MONUMENT F ROM Al G I NA

HESPERIA 7I (2002) A N EW I NSCRI BED Pages 399-4I3 FU N E RARY MONUMENT F ROM Al G I NA

AB STRACT

This articlepresents an ancientmonument discovered on Aiginain 1999. The monumentis remarkablefor its unusualshape: a rectangularslab with a pyramidaltop, a two-lineinscription, and a deepniche with dowelholes in the floorand back walls. I arguethat the monumentis funeraryin function, andthat its peculiarfeatures are related to its primaryuse. The inscription givesa malename and a patronymic,Aristoukhos Aristomeneos, and can be datedto the 4th centuryB.C. It is possiblethat Aristomenes,the fatherof Aristoukhos,is the heroof Pindar'sPythian 8.

An ancientmonument discovered in 1999 on the islandof Aiginamerits attentionfor two reasons.lFirst, it displaysan unusualcombination of 1. I wouldlike to thankmany architectonicfeatures: a pyramidal top crowning a rectangularmonolithic friendsand colleagues at the Amer- slab,and a deepnarrow icanSchool of ClassicalStudies at nichecut in theface of theslab. Second, the monu- Athenswho havelent theirtime and mentbears an inscription, which could be thefirst epigraphic evidence on expertiseto the discussionof this Aiginafor the clientsof Pindar'sAiginetan odes. monument:A. Ajootian,N. Bookidis, W.Closterman, C. Gray,J.Grossman, M. Langdon,C. Lawton,J. Morgan, THE MONUMENT M. Richardson,D. Romano, R. Stroud,M. Sturgeon,and C. Wil- liams.I owe specialthanks to M. H. Themonument was found in the churchof AgiosNikolaos in the areaof Jamesonand H. Kritzas,whose helpful Kavouropetra,on the northerncoast of Aigina,about 2.5 km northeastof commentsand suggestions saved me thetown of Aigina.It is setflush with the edge of thethreshold inside the from manyerrors. I wouldalso like to churchand is 1.5 m high,0.48 mwide, and 0.24 m thick,including a thankthe 2nd Ephorateof pyra- Prehistoric midaltop thatbegins 1.29 andClassical Antiquities, and especially m fromthe bottomof the block(Figs. 1-2). itsdirector, George Steinhauer, for The stoneof the monumentis a medium-grainedmarble, grayish in grantingme permissionto studyand color.2A two-lineinscription on the smoothfront face extends from left publishthis monument.Finally, I am to rightbelow the top (Fig.3). A rectangularcutting 0.08 m belowthe gratefulto the anonymousreviewers of baseof the pyramidaltop androughly centered between the longsides of Hesperiafor their recommendations, themonument (0.115 m fromthe left whichI havetaken to heart. edgeand 0.12 m fromthe right) 2. Thereis no sourceof marbleon measures0.66 m in length,0.245 m in width,and 0.225 m deep.The bot- Aigina,so the stonewould necessarily tomedge of themonument is brokenoff front to backat the left and right. havebeen purchased and brought from Thetip of thepyramidal top is cutoff, leaving a flatrectangle (L. 0.08 m, theoutside. W.0.065 m)with a circularhole in the center(Diam. 0.015 m).The hole

American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org 4oo I REN E PO LI N S KAYA

Figure1. Funerarymonument of Aristoukhosinside the churchof Agios Nikolaos,Kavouropetra, Aigina. Photoauthor

Figure2. Funerarymonument with cleanedniche. Photo author

Figure3. Inscriptionon the funerary monument.Photo author INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 40I

is filledwith debris and whitewash, so thatit is impossibleto determineits originaldepth. The left andright walls of the cuttingare worked smooth surfaces, butthe floor is somewhatrougher. In theback wall of the nicheis a circularhole with chipped-off edges that presumably goes through the stone. The hole(Diam. 0.02 m) is centeredvis-a-vis the sides,and is located0.2 mbelow the ceiling of theniche. Another hole, elliptical in shape(L. 0.065 m,W.0.035 m,D. 0.06 m),is cutinto the floor ofthe cutting, 0.05 m from the frontsurface of the monumentand slightly off center,0.093 m from theleft, and 0.117 m fromthe rightwall of the cutting.The edgesof this hole slopeinward and look worn. In addition,the remainsof two iron nailscan be seenin thewalls of the niche,close to thebottom. A singleglance at thismonument is enoughto recognizeits unusual form.To distinguishits primarydesign and possiblesecondary altera- tionswe need to considerthe five majorelements of the monument's design:the rectangularshaft, the pyramidal top, the cutting,the holesin- sidethe cutting,and the inscription.Leaving aside the holesfor the mo- ment,the strongestargument for the originalityand contemporaneity of the otherfour elements is theirarchitectonic relationship to eachother. The positionof the rectangularcutting, which I identifyas a niche(see below),is determinedby the baseline ofthe pyramidaltop and the sides of therectangular shaft: the top edge ofthe nicheis parallelto thebaseline of the pyramidaltop, and the nicheis centeredbetween the sidesof the monument. The placementof the inscriptionat an equaldistance between the baselineof the pyramidaltop andthe top edgeof the nicheis another indicationthat all threeelements (the pyramidal top, the niche,and the inscription)were designed together. The holein thefloor of the nichecan be explainedas a dowelhole for the attachmentof a three-dimensional object.It is possiblethat the holein theback of the nicheis a lateraddi- tion.Circular holes are often found on reusedgrave stelai and are usually identifiedas conduits for a waterpipe of a fountainhead.3 If thiswere the casewith the Aeginetanmonument, however, one wouldexpect to find darkstains or marks of waterwear, none of whichare present on theinner wallof the niche.If this holeis original,it canbe explainedas an addi- tionaldowel hole for the securing of anobject in theniche. Thus, there are stronggrounds for viewing all the elementsof the monumentas partsof theoriginal design.

INSCRIPTION

The inscriptionon the stone(Figs. 4-5) canbe describedas follows:

L.H. 0.015-0.018 m, omicronDiam. 0.013-0.014 m. Spacing 3. E.g., Clairmont,CAT 2.382c betweenthe lettersof the firstline is 0.02-0.025 m;between the letters [= Conze1893-1922, II, cat.no. 658, of the secondline, 0.01-0.015 m, exceptbetween the firstalpha and rho, pl. CXX];Conze 1893-1922, IV, cat. whichis 0.02 m.The lengthof the firstline is 0.31 m, of the second, no. 1871,p. 37. 0.30 m.The distancebetween the twolines is 0.015-0.02 m. 402 IRENE POLINSKAYA

Figure4. Squeezeofthe inscription. Photo author

saec.IVa.

'Apt.axovx°S 'ApaxoyeveoS

The twowords together, A*oaxouXoS A*oaxo,ueveoS, give us a per- sonalmale name and a patronymic,which in theabsence of anyadditional words(e.g., those that could suggest a votivestele) most likely indicate thatour monument is funerary,honoring and preserving the memory of a deceasedperson. In general,the letteringof the inscriptionis verycarefully executed, with a slightwidening of the endsof somehastae. All but one of the elevenletters that appear in theinscription are familiar from Archaic and Classicalexamples on Aigina.4 The form of nu (straightvertical strokes of equallength) is unattestedon Aiginain the Archaicand Early Classical periods.During the Peloponnesian War, the Aiginetan population was in exile,and Athenian settlers occupied the island(Thuc. 4.56.2). Thus, we haveno evidenceof Aiginetanwriting from this period, and the examples of post-warinscriptions are extremely meager.5 Under these circumstances, we cannotdetermine whether the nu on theAiginetan block was a regular formused in thatperiod. Although it appearsto be a hapaxin theknown Aiginetanusage, there can be little doubt that the inscription is Aiginetan. The dialectof the inscriptionis Doric,as the uncontractedgenitive of A*oaxo,uevYIS(A*oaxo,ueveoS instead of A*oaxo,uevovS)demonstrates.6 Withoutindications of a foreignorigin, due weight must be givento the

4. LSAG2,Aigina, a4, £4, x,ll2, o, Aphaia(IG IV 39, secondhalf of the the DelianLeague (Thuc. 1.105.2-4, p1, o2, , X The lettersof ourinscrip- 5th centuryB.C.). The unattested 108),and the islandwas occupied by tion displaysome stylistic variations letterform is nu. Athensduring the PeloponnesianWar. of the knownforms: alpha-the right 5. Onlyone publishedinscription A numberof the horosstones and leg is slightlyshorter than the left and on a sarcophagusdates to the 4th inventoriesof the sanctuariesdate to endsabove baseline; epsilon the centuryB.C.; seeArchDelt 32 (1977) the secondhalf of the 5th centuryon middlestroke is shorterthan the B'1 [1984],p. 43 = SEGXXXIV 270. Aigina,and could be seenas the upperand lower, and not touchingthe Alreadyin the secondhalf of the productof Athenianpresence on the vertical;mperceptible, butvery 5th century,some of the known island.They pose many problems in slightinward curving of outerhastae; Aiginetaninscriptions may not be identificationof scripts(Barron 1983; sigma-shortercentral strokes of the reflectingpurely Aiginetan letter Figueira1991, pp. 115-120). 4-barsigma. The upsilonis foundin forms.In 457 B.C., Aiginawas 6. Buck1955, p. 40. the inventoryof the Sanctuaryof defeatedby Athens and forced into p

INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 4o3

I o y x o

I t T O M E N Es

Figure5. Drawingof theinscription. I. Polinskayaand G. Lavoie stone'splace of discoveryon Aigina. In sum,the dialect of theinscription, thepresence of mostof theletters in theAiginetan alphabet, and the prov- enanceof themonument strongly suggest that it is anAiginetan product. The precisedate of the inscriptionis difficultto determine.The ab- senceof the diagnosticArchaic Aiginetan letter forms rules out an Ar- chaicdate.7 At thesame time, the absence of theprominent characteristics of the Hellenisticand Roman letter forms, such as straightparallel upper andlower bars for sigma, lunate curves, and pronounced serifs, militates againsta Hellenisticor later date.8 Since the numberof Classicalinscrip- tions on Aiginais small,9the chronologyof developmentsin the local scriptin thisperiod is not established.We thusmay be justified in using outsidecomparanda for the purposes of approximatedating. Comparison withAttic examples suggests that some special characteristics of the letter formsin theAiginetan inscription might be indicativeof a datefollowing the PeloponnesianWar. The shortermiddle bar for epsilon andthe slight curvingof the verticalstrokes of muin thisinscription are familiar from Atticexamples of the firstquarter of the 4th centurys.c.l° The widening of the freeends of theletter strokes (as in the tauand epsilon here)can be seenin Atticfunerary inscriptions dating from ca. 350 to 325 s.c.ll Theseand earlier observations suggest a datesome time in the 4th centuryB.C. A moreprecise date would require a largersample of local inscriptionsto drawon, which we lackat the presenttime.

7. LSAG2,Aigina, a2, vl, v2,v3, v4, (SEG XXXVII254 and262); Welter the 4th century.See alsothe laterfu- p.109. 1938a,p.58, fig.49, and1938b, nerarystele of Epithales,IG II29157, 8. Woodhead1959, p.64. pp.521-523,names of the deceased 350-340 B.C., Ker.4857(Kerameikos II, 9. Classicalfunerary inscriptions paintedor carvedin the chamber pp.40-41, pl. ll). areespecially infrequent, and all but tombs. 11. Funerarymonument of Dama- one dateto the 5th centuryB.C.: IG IV 10. Funerarystele of Chrysallis, sistrate,IG II211037,350-330 B.C., 50, gravestoneof Antistatesthe Athe- Phaidrias,and Myrta, IG II25649, Athens,Nat. Mus. 743 (Conze nian,ca. 450 (SEG XXV 332,XXIX 390-365 B.C., Athens,Nat. Mus. 750 1893-1922,I, cat.no. 410, pp.94-95, 295);IG IV 49, gravestoneof Gleu- (Conze1893-1922, I, cat.no.392, pl.XCVII); funerary stele of Sym- kitasthe Salaminian,5thcentury(?) p. 91, pl.XCVI); funerary stele of machia,IG II29337, slightly before (SEG XXV 323,1X 296);IG IV Menekrateia,IG II212086,390- ca.317/316B.C., Athens,Nat. Mus. 47, gravestoneof Hermaios,ca.475- 365 B.C. (Conze1893-1922, I, 1728.See alsoIG II26942, first half 450 (SEG XI 30, XV 187,XXIX 297); cat.no.161, p. 40, pl. L);funerary of the 4th century,Athens, Epigr. Mus. ArchDelt34 (1979)B 1 [1987],p.69, steleof Tito, IG II210231, first half 2674 (Clairmont,CAT suppl.,no. PE graffition a potsherdand on a com- of the 4th century;funerary stele of or RSE33, fig. p.130). pletepot froma grave,5thcentury Artemisia,IG II210840, beginning of 4o4 IRENE POLINSKAYA

PRO S OPO GRAPHY

The name'AtotoTo,uevYIS is well attestedthroughout the Greekworld.l2 The name'AptoTouXog is much more rare. An 'AptotouXogis known from Epidauros(IG IV2 187,4th centuryB.C.; notethe variant a°X )- Seven personsof this nameare known from the Aegeanislands, of whichthe earliesttwo aredated to the 4th centuryB.C. No 'AptoTouXogis known fromcentral Greece, and the only'AptoTouXog in Attica was apparently a meticfrom Kythnos.13 Nor is anyother 'AtoaTouXog known from Aigina. The only 'Ap- oTo,urvYlsattested on Aiginais the heroof Pindar'sPythian 8. This epi- nikionis consideredto be thelast written by Pindar and is usuallydated to 446 B.C., "theonly poem, so faras we know,that Pindar wrote for Aegina aftershe had lost her independence as a resultof the Athenianvictory at Oenophyta(Thuc.1.108).''14The Aristomenes of Pythian8 wasthe son of Xenarkes,from the clan of Meidylidai.15Other relatives mentioned in the epinikionare his maternaluncles, Theognetos and Kleitomakhos (Pind. Pyth.8, lines36-38). Aristomenes is honoredwith an epinikionfor a vic- toryin wrestlingat the Pythian Games. He wonother victories at home in thepentathlon of Apollo,l6and abroad, at Megara,Marathon, and Argos (lines78-80).17 In 446 B.C., Aristomenescould be describedas being "on theverge of manhood,''18a description reinforced by the prominentplace givento thefigure of hisfather in thepoem (lines 71-75), as well as by the directaddressing of theathlete as "a child," Ct) woct (line 33). If Aristomenes wasfifteen years old in 446, he wouldhave been thirty in 431,when his familywas forced into exile. A hypotheticalson of thisAristomenes could stillhave been alive in thethird quarter ofthe 4thcentury B.C. Althoughit wouldbe dangerous to insiston theidentity of theMeidylid Aristomenes, theson of Xenarkes,with Aristomenes, the father of Aristoukhos,at least the datesfor theyZoruit of the formerAristomenes' hypothetical son and the datingof theAiginetan funerary inscription are fillly compatible.

12. In the Peloponnese,western yzvza. Burton1962, pp.181-182; himselfmisunderstood the reference. Greece,and Magna Graecia, the name Figueira1981, pp. 311-313. The "localagon of Hera"appears in Aristomenesis attested65 times.On 16. Scholiato theselines of Pyth. 8 the list of Aristomenes'foreign victo- the Aegeanislands and Cyrenaica, indicatethat the pentathlonwas part ries,and serves as a paraphrasefor the thereare 108 attestations,of which27 of the Delphiniafestival in honorof festivaland place name (Heraia at are4th centuryor earlier.In Attica, Apolloon Aigina(Drachmann 1910, Argos,the mostwell known "local" thereare 58 attestations;in central p. 215).A templeof Apolloin the agonof Hera),which is a common Greece,43, of whichall but two are townof Aiginaand a stadiumnearby practicein Pindar(cf. 01. 9, lines98- laterthan the 4th century(LGPNI, II, arementioned by Pausanias(2.29.11- 99).When promptedabout athletic IIIA,IIIB, S.v. AoxoToXurwrlg) 2.30.1). contestson Aigina,the scholiaprovide 13. LGPNI, II, IIIA,s.v. AoxoTou- 17. Contraryto mostcurrent two namesof festivals:Delphinia and X°5 Forthe metic,see Meritt 1954, opinions(e.g., Simon 1980, p. 44), Aiakeia.If the Heraiawere another p. 271, no. 110 (SEGXIV 207),a I identifyHoas ayxv rstxotov as competitionon Aigina,one mightex- 4th-centurygravestone; I would like the ArgiveHeraia, not as a localAigi- pectto findthat other athletes cele- to thankJohn Traill for bringing this netanfestival in honorof Hera Mod- bratedin Pindar'stwelve Aiginetan . nscrlptlon. . to my attentlon.. erninterpreters rely on the lone scho- odeswould be mentionedas victors 14. Burton1962, p. 174. liastwho saysthat there was a local in theseallegedly local games, but 15. Pyth. 8, line 38, waoav Mrx8U- Heraiaon Aigina(Drachmann 1910, Pyth. 8 remainsthe solereference. ?W8av,Pind. fr. 190, a MeduBou8' au p. 217),yet it is likelythat the scholiast 18. Burton1962, p. 174. INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 4o5

It is likelythat Aristoukhos and Aristomenes were members of a noble family,19aswere the Meidylid Aristomenes and his father, Xenarkes. While it is possiblethat the Aristomenes on the presentmonument was not the one celebratedin Pythian8, he couldhave been a memberof the same extendedfamily. Whether a relativeof the Pythianvictor or not, Aris- toukhosson of Aristomeneslived in theperiod of lostglory in the history of Aigina.Though restored to theirhomeland in 404 B.C., theAiginetans wouldnever again achieve the prominence in theinternational arena that theyhad held before 457, the periodof theirindependence. Both textual andmaterial evidence from the 4th centuryare very poor on Aigina.Per- hapsone reasonlies in the vicissitudesof exile:the returningpopulation wasnot as numerousas the one thathad left two anda halfdecades earlier.20If we areto imaginethat Aristoukhos son of Aristomeneswas one of the returningexiles, he maywell havebeen returning to a lootedhouse andan empty coffer. If we comparethe monumenton Aiginawith the largemonumental tombsof the 4th centuryin Attica(e.g., the Dexileosmonument, the monumentof Aristonautes,and the Kallithea monument),21 we mightas- sessits valueas modest.Yet it mustbe concededthat the acquisitionand transportationof marble from outside the island,and the commissionof the designand execution of the monument,required some financial ex- penditure.It is possiblethat such a relativelymodest monument may be a reflectionof the reducedfortunes of the Aiginetanaristocracy in the 4th centuryB.C. At thesame time, we shouldnote that even in thetime of prosperity,in the 6th andearly 5th centuriesB.C., it wasnot anAiginetan customto setup ostentatiousgrave markers. Typicalburials on Aiginathroughout antiquity were underground chambertombs or shaftgraves with stairways.22 Rarely were grave mark- erserected above ground over tombs.23 Two surviving gravestones of the 6th centuryB.C. (IGIV 47, 48) areundecorated pillars made of trachyte. Theonly three known Sth-century grave markers are common relief stelai.24 Afterthe interruptionof localburial practices during the Athenian occu- pationof the islandfrom 431 to 404 B.C., chambertombs are again used;

19. It must be grantedthat while Kallitheamonument (tomb of Nike- AgiasParaskevis 174 in Chalikaki- names in AoesTo-are appropriateto ratosand Polyxenos of Istria),330-320, Meristos(SEGXXXVIII 289); aristocrats,they hardlyguarantee that PeiraieusMus., no inv.no. (Steinhauer ArchEph1986 [1990],p. 58, n. 61 status. 2001,pls.458-459; Ridgway 1990, (SEGXXXJX331). 20. Xen. Hell.2.29.9: Ausav- pp.31-32, 64, n. l5). 24. AiginaMus. 733, ca.450 B.C. 8oos 8r afpexo,urvosrx5 Atyevav 22. On Aiginetanburials: Welter (Alt-AginaII.2,no.55,p.82,pl.43). asrdxxz rrv woRevAxytvrlTaxs, osoug 1938a,pp. 55-62; 1938b,pp. 495-524; AiginaMus. 729, early5th centuryB.C. rduvaTowArestous au9v a0ootoas. Papastaurou1990, pls. 7-14. Tombs (Alt-AginaII.2, no. 54, pp.80, 82, See also Figueira 1993, p. 323; Plut. of the 6th-Sthcenturies: ArchDelt 18 pl. 42), is sometimesidentified as Lys.14.4. (1963)B 1 [1965],p.52; ArchDelt 21 funerary:Hiller 1975, p. 72, n. 20. A 21. Dexileos monument, 394/3, (1966)B 1 [1968],pp. l00-102; funerarystele of a youngman, Athens, Ker.Mus. P 1130 (Clairmont,CAT ArchDelt33 (1978)B 1 [1985], Nat. Mus.715, 430-420 B.C. (Fuchs 2.209; Stewart 1990, p. 172, fig. 482); p.53;ArchDelt 34 (1979)B 1 [1987], 1993,pp. 487-488, fig. 571),dates to Aristonautesmonument, IG II2 5462, pp.68-71. the periodof the Athenianoccupation second half of the 4th century,Athens, 23. The onlygrave markers found of Aigina,and was probably an Athe-

. . . Nat. Mus. 738 (Clairmont,CAT in situ:IG IV 47,48;ArchDelt 36 nlan commlsslon. 1.460; Rolley 1994, p. 378, fig. 397); (1981)B'1 [1988],p.67, at Leophoros 406 IRENE POLINSKAYA

survivingexamples date from the secondhalf of the 4th century.25Aside fromthe presentmonument, no gravemarkers are knownfrom 4th- centuryAigina. The inscribedmarble monument with a niche thus appearsto havebeen exceptional in the contextof Aiginetanburial practices,and although modest in comparisonto contemporaryAthenian grave markers,it representsan effortto producea distinctiveand respectable memorialfor the dead.

FORM AND FUNCTION

Threefeatures of the monumentdefine its peculiarity:the pyramidal top, niche,and dowel holes, presumably indicating the points at which an ob- jectwas secured in the niche(Fig. 6).

P Y RA M I D A L To P The pyramidaltop of the monumentwas originally fitted with a finial, whichis indicatedby a smallround hole on the flatarea created by the levelingof the tip of the pyramid.Parallels for the useof attachmentson topof funerarymonuments, however, are hard to find.26No othermonu- mentswith pyramidal tops are known from Aigina. A pyramidaltop in generalis a rareelement in the designof ancientGreek funerary monuments.27One unambiguous Classical example of theuse of a pyramidas a gravemarker is theSth-century B.C. monumentof Parthenia,the daughter of Nadysthe Carian, from Sinope. The three-sided pyramid probably rep- resentsonly the toppart of the monument,the restof whichhas not sur- vived.28A gravemarker of unknowndate with a four-sidedstepped pyramidaltop is knownfrom the cemeteryof Canalicchioin Syracuse,and representationsof four-sided stepped pyramidal roofs crowning what might be heroaare found on Apulianvases of the 4th centurys.c.29 Apart from thevisual resemblance, no stylisticlinks can be establishedbetween these monumentsand the Aiginetanexample. Nor,outside a funerarycontext, can two othertypes of Greekmon- umentsincorporating pyramidal shapes into theirdesign be considered

25. Welter1938b, p.498. localAsia Minor marble; H. 0.33 m, 45, fig.4:a), on the basisof vasepaint- 26. Althoughnot numerous,exam- secondquarter of the 5th centuryB.C. ings,identifies a typeof gravemarker plesare known of roundholes, as well (Pfuhland Mobius 1977-1979, I, (GB-I)in the shapeof a "blockfor- as rectangulardowels, for architectural p. 16, no.22, pl. 6; Clairmont1970, migeMonumente mit pyramidalem attachmentson top of the so-called no. 10, pl. 36).All threesides of the Oberbau,"the pyramidof whichis Totenmahlreliefstelai, at leastfrom the pyramidwere inscribed, and these of steppedconstruction, and topped Hellenisticperiod (Fabricius 1999, epigramstwice refer to a stele,indi- with a stele. pp.138-143,fig. 19:c-k). cating,as Clairmont(1970, p. 34) 29. Gravemarker from Syracuse: 27. Twoexamples of three-sided noted,that the pyramidsurmounted Mus.Naz. 40089; Apulian amphora, pyramidlikefunerary monuments of a stele.Clairmont (1970, p. 34, n. 119) CVAKarlsruhe 2 [Germany8], pl. 60. the Romanperiod are known from the identifiesthis pyramidal monument Anotherpotsherd is in the personal Kerameikos:P 673 (KerameikosII, as unique,but refers to additional collectionof N. Neuerburg,who pub- p.50, no. 47, pl. 14) andP 210 (Kera- evidencefor the use of pyramidsas lishedan illustrationof this sherd meikosII, pp.S0-51). gravemarkers in classicalantiquity. withoutassigning it a number 28. Istanbul,Arch. Mus.3868, In addition,Nakayama (1982, pp. 43- (Neuerburg1969, pp. 111-112). INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 4o7

Figure6. Reconstructiondrawing of thefunerary monument of stylisticparallels or inspirations, as theydisplay many differences from the Aristoukhos,without finial and monumentconsidered here. For example, pyramidal tops (withconcave sculpture.Drawing M. Kapgan sides)that crownvotive pillars from Arcadia are separated by singleor doublebands of moldingfrom their pillar shafts, which are square in plan.30 Neitherconcavity, nor moldings, nor the square plan are part of thedesign of themonument from Aigina. Kyrbeis, "freestanding, stele-like objects of bronzeor stone,having either three or four sides, and crowned at the top by a pyramidalcap,''3l were used in Athensas monumentson whichoffi- cial regulationswere inscribed.32 The only archaeologicalevidence that supportsthis definition of kyrbeis,however, consists of baseswith triangu- lar cuttingsthat indicatethat the shaftsof the insertedpillars were of triangularshape. This featurediffers significantly from the designof the presentmonument. Thus, in spiteof the commonpyramidal elements, neitherthe kyrbeisnor Arcadian votive pillars are closely related to the Aiginetanblock.

N I C H E Thedeep rectangular cutting on the face of themonument should be identifiedas a niche,an enclosure for the placement of anobject. The propor- tionsof the niche(H. 0.66 m,W. 0.245m, D. 0.225m) suggestthat it is toodeep and narrow to havebeen used for a relief.The almostsquare floor of thecutting (L. 0.245 m, W. 0.225m) with a large,deep hole somewhat off centersuggests that the nichewas made for a three-dimensionaland

30.These votive pillars come from inscriptionson one of the foursides referencesare collected in Stroud1979, Tegea,Mantinea, and Pallantion, the of the shaft(Arvanitopoullos 1906, p.47,n. 148. earliestdating from the firsthalf of pp.63-66, nos.16-17; Rhomaios 31. Stroud1979, p. 47. the 5th century,and bear votive 1911;Papachatzes 1967, p. 408).These 32. Stroud1979, pp. 1-40, 49-50. 408 IRENE POLINSKAYA

nota flatobject. A rectangularniche is theonly type known from Archaic andClassical Greece, and it is mostlyused as an architecturalelement, a wallniche.33 Niches in funerarycontexts are also frequently wall niches, usedfor the placementof funeraryurns.34 The mainpeculiarity of the Aiginetanexample, however, is that the nicheis locatedwithin a freestandingmonolithic monument. A surveyof the Archaic,Classical, and Hellenisticperiods on the Greekmainland, Asia Minor, the Pontusarea, andsome of the Aegeanislands has thus far not revealedany other ex- amplesof freestandingmonolithic funerary monuments with a deepniche fora three-dimensionalobject.35

DOWELHOLES AND THE OBJECTIN THE NICHE If theholes in the floorand back wall of the nichewere indeed associated withthe original use of themonument, it seemsmost likely that they held dowelsused to anchoran object. The shapeof the niche,with the height roughlythree times the width, suggests that it wasdesigned to holda tall andnarrow object. Suitable objects for this shapeand these proportions includea vase, such as a loutrophorosorlekythos,36 stone versions of which wereoften used as gravemarkers in the Classicalperiod (Fig. 7),37 or a statuette. A tall,narrow stone vessel would be anespecially attractive candidate forthe inhabitant of theniche.38 Lekythoi and loutrophoroi are often rep- resentedon ClassicalAttic grave reliefs as standingon a shelfor ledge, illustratingthe practiceof settingup ceramicshapes of the samekind on tombs.39Sometimes these vessels are shown on gravemonuments in a

33. Someof the earliestexamples in cationwall of the city(Koshelenko, p. 130;Valavanis 2000), they are less the historicalperiod are the so-called Kruglikova,and Dolgorukov 1984, likelycandidates for the Aiginetan Wandnischen,wall niches from Thasos p.52, pl.xix.8). nichebecause of theirunsuitable pro- thatwere constructed in the wallsof 35. None aredocumented in Conze portions;the ratiosof heightto width the citygates. They are usually con- 1893-1922;Clairmont, CAT, and foramphoras range between 1.2 and sideredcultic. Other examples of wall 1970;Diesantz 1965; Fraser and Ronne 1.6 (Caskey1922, p.36). nichescome from Magnesia, Ephesos, 1957;Papapostolou 1993; Pfuhl and 38. A numberof marbleloutro- Priene,Messene, and Delos (Horn- Mobius1977-1979; Cremer 1991; Fi- phoroiand lekythoi of an appropriate bostel-Huttner1979, pp. 33-48). It is ratli1964; Kieseritzky and Watchinger sizefor the nichesurvive: e.g., the quiteclear from the survivingbases in 1909;Fraser 1977; or Schmidt1991. loutrophorosthat surmounted the the nichesof Delianhouses that stat- 36.These ceramic shapes, imitated trapezaof Partheniosthe Messenianin uettesand votive reliefs were placed in stone,range in ratioof heightto the Kerameikos(Fig. 7), MG 47, Ker. in them;see Kreeb1988, pp. 43-46, widthbetween roughly 1.7 and3.5; the 11174,H.0.52m,Diam.0.18m, pl. 8.1 (aninscribed base in the niche mostcommon ratios are about 3:1 Diam.(base) 0.085 m (KerameikosX;]V, in HouseE on the peribolos-street); (Caskey1922, p.19, diagramXXXIX, pls.14.2,23.2); and a lekythosfrom pl. 8.2 (a basein the nichein House pp.209-225). the Dipylonarea, Athens, Nat. Mus. Th Vl D); andalso pl. 10 (reconstruc- 37. Grossman1995, p. 228:"The 851, H.0.58 m (Clairmont,CHT tion:statuette in a wallniche). For a practiceof usingsculpted marble leky- 2.211;IG II213033). nicheintended for a lampin the thoi as gravemarkers begins at the end 39. Kokula1984, p. 15:"Die erste Erechtheion,see Palagia1984. of the fifthcentury B.C." See alsoVed- Umsetzungder Lutrophore in Stein 34. In the Hellenisticperiod, niches der1985, pp. 43-48; Kurtzand Board- zeigt nachder Mitte des 5. Jhs.v. Chr. werebuilt inside tombs and used for man1985, pp.148-151. Although ein doppelseitigesGrabrelief aus Brau- the placementof funeraryurns, e.g., in othervase shapes, e.g., amphoras, ron(Athens, Nat. Mus.4468), auf theTaurian Chersonesos, in the above- especiallythose of Panathenaicshape, dessenVorderseite eine Lutrophore und groundtombs built against the fortifi- servedfunerary functions (Neils 2000, aufdessen Ruckseite eine Lekythos INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 4o9

Figure7. Trapeza of Partheniosthe Messenian,surmounted by a loutrophoros.Kerameikos, Athens. Photo author

recessedframe (Fig. 8), asif intendedto depicta nichewith a vesselin it.40 YetI knowof no examplesor representationson vasesof slabstelai with nicheshousing vessels. Stone loutrophoroi and lekythoi were usually set up as freestandingsculpture on stonebases. In mostcases, a roughhole, moreor lesscircular, would be madein the pedestal;the foot of thevase wouldbe set into the preparedhole andthe remaininggaps filled with lead.4lAccordingly, one might expect to findon thefloor of theAiginetan monumenta roughlyround hole somewhat larger than the circumference of a vessel'sfoot, centered between the sidesof the niche.Although the holewe findis ellipticaland somewhat off center,we shouldnot rule out thepossibility that the niche was nevertheless designed to accommodatea stonevessel. The cutting may have been for a dowelhole, which would not dargestelltist. BeideVasen sind Mus. 984 (Clairmont,CAT2.23); no inv.no.; from Linopoti, on Cos, deutlichals Tongefasse auf die Stele Athens,Nat. Mus. 879 (Clairmont, Cos Mus.,no inv.no. (Pfuhland gesetzt,so dassim Gebrauchbefind- CAT2.887); Athens,Nat. Mus. 899 Mobius1977-1979, II, nos.2263, lichegefasse der Grabkults im Bildauf (Clairmont,CAT2.889); Athens,Nat. 2264,pl.320). derStele gezeigt werden." Other lou- Mus.2553 (Clairmont,CAT3.406a). 41. E.g., the funerarytrapezai of trophoroion a ledgeinclude Athens, Kantharoi:e.g., from Cyzicus, Istanbul, Philoxenos,Dion, and Parthenios, Nat.Mus. 2319, Clairmont,CAT Arch.Mus. 2215; fromMesambria on the Messenians,in the Kerameikos, 2.267; Athens,Nat. Mus. 884, Pontos,Sofia, Nat. Mus. 4739; from ca.340 B.C. (Ker.I 367,I 368,I 369; Clairmont,CAT2.710. Dionysopolis,Varna Mus. II1595; KerameikosXlV, pp. 105-110,figs. SS- 40. Loutrophoroi:e.g., Athens, Nat. fromMesambria, Nessebar Mus., 56, pls.22.1-3;23.2; 14.2) and the Mus.985 (Clairmont,CAT 1.947); no inv.no. (Pfuhland Mobius 1977- loutrophorosof Hegetorin the Paris,Louvre Ma 3119 (MNC 2279) 1979, II, nos.2259-2262, pl. 319). Kerameikos,350-340B.C. (MG 32; (Clairmont,CAT2.336); Athens,Nat. Kraters:e.g., from Cos(?), Cos Mus., KerameikosXlV, p. 81, pl.19.2-3). 4IO IRENE POLINSKAYA

Figure8. Funerarystele, National ArchaeologicalMuseum inv. 2553, Athens.Courtesy Museum haveneeded to be roundor centered if it wasused to affixa stonebase or plinth.The surfaceof the floorof the nicheis not as polished(especially towardthe back of the niche)as itswalls, which suggests that the surface maynot have been intended to be seen,which would be thecase if a plinth wereadded. Anothercandidate for the object in theniche is a statuein theround. On a muchlarger scale, funerary sculptures in highrelief or in the round withinarchitectural frames are well knownfrom the LateClassical and EarlyHellenistic periods.42 The proportions of theniche could accommodatea medium-sizedstatuette (H. 0.5-0.6m). The cuttingon thefloor of theniche is located0.05 m fromthe front of themonument, leaving 0.11 m betweenthe backof the cuttingand the backwall of the niche.One dowelwould have been sufficient to holda smallstatuette in place.The holein the backwall of the niche,if it is original,could have served to

42. Fuchs1993, pp. 496-498; with a human figure or a group of temporaryarchaeological record Clairmont1970, pp. 46-50, pls. 11-89 figureson top (e.g., white-ground (Lohmann 1979, p. 40), and are (Attic,Thessalian, Macedonian, Ionian, lekythos,Bonn, Akad. Kunstmus.66, not strictlycomparable to the figural andCretan monuments); Kurtz and ARV2 1229, no. 15; CVABonn 1 sculptureproposed to have been in Boardman1985, p. 156.Classical [Germany1], pls. 43.2, 4; 44.2, 4) the Aiginetan niche. vasesthat depict a gravemonument do not find supportin the con- INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 4II

stabilizethe statuette.The bottomhole by itselfdoes not allowus to de- terminedefinitively the techniqueof the attachment,or the materialof thesculpture.43 Small elliptical holes similar to thoseseen on theAiginetan monumentwere used with dowels to secureArchaic and Early Classical bronzestatues, especially those produced by hollow casting.44 Bronze, however,as far as we know,was not used for the production of filnerarysculp- turein the Classicalperiod. Donna Kurtz and John Boardman mention Hellenisticepitaphs that refer to funerarysculpture made of bronze.45 While a stonevessel or a stoneor bronzestatuette are not unlikely candidatesfor the objectin the niche,we haveto allowfor the possibility that someother, perhaps unconventional, object was placedthere as a memorialfor the deceased.The objectin the nichemay not havebeen madespecifically as a funerarypiece, but was used instead during the life- timeof theperson honored by the monument. It maybe thatthe desire to commemoratethe deceasedwith such an objectcalled for the creationof an unusualshape for the monument,in particularthe deepniche, if not thepyramidal top.

CON CLUSION

Whilethe lettering of the inscriptionon the monumentfrom the church of AgiosNikolaos on Aigina points to a datebetween ca. 400 and 300 B.C., 43. Marblewas the materialof choicefor filnerary sculpture and reliefs the shapeof the monumentdoes not findclose parallels in eitherthe vo- of the Classicaland Early Hellenistic tiveor filnerarycontexts of thisperiod. The formof the inscription,con- periods.When sculpturein the round sistingof a malename and patronymic, suggests a funeraryfunction, and wasused, it wastypically carved on a it is possiblethat the inscriptionhonors the son of the MeidylidAristo- plinththat was then set into a cutting menes,who was the heroof Pindar'sPythian 8. At the sametime, the in the bottomof the naiskosframe of the monument.These cuttings were monumentstands as an oddityin the contextof localburial practices, as mostlywide and flat, and the plinths it wasnot customaryon Aiginain the Archaic,Classical, or Hellenistic couldbe solderedonto the baseswith periodsto erectelaborate grave markers. In spiteof thelack of parallels,it lead. is veryunlikely that the presentappearance of the monumentis dueto 44. See,e.g., Keesling1995, secondaryremodeling. The monument,with its peculiardesign and well- pp.146-147; Raubitschek1938, inscription,is a significantnew piece of archaeologicaldata for p.133; 1949, p.61; Haynes1992, preserved pp.100-105, fig. 8. theperiod on Aigina most lacking in materialevidence. It is myhope that 45. Kurtzand Boardman 1985, bybringing this unusual monument from Aigina to the attentionof other pp.295,315. scholars,its functionand place will ultimately be betterdefined. 4I2 IRENE POLINSKAYA

REFEREN C ES

. . Alt-Agina II.2 = E. Walter-Karydi,Die Grossman,J. 1995."The Sculptured aginetischeBildhauerschule: Werke und FuneraryMonuments of the schriftlicheQuellen (Alt-Agina II.2), ClassicalPeriod in the Athe- Mainz 1987. nian Agora"(diss. New York Arvanitopoullos,A. S. 1906. "'Av£x- University). AoTot £ztypafpal xal 7rkaxa Haynes, D.1992. TheTechnique of Zvu£a T£y£a$,"ArchEph1906, GreekBronze Statuary, Mainz. pp.23-66. Hiller, H. 1975. IonischeGrabreliefs Barron,J.1983."The Fifth-Century derersten Hdlfte des 5. Jhs. (IstMitt- Horoi of Aegina,"JHS 103, pp. 1- BH 12), Tubingen. 12. Hornbostel-Huttner,G. 1979. Studien Buck, C. D.1955. The GreekDialects, zur romischenNischen-architektur Chicago. (Studies of the Dutch Archaeologi- Burton, R. W. B. 1962. Pindar'sPythian cal and Historical Society 9), Odes,Oxford. Leiden. Caskey,L. D. 1922. Geometryof Greek Keesling,C. 1995."Monumental Vases,Boston. PrivateDedications on the Athe- Clairmont, CAT= C. W. Clairmont, nian Acropolis,ca.600-400 B.C." ClassicalAtticTombstones, 6 vols., (diss. Universityof Michigan). Kilchberg1993. KerameikosII = H. Riemann,Die Clairmont,C. W. 1970. Gravestoneand Skulpturenvom 5. Jahrhundertbis Epigram:Greek Memorialsprom the in romischeZeit (KerameikosII), Archaicand ClassicalPeriod, Mainz. Berlin 1940. Conze, A. 1893-1922. Die attischen KerameikosXI V = W. K. Kovacsovics, GrabreliefsI-IV, Berlin. Die Eckterrassean der Grdbersterrasse Cremer,M. 1991. Hellenistisch-romische desKerameikos (Kerameikos XI V), Grabstelenin nordwestlichenKlein- Berlin 1990. asien 1-2, Bonn. Kieseritzky,G., and C. Watchinger. Diesantz, H.1965. Die thessalischen 1909. GriechischeGrabreliefs aus Grabreliefs.Studien zur nord- Suirussland,Berlin. griechischenKunst, Mainz. Kokula,G.1984. Marmorlutrophoren Drachmann,A. B. 1910. Scholiavetera (AM-BH 10), Berlin. in Pindaricarmina II, Leipzig. Koshelenko,G., I. Kruglikova,and Fabricius,J. 1999. Die hellenistischen V. Dolgorukov,eds. 1984. Anti- Totenmahlreliefs.Grabreprasenta- chryegosudarstva Severnogo Pri- tion und Wertsorstellungenin chernomoria[Ancient states of ostgriechischenStadten, Munich. the northernBlack Sea coast], Figueira,T. 1981. Aegina.Societyand Moscow. Politics,New York. Kreeb,M. 1988. Untersuchungenzur . 1991. AthensandAeginain f gurlichenAusstatung delischer theAgeof ImperialColonization, Privathduser,Chicago. Baltimore. Kurtz,D. C., andJ. Boardman.1985. . 1993. "FourNotes on the Thanatos.Tod undJenseits bei den Aiginetans in Exile,"in Excursions Griechen,Mainz. in EpichoricHistory:Aiginetan LGPN= P. M. Fraserand E. Mat- Essays,Lanham, Md., pp.293-324. thews, eds., ALexicon of Greek Firatli,N. 1964. Lesstelesfune'raires de PersonalNames, 4 vols., Oxford Byzancegre'co-romaine,Paris. 1987-2000. Fraser,P. M. 1977. RhodianFunerary Lohmann, H. 1979. Grahmdlerauf Monuments,Oxford. unteritalischenVasen, Berlin. Fraser,P. M., and T. Ronne. 1957. LSAG2= L. H. Jeffery,Local Scripts of Boeotianand WestGreek Tombstones, ArchaicGreece, 2nd ed., Oxford Lund. 1990. Fuchs, W. 1993. Die Skulpturder Meritt, B. D. 1954. "GreekInscrip- Griechen,4th ed., Munich. tions,"Hesperia 23, pp.233-283. INSCRIBED FUNERARY MONUMENT FROM AIGINA 4I3

Nakayama,N. 1982. "Untersuchung Die OstgriechischenGrabreliefs I-II, Stroud,R. 1979.The axones and der aufweissgrundigenLelythen Mainz. Iyrbeisof Drakon and Solon dargestelltenGrabmaler" (diss. Raubitschek,A.1938."ZurTechnikund (Universityof CaliforniaPubli- UniversitatFreiburg). Formder altattischen Statuenbasen," cations,Classical Studies 19), Neils, J. 2000. "Panathenaicsin the Bulletinde l'Institutarcheologique Berkeley. West,"in Panathenaika:Symposion bulgare12.1, pp. 132-181. Valavanis,P. 2000. "Panathenaische zu denPanathenaischen reisamphoren . 1949.Dedicationsprom the Amphorenauf Monumenten Rauischholzhausen25.11.-9.11.1998, AthenianAkropolis,Cambridge, spatklassischer,hellenistischer M. Bentz and N. Eschbach,eds., Mass. undromischer Zeit," in Panathe- Mainz, pp. 125-130. Rhomaios,K. A.1911. "'ApxadLxoL naika:Symposion zu denPanathe- Neuerburg,N. 1969. "Greekand Ro- EpllaL,''ArchEph 1911, pp. 149-159. naischenPreisamphoren Rauisch- man Pyramids,"Archaeology 22:2, Ridgway,B. S.1990.Hellenistic Sculpture holzhausen25.11.-29.11.1998, pp.106-115. 1, Madison. M. Bentzand N. Eschbach,eds., Palagia,O. 1984."A Niche for Kallima- Rolley,C.1994. La sculpturegresque, Mainz,pp. 161-173. chos' Lamp,"AJA88, pp. 515-521. Paris. Vedder,U. 1985. Untersuchungenzur Papachatzes,N. D.1967. IIowaorvc'ov Schmidt,S. 1991.Hellenistische Grab- plastischenAusstattung attischer 'ERAordofII£,0CU5CN: >CX=, reliefs:Typologische und chronologische Grabanlagendes 4. Jhs. v. Chr. Athens. Beobachtungen,Cologne. (Archaologie,ser. 38, vol.7), Papapostolou,J. A. 1993. Achaean Simon,E. 1980.Die Gotterder Griechen, Frankfilrt. GraveStelai, Athens. Munich. Welter,G. 1938a.Aegina,Berlin. Papastaurou,E. 1990."EvvoRoopa- Steinhauer,G.2001. To A,oxorcoRoycxo . 1938b."Aeginetica MII- 8CzxvTazv omv ALyLva,"ArchEph MOVC7£C'OII£C,OO(CCR)N, Athens. XX1V,"AA1938, pp. 480-540. 1986 [1990], pp. 49-59. Stewart,A. 1990.Greek Sculpture:An Woodhead,A. G. 1959.The Study of Pfuhl, E., and H. Mobius. 1977-1979. Exploration,New Haven. GreekInscriptions,Cambridge.

IrenePolinskaya BOWDOINCOLLEGE DEPARTMENTOF CLASSICS 7600 COLLEGESTATION BR U N S W I CK , MA I NE O4 OI I - 84 7 6 ipolinsk@bowdoin. edu