctive statue of the
goddess is always shown in the central intercolumniation of the facade. The temple
itself, however, may be distyle, tetrastyle, hexastyle or octastyle. Only at Ephesus is
there a fair degree of correlation between the number of columns and the size of the
coin flan but even here there are puzzling discrepancies. At least one die for a coin of
large dimensions has only six columns while the engraver of a much smaller bronze of
Nero was able to squeeze nine columns onto his die in an awkward design showing the
building in three-quarter view.26 Under Hadrian there are bronzes with the octastyle
temple and also cistophoroi of only slightly smaller scale with a hexastyle or tetrastyle
building.27 Yet one would expect the Artemision to be rendered with greater accuracy
on silver coins than on local bronze.
It is clear that the die-cutters of the Imperial period at Athens and elsewhere had
considerable freedom in composing their numismatic designs. That the great majority of
these derive from, or were inspired by, existing monuments is indisputable. When a
particular representation is entirely consistent throughout a series of coins, it is likely
that we possess a faithful copy. When there are variant renderings of what is almost
certainly the same building or statue, it is hazardous to assume, without supporting
evidence, that any one of the coin types supplies an absolutely accurate replica of the
basic model. This is not to denigrate the value of the numismatic contribution to our
knowledge of ancient edifices and works of art, but like all other evidence we need to
use it with caution, remembering that the engravers were not photographers but artists
exercising artistic license in interpreting and adapting their prototypes.
MARGARET THOMPSON
AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY
Broadway at 156th Street
New York, NY 10032
struction of the group seems impossible on the basis of the surviving evidence. From what remains, an
association with the numismatic type of our P1. 28:18 is a possibility but little more than that.
26Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum Deutschland: Sammiung v. Aulock, nos. 7863 and 7879.
27BMC lonia, pl. 13:7 and W. E. Metcalf, The Cistophorol of Hadrian, New York 1980, pls. 3, 4.
PLATE 28
Far
,40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~S-
r i l e 1 5 1 6 1 7 7 8
0 e 11 2 1
* +Wmm +9~~~~N
e ~~ ~~~~~ Pt - 71
I AGRTTOPO:RFETOSO H TEINIPRA ONG
EHI HPOYXONTI KOAfINflI
THE SACRED THRESHING FLOOR AT ELEUSIS
(PLATE 29)
ayE
/mot V1qOV
TE Beav KaLt f3At
' a'er
TEVXOVTWV wTas
S7,uoq
v1TaL 7oktOL alIT? TE
TEltXo,
KaXXlX6pOV
Ka0lflTEpOEV, EI
TfpOVXO
VTl KOXw VC0.
Let all the people build me a great temple and an altar below it beneath the
citadel and its sheer wall, above the Kallichoron well, on a projecting spur of hill.
~JU
ITH THESE WORDS in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (lines 270-272) the
goddess herself establishes her sanctuary at Eleusis. A few lines farther on
(296-298) the poet tells us how Keleos, the king of Eleusis, called the people together
and bade them build for Demeter a temple and an altar on a projecting spur of hill.
What is the significance of the location chosen for the temple "on a projecting spur
of hill"? Hitherto it has generally been explained only in terms of local topography. The
commentators on the passage, whether they be editors, archaeologists, or historians of
religion, are all agreed that the description as a whole applies perfectly to the site of
Eleusis, and they merely seek to identify the landmarks that are mentioned, the temple
and altar, the acropolis and its wall, the Kallichoron well, and the spur of hill.1
Only Yves Bequignon has sought a deeper reason. In an article entitled "Demeter,
dgesse acropolitaine"2 he passes in review a number of sanctuaries of Demeter known
either from actual remains or from literary references and finds that they are located by
preference, not on the summit of a hill but on the flank, sometimes on a hillock or
knoll. "Why are these sanctuaries generally placed on heights?" he asks in concluding.
"There is no need for a long commentary since the Homeric Hymn gives us the ele-
ments of the answer. It indicates in several passages (lines 60, 75, 442) that Demeter is
the daughter of Rhea and that she arrives from Crete (line 123). In Crete Rhea is
honored as ,urj rqp opedr, and she has retained certain attributes of the Great Mother,
goddess of the mountains but not the peaks, and in the same way she has exercised in
her turn an influence on Demeter."
This is not in itself a very convincing explanation, and in any case the whole theory
of the Cretan origin of the Eleusinian worship has been shown by Mylonas to be with-
out basis either in archaeology, history or linguistics.3
'The most recent discussions are by G. E. Mylonas, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton
1961, pp. 33-49, and N. J. Richardson, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford 1974, commentary on lines
270-272, and Appendix I.
2RA, 1958, II, pp. 149-177.
3"'H 7TpoE'XEvaq
rns
sXEVGULVLaK^qs
kavpdaq,"
FEpaq 'ApTco Pwov KEpaguolrovoXov, Athens 1953, pp.
42-53.
THE SACRED THRESHING FLOOR AT ELEUSIS 173
I should like to suggest another explanation which seems more
appropriate for
Demeter especially in the aspect in which she was worshipped at Eleusis. The Eleusin-
ian Demeter is the Grain Goddess, and the whole story of Demeter and Kore is an
allegory of the death and rebirth of grain. The Greater Mysteries took place in
Sep-
tember at the season when the autumn rains were expected which would bring nature
back to life again. Offerings of the first fruits of the harvest were made
generally to the
two Goddesses, and the grain was kept in large underground storerooms in the sanctu-
ary. Stalks of wheat are among Demeter's attributes, and the climax of the Mysteries
was the revelation to the initiated of a reaped ear of wheat.
Furthermore, Demeter was the goddess of the threshing floor as we learn from a
vivid simile in Homer:
Even as the wind carries chaff about the sacred threshing floors of men that are winnowing,
when fair haired Demeter amid driving blasts of wind separates the grain from the chaff,
and heaps of chaff grow white.4
Now in the sanctuary at Eleusis there was a Sacred Threshing Floor. This fact has been
known since 1883 when the big inscription with the Eleusinian accounts of 329/8 B.C.
was first published and in which we find mention of Tr'v ciAX Tr'v 1Epav.5 This entry has
received very little attention, and the commentators when they mention it at all usually
take this Sacred Threshing Floor to be identical with the Threshing Floor of Triptol-
emos known from Pausanias, i.38.6.6 But the Threshing Floor of Triptolemos was in the
Rharian Plain, and the Rharian Plain, though probably near Eleusis, was certainly nei-
ther in the town nor in the sanctuary. The Sacred Threshing Floor, on the other hand,
appears to have been in the sanctuary, if we may judge from the context in which it is
mentioned in the inscription.
And here, perhaps, we have the answer to our question of why a projecting spur of
hill was designated as the site of the sanctuary. Such a site would have been suitable for
a threshing floor as threshing floors are normally placed on projecting spurs of hills
where they will catch the breeze so necessary for the winnowing process. Demeter thus
orders the Eleusinians to build her temple on a site suitable for threshing and win-
nowing the grain, an essential act in the annual cycle.
The Sacred Threshing Floor must have been located at the outer end of the terrace
in front of the Telesterion. This artificial terrace, supported in historical times by a high
retaining wall, represents the "projecting spur of hill" of the Homeric Hymn and is the
successor of the natural spur of hill that we may postulate for the original sanctuary.
The situation is shown most clearly in the model of the sanctuary as it was in the time
4Iliad v.499-504. Translation by A. T. Murray (Loeb Classical Library). Cf. Theocritus, vIi.155, and
Orphica XL.5.
5G I112, 1672, line 233.
'Eo'ApX,
1883, p. 122, line 20.
6So J. G. Frazer, Pausanias's Description of Greece II, London 1898, p. 512 and H. Hitzig and H.
Bluemner, Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio I, Berlin 1896, p. 357.
174 EUGENE VANDERPOOL
of Peisistratos in the 6th century before Christ7 (P1. 29). The position of the two altars
on the terrace is not fixed, and they could be shifted if necessary to accommodate the
threshing floor.
EUGENE VANDERPOOL
7John Travlos has directed the making of two models of Eleusis, one showing the sanctuary as it was
in the 6th century before Christ, the other as it was in the 2nd century after Christ. Both models are on
exhibit in the museum at Eleusis (HpaKTLKa, 1973 [19751, pp. 217-218 and pls. 231-236).
PLATE 29
$1, V
,
. "
-,
We 3n
-_
Mother
Tt a
EUGENE VANDERPOOL: THE SACRED THRESHING .
AELUi
A
t
M , *0 Xfi
l W t~s'
Moelofth Tletein t lesi i te ie f eiisraos Cutey f oh Aavo
EUGEE VNDEPOO: TE SCRDTESNGLORA
EUI
ZEUS AND OTHER DEITIES:
NOTES ON TWO ARCHAISTIC PIERS
(PLATES 30-32)
T [>HE FOLLOWING NOTE is offered in honor of Professor Homer A. Thompson in
recognition of the obvious: he, like Athenian culture itself, has had great influence
and effect in places well beyond the geographical limits of Attica.
During the excavations of 1974 a large rectangular block decorated with a single
archaistic figure on each of three sides but plain and undecorated on its fourth was
recovered in the southwest corner of theCorinthian forum (P1. 30).1 Although built
into a 10th-century Byzantine wall not far, apparently, from its original emplacement, it
cannot be identified with any specific foundation preserved in the area.
In 1979 a second rectangular base, resembling the first, was found between 30 and
35 meters to its south. This new base also has a single figure on each of three sides and
is plain on its fourth. The second block is much more mutilated than the first, missing
the lowest third of its shaft. Its damaged condition might be expected, however, for it
was found discarded in a pit with modern fill. It probably had passed through a number
of vicissitudes before it was buried in the 18th or 19th century after Christ.
When the first block was recovered, it was considered to have been designed to
support a statue, probably that of Zeus Chthonios mentioned by Pausanias in his tour of
the Corinthian forum. The existence of this second base, which is described in detail
below, demands a re-examination of the hypothesis.
Rectangular shaft with three archaistic figures.
S-1979-6. Pres. H. 0.97 m. Width of front panel
below apophyge, 0.562 m.; width of side panel
below apophyge, 0.535 m.
Upper half of four-sided, white marble block,
the front and sides each decorated with a single
figure, back finished but without figure. Top
horizontal surface preserves much of original
roughly dressed surface, including dowel cutting
at 0.23 m. in from back face. Pour channel from
back face to dowel cutting.
Figure 1 (P1. 31:a): standing female on left
side of block, helmet pushed back on top of
head, shield on left arm, trace of bracelet on
wrist. Figure faces front of pier, head in profile,
body in three-quarter profile. Hair, drawn to
back of neck, is gathered behind shoulder by
ribbon; two stiff curls fall from behind right ear
onto right breast, one from left side to left
breast. Trace of pendant pyramidal earring on
jaw line, of type worn by Demeter and Kore on
the 1974 block. Chiton is buttoned four times
along upper arm and is covered by himation
draped from left shoulder to under right arm.
Upper hem of himation falls across chest in
zigzag folds.
Figure 2 (P1. 32:a): standing female on front
of block, facing left, head in profile, body in
three-quarter view. Figure wears polos, carries
cornucopia at left armwith
right arm extended
IS-74-27. C. K. Williams, 11, "Corinth, 1974: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 44, 1975, pp. 23-25, 29,
PIS. 9-10.
176 CHARLES KAUFMAN WILLIAMS, II
in downward angle. Hairstyle similar to that
worn by helmeted Figure 1, except that this
figure has two curls falling onto each breast.
Chiton with heavy seam around neck, sewn
seam along upper arm. Himation is worn over
right shoulder and under left arm, its top hem
ending in gravity-defying zigzag folds. It falls in
two sets of stacked folds, in contrast to the
single set of stacked folds on the himatia of the
Demeter and Kore depicted on the companion
base.
Figure 3 (PI. 32:b): standing male on right
side of block, thyrsos in right hand. Figure faces
front of pier, head in profile, body in three-
quarter view. The god is bearded, crowned with
stephane that catches his long back lock; lock is
doubled up with end projecting horizontally
from back of head over stephane. Two curls fall
from behind left ear onto chest. Himation car-
ried from left shoulder to pass, presumably,
under right arm, its upper hem falling from
neckline in long ruffle. No trace of chiton.
One fact evident in the base that was found in 1974 is the resemblance of its one
flank figure to the other. Although these are mother and daughter, the fact is admitted
only by the inclusion of the appropriate attribute in the appropriate hand. Hair, dress,
posture and gestures are basically the same, although in mirror image. With the finding
of the 1979 base the principle is clearer. Figure 2 is patterned after or similar to the
Demeter of the first block, but with the hand on hip now holding the cornucopia. Note
that the horn is superimposed upon the arm, not tucked into it. The right arm is low-
ered, probably because the figure carries a phiale, echoing that held by Zeus Chthonios.
The position of the phiale is probably that at the moment of libation. Otherwise De-
meter, Kore, and Figure 2 are similar, executed with varying textures in hair, cloth and
variations in folds. Figure 1 is executed on the same principle, but because she (Athe-
na?), apparently, has to carry something in her right hand, probably spear, phiale or
oinochoe, the right arm crosses the body in a descending diagonal.' Although this
gesture defies the principle established by the other figures that the arm near the viewer
should fall to the figure's side, it allows Figure 1 to carry an attribute or object that will
relate her to the general theme being presented on these two blocks.
Figure 1 is provided with the hair arrangement that is used by Figure 2, Demeter
and Kore, except that Figure 1 wears over it a helmet rather than a polos.3 Also, she
alone has her upper arm covered by a buttoned, rather than a seamed, chiton.4
2For general discussion and illustrations of Athena and her attributes, iconography and areas of activ-
ity, see D. le Lasseur, Les dresses armees dans lart classique grec et origines orientales, Paris 1919; A. B.
Cook, Zeus, A Study in Ancient Religion III, Cambridge 1940 (= Cook, Zeus); L. R. Farnell, The Cults of
the Greek States I, Oxford 1896 (= Farnell), pp. 258-352.
3Athena wears a variety of helmets during her tenure as protectress of Athens. The Corinth relief is
badly damaged around the helmet, although the crest is clearly preserved. She does not wear the high
crested helmet of the Promachos, nor a variation thereof. One sees preserved on the Corinth relief at 0.06
m. in front of the crest a visor ridge and behind the crest the extension of the helmet which protects the
back of the neck. This is the Archaic form of helmet. It is worn, also, by the archaistic Athena from Her-
culaneum in the Naples Museum. See E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, XI, Archaic and Archaistic Sculp-
ture, Princeton 1965, pl. 63:d. The Corinth Athena definitely is not wearing a Corinthian helmet, the type
favored by Athena on Corinthian coins and by her in Attica around the end of the 5th century and later.
4The combination of curls falling onto the breast, buttoned chiton, and himation draped from one
shoulder to pass under the opposite arm, as well as the wearing of aegis, appears not to be restricted to
Athena in any one of her aspects nor with any overpowering logic. She can be born wearing her aegis; see F.
Brommer, Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel, Mainz 1963, pp. 122-125. Note the variations of dress when
ZEUS AND OTHER DEITIES: NOTES ON TWO ARCHAISTIC PIERS 177
Figure 3 is executed following the basic layout that is established by the Kore on
the 1974 base, at least in that part of the relief which is preserved to us. Certain facts
suggest, however, that he may be a more exact copy of a prototype than are any of his
companions. Unfortunately, Figure 3 is preserved only in his upper half, while two
probable parallels from Athens preserve largely what the Corinth figure lacks.5 This
being as it is, the following observations can still be made.
Figure 3 is not given a kalathos or polos, although a polos would have filled the
expanse of plain background above his head, something that was achieved by use of the
polos for all the figures of the first block and on Figure 2 of the second block. His
krobylos is executed in flattened relief and is more stylized than the same lock on the
Zeus Chthonios. His two curls, which fall from behind his ear onto his left chest, are
straight as the thyrsos he carries, having none of the curve that is seen in the locks of
the four females. The stacked folds of the upper hem of his himation are like nothing
else to be found on either of the Corinthian bases. Moreover, the forward thrust of his
chest and the three fine folds of his himation across chest, waist, and hip, suggesting
the projection of the hip of the weight-bearing leg, recall clearly an Attic archaistic
prototype. The forward thrust of his upper body is not found in the posture of his Co-
rinthian companions. Figure 3 (Dionysos?), then, is at variance, even if only slightly,
with the other five and seems to be drawn from a separate line of inspiration.
The Zeus on the front face of the block found in 1974 and Figure 2 on the front
face of the block found in 1979 each carries a cornucopia. The male figure faces right,
his female counterpart faces left. Because of the hieratic composition of the two blocks,
similar in size and in design, as well as balanced in arrangement, one cannot imagine
the two except in close relationship, with the cornucopia-carrying figures facing each
other. The two bases can only have been executed as part of a single project.
What had been suggested initially concerning the identification of the male figure
decorating the front of the first block now is reinforced by the finding of the second.
The bearded figure who holds the cornucopia, placed in predominance among a range
of deities on plinths, seems logically identified as Zeus, and is, in fact, probably depicted
as Zeus in his aspect as guardian of fields and crops. In Hesiod, Zeus is invoked as Zeus
Chthonios to insure a good harvest.6 At Delos he is offered sacrifices as Zeus Chthonios
and as Zeus Bouleus, along with Ge Chthonia, Demeter, Kore, Dionysos, and Semele.7
she accepts Erechthonios from Ge; Cook, Zeus, p. 182, fig. 93, pis. 22-24. In Olympia she is not always
consistent in her dress while helping Herakles. She wears an aegis in the Stymphalos metope but doffs it in
the Hesperides and Augeias metopes; B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia, The Sculptures of the Temple qf
Zeus, London 1967, cf. pl. 153 with pls. 188 and 202. In matters of dress, the Athena on the Corinth block
found in 1979 is paralleled at Corinth in an archaistic statue of later date, perhaps around A.D. 225 (PI. 31:b).
See 0. Broneer, Corinth, X, The Odeum, Cambridge, Mass. 1932, no. 1368, pp. 117-123, figs. 111, 112. The
statue is one of a pair, i.e., with no. 1348, pp. 123-124, fig. 114. This is a left, not a right hand holding
drapery. The two may be caryatids, with the himation falling from upper right to lower left on no. 1368; the
statue in mirror image, represented by fragment no. 1348, would have her himation fall from left to right.
The two probably were designed to be symmetrical around an architectural axis.
5See below, p. 181, and footnote 20.
6Hesiod, Erga, 465-476.
7SIG3, 1024; F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrees des cites grecques, Paris 1969, pp. 185-186, no. 96.
In the base from Corinth Zeus might also be identified best as Chthonian with Ge
Chthonia as his counterpart on the second base. They are accompanied by Demeter and
Kore on the first block, by Dionysos and Athena on the second.
Athena is the one figure of the six who does not have an obvious role among the
agrarian deities. Her importance as giver of the olive tree is limited in large part to
Attica.8 She does have other connections with produce, however, and she is closely
coupled with Dionysos, especially in the Athenian festival EKtppa.9 At Epidauros the
Kissaia implies connections between the cult of Dionysos and Athena.'0 Her agricultural
festivals are the HIXvvTr'pa, fkao-
oXoxpa
and the Hpoxapto-nIpta." It is probable,
because of the company that Athena keeps among the deities of these two piers, that
she is being celebrated here for her part in the production of crops of the fields, less
probably as the giver of the olive.
Disregarding at the moment the function of the two sculptured blocks, both must
have had a base and a crown molding. A crowning element is attested for both blocks
by the roughly finished top surface and by the existence of a cutting for a dowel at the
center of the top surface of each of the sculptured blocks. The newly found block has its
cutting well preserved, the dowel being 0.12 by 0.10 m. and 0.08 m. deep. A pour
channel connects it with the back edge of the block. Neither base nor crowning member
that might go with the sculptured blocks has yet been identified. The form of the mold-
ings is restorable, however, if only in approximation.
A good parallel for the design of the monument with moldings is a 1st-century altar
in the collection of the Museo Nazionale in Rome."2 This is a rectangular altar with a
single figure on each of three faces; the back face is plain. Also, the Rome altar has its
figures, in this case Charites, on individual plinths. The base moldings of the altar are
half round, cavetto and cyma reversa. The top moldings are astragal and ovolo. Such
sets are found on monuments of the 1st century after Christ in Corinth, as, for ex-
ample, on the podium of the Bema, the podium of the Babbius Monument and as the
toichobate for the interior of Temple F.'3 This combination of moldings, however, does
not appear at Corinth on bases designed to support statues; a cyma reversa or cyma
recta is preferred, many times without the half round below.'4 In fact, no fragment
of
molding with half round, cavetto, and cyma reversa is to be found among the marbles,
inventoried or on the site, that might be appropriate
for a statue base of
any
sort. A
8Farnell, p. 293; Cook, Zeus, pp. 749-764.
9Farnell, pp. 291-292, 390-392.
10Pausanias, i.29.1; relation to Dionysos is suggested by Farnell, p. 292.
"Farnell, pp. 291-292.
12B. Candida, Altari e cippi nel Museo Nazionale Romano, Rome 1979, pp. 111-114, nos. 47 a-c, pl.
XXXVII, dated in the second half of the 1st century B.C.
13R. L. Scranton, Corinth, I, iii, Monuments in the Lower Agora and North of the Archaic Temple, Prince-
ton 1951. For the Bema, see pp. 91-109, figs. 55, 56, pl. 44; for the Babbius Monument, pp. 17-32, figs. 9,
11; for Temple F, pp. 57-63, figs. 38, 39, pl. 23:2, 3.
"4For an idea of the range in the moldings of altar bases, see P. M. Fraser, Rhodian Funerary Monuments,
Oxford 1977, pls. 32-91:h. For a large statue base, 1.40 m. high, with one of the customary sets of moldings,
see J. H. Kent, Corinth, VIII, iii, The Inscriptions 1926-1950, Princeton 1966, p. 97, no. 226, pl. 21.
conservative restoration of moldings for the two sculptured blocks might be a base
plinth with cyma reversa or cyma recta. The crown probably was an ovolo with cavetto.
Whichever of the two types of base moldings is restored to the sculptured blocks,
one cannot restore the whole as less than two meters tall. Such a height, along with
consideration of the general proportions, makes unlikely the identification of the two
monuments as companion altars.
What purpose, then, did the sculptured shafts serve? In the initial publication of
the 1974 relief, the suggestion was put forth that the block featuring the relief of Zeus
supported the statue of Zeus Chthonios mentioned by Pausanias.15 The finding of a
second block, its front face decorated with a representation of Ge Chthonia, raises
serious questions about the validity of the initial theory, since, according to Pausanias,
the statue of Zeus Chthonios was one of three statues of Zeus set up, apparently, in
close proximity one to another. It is possible that the two blocks now under discussion
supported two of the three statues, but it is not as probable that both would have been
decorated with a number of deities all specifically related to the fertility of the fields
when only one of the statues of Zeus was to be associated with this realm.
If the shafts are sculptured bases for freestanding statues, they should be restored
to some position close to the wall of a building or against a column, for the backs of the
piers are not decorated with relief figures as are the sides and fronts. A tempting posi-
tion is a place along the front, or north, wall of the Long Rectangular Building which
defines the forum between the South Stoa and the West Shops.'6 This structure has a
large, raised terrace in front of it upon which such monuments could have been set. It
is here, precisely, where the first block was found. No traces of foundations for bases
are preserved on the terrace. This is quite understandable, however, for the terrace has
been the victim of continuous bothros digging from the Early Christian period down
into the 11th and 12th centuries after Christ.
An alternative function for the two blocks is their possible use as piers in some
building of the Roman forum. If the blocks are to be restored to one of the podium
temples at the west end of the forum, then one might envision the piers in the portico
of Temple F or G, if not Temple D at the northwest corner. These temples, however,
are restored with columns; one may be portrayed on Corinthian coins with four col-
umns, not piers, across its front.'7 The use of the carved blocks on the facade of one of
the temples, even with the addition of a plinth between stylobate and base molding,
would give extremely squat proportions to the facade; the temple would appear low and
ill proportioned beside any of its columned neighbors.
The Dionysion is the one building at the west end of the forum into which the
piers in question might be fitted without ignoring the archaeological evidence.18 It is
15Pausanias, ii.2.8. Williams, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), pp. 25, 29.
"6C. K. Williams, II, "Corinth, 1975: Forum Southwest," Hesperia 45, 1976, pp. 127-135.
17Scranton, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), pp. 68-69, pl. 26.
181bid., pp. 85-91; Scranton dates the Dionysion "among the earliest structures on the line of the
central terrace ...
"
(pp. 124-132). But pottery is not an aid in the search for the precise date of con-
struction. Scranton tries to relate the stylobate level of the Dionysion with the leveling of the forum itself
sited at the western end of the line of low buildings which divides the upper level of the
forum from the lower.
The Dionysion is not a canonical temple; rather it has a central apsidal room
flanked on either side by a smaller, rectangular room. The three rooms are united by a
common portico that opens to the north. It has in front of it the foundations of a rect-
angular altar. The portico, to which one might assign the two piers under discussion, is
designed with a single step, a column at either end and four piers between the columns.
The eastern and western piers are composite in plan, but the two central piers, whose
position and shape are attested by trimmed beddings on the stylobate, are 0.85 m.
square. Each bed has two dowel cuttings and pour channels for leading. One thus can
restore a rectangular plinth about 0.80 m. square to the stylobate, a base molding on
the plinth with a sculptured pier on that, then a crowning molding and epistyle. With
the use of the rectangular plinth at the bottom of the pier one can achieve a clearance
under the architrave of 2.50 m. or more.
The small diameter of the end columns, attested by the beddings on the stylobate,
is no more than 0.40 m. at base. Such a small column demands the restoration of a low
roof at the ends of the building, with its epistyle no higher than 3 meters from stylo-
bate. By placing the sculptured piers at the center of this portico one is able to restore a
continuous epistyle to the facade at the approximate level of the epistyle of the shops
immediately east of the Dionysion, with which the Dionysion is aligned.19
In the first publication of the 1974 block it was suggested that the date of execution
might have been as early as the Augustan period. This was considered possible because
of the complete absence of the drill, as well as on points of style. The- block found in
(pp. 125-126). Tests in 1980 in the northeast corner of the forum tentatively point to a date in the Flavian
period for the marble paving of the forum; the Dionysion could, however, possibly have predated the
paving. What does suggest that the building is later than Julio-Claudian is its plan. Cellas with apses or
niches are attested in Rome in the Augustan period. See B. Tamm, Auditorium and Palatium,
Lund 1963;
also J. C. Balty, AntCl 33, 1964, p. 575. See Tamm, p. 160, no. 10, Temple of Mars Ultor after A.D. 2, and,
possibly, p. 150, no. 6, Temple of Venus Genetrix. The Corinth Dionysion is a different concept
in plan,
however, being slightly more than a semicircle, not a rectangle with niche or apse. For the difference in
temple plan, compare the Dionysion with Temple F at Corinth, the latter dated at its earliest by
P. Gros to
the Augustan period. It seems, however, more unlikely now than when Scranton dated it that it can be
Augustan. See P. Gros, Aurea Templa, Recherches sur architecture religieuse de Rome a I'epoque dAuguste,
Rome 1976, pp. 124-143.
Temples with cellas that have curved back walls closer in style to the Corinth building
are found in
the East, but are dated around A.D. 50 or later. See D. Krencker and W. Zschietzschmann, Rdmische Tem-
pel in Syrien, Denkmdler antiker Architektur V, Berlin 1938: kieiner Bezirk at Hossn Soleiman (exedra),
pl.
38; Rahle, pl. 95; Burkush, pl. 100; for chronology see pp. 271-275. The closest parallel to the Corinthian
Dionysion both in size and plan is the inner room of the temple at Rahle.
Regardless of whether or not one restores to the Dionysion the sculptured blocks in question,
the
facade with central element of heavy piers and small flanking columns is difficult to parallel in any early
Roman public architecture. Note, also, that the Dionysion faces north, suggesting that the building may
have been planned after the east end of the forum had taken its shape, and thus the Dionysion sited as it
was because no space was available for it on the terrace with the temples facing east. There are serious
difficulties in maintaining an Augustan or even a Claudian date for the construction of the Dionysion.
19Scranton, op. cit. (footnote 13 above), pp. 114-115.
1979 supplies new material by which one can examine the figures stylistically. The
Dionysos of the 1979 block is closely paralleled by two figures in Athens and one in
Rome.20 The Corinth figure is the stiffest of the group, perhaps the result of copying
from a cartoon or from a desire to enhance the antiquity of the subject. His stiff beard
is brought to a point in front of him; his krobylos has been flattened and shaped into a
triangle. When this krobylos is compared with that worn by the Zeus of the 1974 block,
one is inclined to see the added stiffness of the Dionysos more as a personal preference
of the sculptor than as a chronological criterion.
Two points may help to clarify the problem of chronology, however. The first is a
deduction that can be made from the architectural remains. If the two sets of archaistic
figures were set up on the terrace in front of the Neronian Long Rectangular Building,
their date of erection and dedication must be Neronian or later, or, if one accepts the
possibility that the blocks were designed as piers in the Dionysion, then, too, logic has
it that the blocks were commissioned in the time of Nero or later, probably in the
Flavian period. The second point is a deduction made from the historical facts.21 The
intellectual climate might not have been right until the time of Nero for the erection of
two large monuments celebrating the glory of the Greek past of Colonia Laus Julia
Corinthiensis. We do know, however, that by the time of Hadrian it was prestigious to
have "become thoroughly hellenized, even as your own city [Corinth] has."22 Although
archaising is a style that appears in one aspect or another throughout Greek art, the use
of it on two large piers as part of the design of a temple or on a pair of monuments in
front of a building dedicated by a sacerdos of Corinth suggests pride in declaring a pre-
Roman pedigree for some official Corinthian cult or institution in the Roman forum
rather than pride in the Roman roots of the population.23 From the logic of these argu-
ments, then, one might best place the two piers in the Flavian period and not earlier.
CHARLES KAUFMAN WILLIAMS, II
CORINTH EXCAVATIONS
20For Zeus of the Four Gods Base in the Athenian Acropolis Museum, see Harrison, op. cit. (footnote
3 above), pl. 64:c. For Aigeus of the tripod base in the Athenian Agora, see ibid., pp. 79-81, no. 128, pl.
30, right. For the Roman example, see W. Fuchs, Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs, JdI-EH XX, Berlin
1959, p. 46; also E. D. Van Buren, "Praxias," MAAR 3, 1919, pl. 72:2, which shows the complete figure of
Zeus, close in pose to the Corinth Figure 3, but not exactly alike in details.
21E. L. Bowie, "Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic," Studies in Ancient Society, M. I. Finley,
ed., London 1974, pp. 166-209. I thank most warmly Mr. A. Spawforth, Assistant Director of the British
School at Athens, for this reference and for sharing with me his considerable knowledge in this area.
22Dio Chrysostom, The Thirty-seventh Discourse: The Corinthian Oration, Loeb Classical Library, Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1946 (trans. H. L. Crosby), p. 26.
23For an example of a totally Roman treatment of the subject of prosperity, especially agrarian, note a
rectangular altar, 0.50 m. high, from Naples (storeroom inv. no. 147827). It has a single figure on each of
its four faces, each making a libation with a phiale; two of the figures also hold cornucopias. The represen-
tations are of Bona Dea, Vesta, Mercury and Genius, who is Roman even to his resemblance to Augustus.
See Adolf Greifenhagen, "Bona Dea," RbmMitt 52, 1937, p. 228, pls. 51, 52.
PLATE 30
F 7-
ilk~i'
M~L.
.* )Q
i__av~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0Y
Ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLATE 31
-Jil-
-x2~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
co
Room--
@
,0
~~~~~ Nl
_<
-~~~~~~~~~"
- i;= Q~~~~~
_r
- 2~~~~~~
D_>
E~~~~~~
PLATE 32
a.-,
Wrap~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
WI
1?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ki
.s~~~~~~T
|
_ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
PAUSANIAS AND PRAXITELES
N CONTRIBUTING to this volume it will give me special pleasure if I may at the
same time pay tribute to another old friend. Homer Thompson and I have walked
the streets of Athens with Pausanias for over half a century, found him a congenial
companion in spite of faults and eccentricities, and become constantly more aware of
his trustworthiness and unique value as a guide, and of the dangers and pitfalls which
one is apt to encounter if one abandons him to follow a pathof one's own.
With some trepidation I take an example from sculpture rather than topography; a
series of quotations will introduce the subject.
Later they set up other statues in the Heraion, including
a Hermes of stone,
carrying the infant Dionysos; this is a work (techne, a specimen of the art) of
Praxiteles a bronze Aphrodite is a work (ergon) of Kleon of Sikyon.
Pausanias, v.17.3.
This follows the mention of other statues in the Heraion at Olympia, which Pau-
sanias calls "very old".
It has sometimes been said that by using the word techne Pausanias is saying only
that the Hermes is in the style or manner of Praxiteles; but an examination of other
instances' shows that he uses techne simply as a synonym or stylistic variation for ergon.
The group was found in the Heraion on the 8th of May 1877 and after one or two
initial expressions of doubt was generally acclaimed as a masterpiece by Praxiteles.
Casts give no conception of the soft, glossy, flesh-like, seemingly elastic
-surface of the original, which appears to glow with divine life. Looking at the
original, it seems impossible to conceive that Praxiteles or any man ever
attained to a greater mastery over stone than is exhibited in this astonishing
work.
J. G. Frazer on Pausanias, v.17.3 (London
and New York 1898).
This is the only case in which we possess an undisputed original, straight
from the hand of one of the greatest masters of antiquity.
E. A. Gardner, Handbook of Qreek Sculp-
ture, 2nd ed., London 1915, p. 388.
{CatlBliimel (Griechische Bildhauerarbeit, Berlin and Leipzig 1927, pp. 37-48) main-
tained on dietailed technical evidence that the Hermes was not made by
Praxiteles
himselPtutwas.ia
Roman copy.
'Notably .143; , v17.1-2.
PAUSANIAS AND PRAXITELES
183
AJA 35, 1931 published articles by six scholars- on the subject, including Bluimel
and, for example, the following:
It is not a question whether Praxiteles himself had a hand in it; but whether
the Athenian marble-cutter who copied the bronze original lived in Julio-
Claudian or Hadrianic times.
Rhys Carpenter, p. 261.
If the Hermes is a copy it is one of the best we have; if it is an original, then
Praxiteles is a disappointing sculptor who invented some most remarkable
technical tricks.
Stanley
Casson, p. 268.
The stylistic and technical charges against the Hermes as a work by Praxiteles
cannot be substantiated. The evidence in favor of the identification is too
strong to be affected by a few unusual features for all of which
explanations
or parallels can be found.
Gisela M. A. Richter, p. 290.
The parallels for the drapery of the Hermes found on works of the fourth
century B.C. are closer than those on Roman works and therefore the drap-
ery supports the view that the Hermes is a Greek original.
Valentin Muller, p. 295.
0. Antonsson (The Praxiteles Marble Group in Olympia, Stockholm 1937) put for-
ward the theory, based on technical evidence from the group itself and representations
in minor arts, that Praxiteles made the group as a Pan carrying Dionysos accompanied
by a nymph, and after damage this was reworked in imperial Roman times. This theory
has not been received with much favour, though it is commonly accepted that there are
signs of more superficial reworking.
Carl Bluimel (Der Hermes eines Praxiteles, Baden-Baden 1948) changed to the view
that the group is a Hellenistic original, perhaps by a Hellenistic Praxiteles; Rhys Carpen-
ter in AJA 58, 1954, pp. 4-6 dismisses this latter-day Praxiteles as a fiction and insists
on a Roman imperial date~.
The style and technique of the drapery of the Hermes confirm the suspicions
aroused by; other features-the hair, the polish, the child, the sandal, the
pedestal-that the statue cannot have been carved in the fourth century. The
difficulty of finding good later parallels does not alter the impossibility of
assigning it to a date during which we know that sculptors were still em-
ploying a universal style and technique.
The man who carved the Hermes was a first-class sculptor. He may have
copied a work by Praxiteles, his name may have been Praxiteles, or Pau-
sanias may have got his facts wrong. It would help if we could fix the date of
the statue at all accurately, but for this a detailed study-of 'thtechnique of
184 R. E. WYCHERLEY
later periods would be necessary. However the base and those statues which
furnish some parallels to the Hermes indicate a date c. 100 B.C.
Sheila Adam, The Technique of Greek
Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Peri-
ods, London 1966, p. 128.
It is a fine Hellenistic copy. This sad but important truth is argued irrefutably
by Sheila Adam.
Peter Levi on Pausanias, v.17.3 (New
York 1971).
Whatever grounds have been or may be advanced against accepting the
Hermes as an original by Praxiteles, they will be inconclusive so long as no
unquestionable original of his time, equal in quality and as well preserved, is
available for comparison ....
Even those of us who dislike the Hermes must admit that it has remark-
able vitality.
A. W. Lawrence, Greek and Roman Sculp-
ture, London 1972, p. 185.
One might say that the Aberdeen head gives the impression that if pressed
by a finger its flesh would give, but the flesh of the Hermes appears frozen
It is to me inconceivable that the Hermes was carved by a sculptor of
the ability of the one who carved the Aberdeen head or indeed by any repu-
table sculptor of the mid-fourth century B.C.
R. M. Cook, "The Aberdeen Head and the
Hermes of Olympia," Festschrift.fuir
Frank
Brommer, Mainz am Rhein 1977, p. 77.
Few of those who consult the well-compiled and authoritatively written
handbooks on Greek art have any suspicion that the proud edifice of Greek
sculptural history is reared on a quagmire of uncertainty, ambiguity and
baseless conjecture. It could not be otherwise. The ancient statuary which has
survived into modern times is largely anonymous; it carries no label to tell
us what it is or whence it came.
Rhys Carpenter, Greek Sculpture, Chicago
1960, p. vii.
These excerpts represent fairly well the vicissitudes of the Hermes since his dis-
covery just over a century ago. For approximately
the first half-century he was placed
on the highest of pinnacles. In the second he has been toppled. Not only has Praxi-
telean authorship been questioned and denied, but simultaneously,
in accordance with
mid-20th-century sculptural tastes, his artistic quality
has been decried. He has not even
been set securely on a more modest pedestal;
he seems at times to lie flat on his face in
Rhys Carpenter's quagmire, as once he lay in the disintegrated
brickwork of the He-
raion.
PAUSANIAS AND PRAXITELES 185
But perhaps Rhys Carpenter is too severe. The history of Greek sculpture is based
on foundations solid enough as far as they go: firstly the information given us by reli-
able ancient writers, of whom Pausanias is by far the most important; secondly the
sculpture which happens to survive. The trouble is that besides being very far from
complete, these two are largely separate, with only sporadic points of contact. The
"quagmire" has been created by those who trample around on the soft insecure ground
in between.
For many years the Hermes was considered the firmest of these points of contact.
At the same time he was exceptional in that he carried a clear label of origin, affixed by
an authoritative and trustworthy hand. But now a series of critics have made it their
business to tear it off and to substitute not one but half a dozen labels of their own
devising. Apparently Frazer and the earlier writers were deluded. Pausanias, along with
thousands of others, was duped, not having the wit to see that the Hermes was a sub-
stitute-an unacknowledged substitute-lacking the quality, the true Praxitelean techne,
which he saw in the Satyr, the Artemis Brauronia, the Leto and many other works.
Peter Levi considers the matter settled. And indeed one might be glad to settle for
the next best thing, a truly fine Hellenistic copy (though how, if the original is lost, one
can tell that this is a fine copy, as distinct from a fine piece of sculpture, I fail to see).
In fact, the student who, when told that the Hermes is not a genuine work of Praxi-
teles' hands, very properly asks, "Then precisely what is it?" is confronted by the
following propositions (more, for all I know):
The Hermes is a Hellenistic copy (fine or not so fine or poor-aesthetic judgments
vary widely).
It is a Hellenistic original, possibly by a latter-day Praxiteles (the later Bluimel).
It is a copy of Roman imperial date.
The original too was of marble.
The original was of bronze.
The work we have differs in important respects from the work of Praxiteles, though
the extent of the difference is not agreed.
It was made by Praxiteles as a Pan but later after damage was converted into a
Hermes (Antonsson).
Our student may well feel that after parting company from his faithful guide he is
floundering in the "quagmire". He may have doubts about the methods which produce
such bewildering results.
If I now take a closer look at Sheila Adam's discussion of the Hermes in the ap-
pendix to Technique (pp. 183-184 above), let it not be thought that I am being particu-
larly critical of her-quite the contrary. One learns a great deal from her excellent book;
her exposition of the case against Praxiteles is thorough and duly cautious. But I cannot
accept her uncompromising conclusion quoted above, in particular her curt dismissal of
our prime authority Pausanias. Her statement that we know that in Praxiteles' day
sculptors employed a universal style and technique, I cannot understand.
186 R. E. WYCHERLEY
Mrs. Adam says merely that "suspicions" are aroused by various features; and
after full discussion she admits that for all these one is in difficulty because of a "lack of
suitable material for comparison." It could not be otherwise. We have only a fraction of
"classical" 5th- and 4th-century Greek sculpture; and of that only a fraction can be
dated absolutely, objectively. And what has survived is scrappy, fortuitous and highly
unrepresentative. In particular, nearly all the very best is lost. Of the individual master-
pieces of the great sculptors, of the choice works selected by Pausanias for mention,
only one here and there remains.
Pausanias mentions over 160 sculptors, most being of the Classical period. Of how
many do we have one single authenticated statue? Of not one do we have the kind of
solid oeuvre which historians of art in other periods very rightly require before they
presume to attempt stylistic analysis, or attribution and rejection. If we had one hun-
dredth of what Pausanias saw, or just two or three statues from the hand of each of a
score of these sculptors, what a transformation that would make! The major sculptors,
'Praxiteles above all, were men of supreme genius and technical virtuosity. What exper-
iments, what special stylistic variations, what technical innovations, whether ephemeral
or more permanent, are lost to us through the vanishing of their work we can never
know.
In his excellent essay on the frieze of the Nike balustrades Rhys Carpenter has
shown how even in the work of a closely knit, homogeneous group one finds striking
variations. Several of the sculptors are first-rate artists. One shows oddities amounting
to faults, and it has even been suggested that his work is a late replacement; Carpenter
will not have this, but he tells us, significantly for our present subject, that it is doubtful
whether any expert, without knowledge of provenance, would place this work correctly
in period and school.
As Charles Morgan has reminded us with reference to Paionios and Alkamenes,3
we also have to bear in mind that some artists live to a great age, still plying their
crafts, and in the course of a long working life remarkable developments and changes
take place in their style. Morgan has shown convincingly that there is no compelling
need, on grounds of date or style, to say, as many have done, that Pausanias must be
wrong when he gives the pediments at Olympia to Paionios and Alkamenes. As prom-
ising young men they may have been given this assignment, under a supreme master,
and with a group of subordinates, each with his own artistic personality, to share the
carving.
On all counts, when discussing the style and technique of the lost masters we must
make ample allowance for the meagreness, sometimes sheer absence, of clear evidence
and for the consequent uncertainties, and recognize that what we say is tentative, provi-
sional, indecisive. We are constantly engaged
in a kind of skiamachia,
in both senses of
the word, fighting in the dark and fighting with shadows.
2
The Sculpture of the Nike Temple Parapet, Cambridge, Mass. 1929.
3"Pheidias and Olympia," Hesperia 21, 1952, 308-312.
Mrs. Adam continues, "This (lack of comparable material) is not true for the
drapery." This is not the impression which one receives as one reads her account. What
I have said applies to the drapery-in this too one can expect endless variation. Mrs.
Adam cites the Apollo Patroos, probably by Euphranor, from the Athenian agora.' But
that, unlike the Hermes, is a great cult statue, standing formally robed in full dignity.
Mrs. Adam searches for parallel examples of 4th-century drapery and produces six; and
it is curious that two others are the Mausolos and Artemisia from the Mausoleum. Now
her most powerful ally in taking the Hermes from Praxiteles is probably Rhys Carpen-
ter; and Rhys Carpenter insists5 that the "Mausolos and Artemisia" too must be down-
dated by two centuries, largely because of the "unclassical" style of the drapery. Our
student may again feel disconcerted and bewildered when he sees that a very important
work which he thought was firmly anchored in a historical context is on high authority
cast adrift; and that two leading proponents of the theory that the Hermesi is a late work
contradict one another flatly, about just the kind of evidence on which, their whole case
depends.
In fact we find very frequent disagreement about the
interpretation
and use, of the
technical evidence. Again and again Mrs. Adam finds it necessary to correct her distin-
guished predecessor, Stanley Casson. On her first page she disagrees with him com-
pletely about the use of tools in the early Archaic period. One might expect that the
marks left on the stone by various tools would provide precise, objective criteria and
lead to agreement. It is alas far otherwise. The use of the "running drill" offers a crucial
example. Pausanias (i.26.7) tells us that Kallimachos, who was called "katatexitechnic"
because of the elaborateness of his art and who worked in the latter part of the 5th
century, "first drilled stones." This is not literally true, but there may be something in
it. It may be that Kallimachos invented the use of the "running drill". Of modern
authorities, some have detected traces of the running drill already in Parthenon sculp-
ture. Mrs. Adam (p. 66) tells us, "The new technique must have been introduced
between 370 and 350." How can we know, when from the hand of Kallimachos himself
we do not have a single authenticated work?
Other criteria are inevitably less precise. Mrs. Adam warns us that the terms "lin-
ear" and "plastic", much used by Rhys Carpenter and others in reference to drapery
styles, are "so vague that they are open to misinterpretation." Some criteria again are
largely subjective and personal. Not that subjective impressions should be wholly de-
spised-"transcending any reasoning concerning tools, supports, tree-trunks and what-
nots," says Miss Richter,6 "stands our 'subjective' reaction to the Hermes." Casson7
condemns this as "archaeological fundamentalism", which makes the search for evi-
dence futile. One may reply that, confused and driven to despair by the conflicting ideas
produced by 50 years' search for evidence, some of us are constrained to fall back on
4H. A. Thompson,
'Apx'E, 1959, pp. 30-34.
'
Greek Sculpture, Chicago 1960, pp. 213-215.
6Quoted by Casson, "The Hermes of Praxiteles," AJA 35, 1931, p. 267.
7Ibid., p. 268.
188 R. E. WYCHERLEY
our subjective reactions-and our Pausanias. Pausanias himself was no doubt largely
guided by personal impressions in accepting attributions and occasionally making them;
of course he had the advantage over us in that his impressions were drawn from the
hundreds of masterworks which he had seen.
We may be thankful that another statue long regarded as a 4th-century master-
piece, the Demeter of Knidos, has been rescued from the fate of the Hermes. She too
was downgraded by Rhys Carpenter8 to the Hellenistic period; the drapery in particular
he regarded as "completely unclassical". Now Bernard Ashmole9 has effectively re-
instated her (I trust).
I can make no pretence of doing the same for the Hermes. It is beyond me, as an
earnest but inexpert student of sculpture, to treat in detail the various subtle criteria of
style and technique. My proper concern is with Pausanias, the meaning and importance
of what he says and how we should treat his evidence. He tells us clearly that the Her-
mes is the work of Praxiteles; and from this we may safely infer that it was presented
and accepted as such at Olympia. What the rejectors seldom if ever tell us is that they
are asking us to believe that the Hermes is not merely a copy but a fake. Pausanias was
aware that a masterpiece might be removed and a copy or substitute provided. He tells
us what happened in such circumstances at Thespiai (ix.27.3).
Pausanias is a reliable author. Frazer demonstrated his reliability in archaeological
matters eighty years ago and predicted that this would be confirmed by further research.
His prediction has been wonderfully fulfilled. 'We normally take it for granted that a
plain statement by Pausanias is correct; if we did not we should have difficulty in pro-
ceeding with the study of the topography of the Greek sites, or the works of the great
Greek sculptors. However much he is ignored, however often he is brusquely dis-
missed, he will not go away. His testimony stands and carries great weight. Unlike those
who contradict him, and one another (occasionally themselves), he walked on firm
ground, and in the light of day. To challenge and disprove a statement by him one
needs to be sure of one's ground, to have clear, solid, ancient evidence and agreement
about it. Of course he goes wrong from time to time; but serious proven errors are few.
More often he does not tell us as much as we would wish, or his account is not
entirely
clear and precise.
Pausanias is not very clever or subtle. He has no thesis to argue and prove, no axe
to grind. But he is a man of good sense, of good judgment and good taste, notably
in
matters of art, though he had not, like his contemporary Lucian, the gift
of facile self-
expression. Frazer in his introduction clearly demonstrated the quality of his treatment
of the sculptors, but I should like to add a few further notes. To his credit he shows
great appreciation of the art of the earlier periods; in this he is closer to modern taste
than to Frazer and the Victorians. The works associated with the legendary
name of
Daidalos, he says, are &To rcOaTEpa, but have a touch of the divine (II.4.5). He partic-
8Op. cit. (footnote 5 above), p. 173.
9"Solvitur Disputando," Festschrftfir Frank Brommer, Mainz am Rhein 1977, pp. 13-20.
ularly admired certain sculptors of the first half of the 5th century. Pythagoras of Rhe-
gion, he says (vi.4.4), was a good sculptor if ever there was one. Onatas of Aigina
would mean very little to us but for Pausanias, who singles out half a dozen remarkable
works for mention, saying that one is a marvel for size and techne, and that the sculptor
is inferior to none of the followers of Daidalos and the Attic school
(v.25.13; viII.42.7).
Pausanias says nothing of the Aiginetan pediments which for us represent the best
of early 5th-century sculpture. In fact he mentions only seven sets of pedimental sculp-
ture and gives credit to the sculptors of only three. These three include the Olympia
pediments, which he describes in some detail, but not the Parthenon. There he merely
notes the subjects of the two pediments, and is silent about the metopes and the frieze,
concentrating on Pheidias' great chryselephantine cult statue.
We put it down to good taste in Pausanias that he considers best worth seeing of all
the works of Pheidias not the Zeus of Olympia nor the Parthenos nor yet the colossal
Promachos but a much more modest and apparently more subtle bronze Athena, the
Lemnia. Lucian agrees with him, and is more articulate in describing her beauty (Eiko-
nes, 4), noting in particular Tno arraXov of the cheeks. Now arraXov means soft and
yielding to the touch; it would not be used of a form which, however exquisite, looked
rigid or "frozen". So, we may infer, Pheidias too, way back in the 5th century, had this
trick of the trade at his disposal, and could use, it on suitable subjects. The Lemnia
made the same impression on Lucian as the Hermes on Frazer and the Aberdeen head
on Professor Cook.
Pausanias' treatment of Alkamenes is peculiar and illustrates both his value and his
shortcomings. We have already looked at the Olympia pediment; it is in connection
with this that he tells us that Alkamenes was second only to Pheidias in his skill in
making statues (v.10.8). The Aphrodite in the Gardens, he says (X.19.2), was amongst
the things best worth seeing at Athens; once again it is Lucian in the Eikones (6) who
gives details of the beauty of this work. In ii.30.2 Pausanias tells us that Alkamenes
created the sculptural type of the three-bodied Hekate, making the statue of the god-
dess on the bastion near the Temple of Wingless Victory. Curiously he does not men-
tion this shrine and statue in his account of the Acropolis. He mentions the Hermes
Propylaios which stood near by, but he does not name the sculptor; it is generally
inferred from the inscription on a fine Hermes Propylaios at Pergamon, assumed to be
a copy, that the sculptor of this too was Alkamenes, but because of Pausanias' silence
we cannot be quite sure. In the temple of Hephaistos, Pausanias tells us, the god stood
with Athena beside him. Almost inevitably this Hephaistos is usually identified with the
very fine statue of the god by Alkamenes, seen by Cicero at Athens,10 and naturally we
1ODe nature deorum, 1.30.
I
cannot accept Miss Evelyn Harrison's theory that the "Theseion" was oc-
cupied not by Athena and Hephaistos but by Eukleia ("Alkamenes' Sculptures for the Hephaisteion," AJA
88, 1977, pp. 139, 421-426.). The impossibility of finding another site for the Hephaisteion I leave to those
who have repeatedly worked over the area. I am more concerned that Pausanias, though he might have
spoken more clearly about the position of the Hephaisteion, places the temple of Eukleia very clearly
southeast of the agora (i.14.5; for his use of arrwTE'pw see especially ii.3.2-6), and Miss Harrison imputes
190 R. E. WYCHERLEY
tend to assume that the same sculptor made the Athena. A word from Pausanias could
have settled the matter, but unfortunately he does not name the sculptor.
Most problematical is the group of mother and child found on the Acropolis, iden-
tified by nearly everyone as the Prokne and Itys seen by Pausanias and said by him to
be a dedication of Alkamenes (X.24.3). We naturally assume that this is the famous
sculptor, but we cannot be certain. And did he make his own dedication? Is it worthy of
the second greatest? Opinions vary enormously. Some have said that it is comparable
with the Parthenon sculpture or the Caryatids, others that it is very faulty in design and
uneven in execution. Some say it is the work of a pupil, or a copy. It certainly does not
provide a safe aphorme for study of the style of Alkamenes."1
Pausanias shows us that Alkamenes was a very great sculptor, who in various ways
carried on the work of Pheidias and, like him, added to the accepted ideas about the
gods. But at several points the incompleteness or unclearness of his account makes
trouble for us. There is no sufficient reason, however, to believe that anything he says
is untrue; and it is exceedingly odd to take from Alkamenes the fine Olympia pediment,
definitely ascribed to him by Pausanias, and to foist on him the very dubious Prokne.
Pausanias is less than enthusiastic about the 4th-century sculptors. He recognizes
the importance of Praxiteles and mentions over twenty works (only Pheidias is better
represented), and he must have been thoroughly familiar with the sculptor's oeuvre and
techne; but he awards no special mark of commendation. He saw an Aphrodite by
Praxiteles at Thespiai (Ix.27.5), along with the Eros (and one might infer from 1.1.3 that
he had been to Knidos); but yet again it is left to Lucian to reveal the seductive charm
of a Praxitelean Aphrodite (Eikones, 6).
To return to Hermes in conclusion, what we have before us is not simply a dispute
between modern technical experts. The opposition is rather between a plain statement
by Pausanias and half a dozen divergent modern theories, of which all but one are
bound to be mistaken. Of course I accept that it may be Pausanias who is wrong.
But
the case against him is certainly "not proven". I am not saying "case dismissed", in
spite of the deficiency of evidence and lack of
agreement among
the witnesses. But it is
wrong to set aside Pausanias' evidence, here or elsewhere. He may not have known a
rasp from a running drill, though we are not entitled to make this assumption, but he
had a colossal advantage over us who have never stood before an ancient statue and
to him a flagrant error-the transposition of an important monument to a wholly wrong site-such as is
not found in all his description of Athens or as far as I know anywhere else.
To what I wrote in "The Temple of Hephaistos," JHS 79, 1959, pp. 153-156, I would add that the
east frieze of the "Theseion" is peculiarly appropriate as an introduction to Hephaistos
and Athena,
show-
ing "the sons of Hephaistos taming a land untamed" (Aeschylus, Eumenides, 13-14; H. A. Thompson,
"The Sculptural Adornment of the Ilephaisteion," AJA 66, 1962, pp. 341-344.)
"1Pace W. Schuchhardt, Alkamenes, Berlin 1977, pp. 9-22. A possibility which occurs to me is that Al-
kamenes began the group, made a dreadful mistake in carving so that the boy appears
to be partly
carved
out of his mother's leg, handed over the work to an assistant to finish (the back is said to be inferior),
then, unable to dispose of the group otherwise but unwilling to scrap it, dedicated it himself, unsigned,
to
Athena, with a vow to do better next time.
been able to say, with knowledge, with true confidence, "This was made by the hand of
Kalamis" -or Myron, or Pheidias, or Alkamenes, or Polykleitos, or Skopas, or Lysip-
pos, or-if we take from him the Hermes-Praxiteles.
What in the end is our student to do? He may find some reassurance in what was
said to me by one in whose knowledge and sound judgment I place the utmost reli-
ance-reaffirming his belief that the Hermes is by Praxiteles, he added that the ques-
tion is not after all so very important, since the quality of the statue is so outstanding
that even if it were a copy it could without more ado stand in for the original. My own
last word-stay with Pausanias.
Heald Green, Cheadle R. E. WYCHERLEY
Cheshire, England

Studies in Athenian Architecture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Athenian Architecture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HESPERIA: SUPPLEMENT XX

STUDIES IN ATHENIAN ARCHITECTURE

You might also like