Dedicatory Inscriptions in Greek Architecture of The

Home , 360s BC, Altar of the Twelve Gods, Andron (architecture), Anta (architecture), Apellai, Athenian Treasury

HESPERIA 7I (2002) ARCH ITRAVAL Pages26I-293 ARROGANCE? DEDICATORYINSCRIPTIONS IN GREEKARCHITECTURE OF THE C LAS S I CA L P ER I OD

ABST RACT

Currentorthodoxyconsiders the proliferation of architravalinscriptionsnam- ing the donorsof architecturaldedications in the middleof the 4th centurya strikingdeparture from Greek practice of the High Classicalperiod, when modestself-effacement is supposedto havebeen the rule.I argue,however, that a comprehensiveview of the evidencesuggests substantial continuity ratherthan drastic change: that inscribing personal names on the architraves of Greekbuildings is not the productof foreigninfluence or royal arrogance, noran appropriationby individuals of rightspreviously exercised only by the state,but rather a naturaland predictable manifestation of widespreadGreek votiveand epigraphical habits of long standing.

Dedicatoryinscriptions are attested on Greekarchitectural monuments fromthe 6th century B.C. onward.lThey record dedications made both by individualsand corporate groups (usually cities), and appear on a variety of structures,including temples, treasuries, altars, stoas, gateways, foun- tainhouses, and commemorative monuments. Extant examples for the 6th and5th centuries,however, are far fewer in number,and sometimes lessimpressive in appearanceaswell, than those from the 4th centuryand later.In fact,the second halfofthe 4th centurywitnesses a striking proliferationof architecturaldedicatory inscriptions, most of themrecording gifts by individuals.2This proliferationhas oftenbeen considereda product of the greatchanges in Greeksocial and political life fromthe Classical

1. I am indebtedto morepeople on writtendrafts I amparticularly 2. No extantexamples of inscribed thanI canname for their comments gratefulto CarolLawton, Ronald architecturaldedications by individuals on andresponses to earlierversions Stroud,Hans Rupprecht Goette, areknown from the period460-360 of thispaper presented as talksat the MollyRichardson, and anonymous B.C., but morethan a dozendate be- Universityof California,Berkeley, referees.I wishalso to thankthe Arts tween360 and300. This dramatic the Universityof Virginia,McMaster ResearchBoard of McMasterUniver- increaseis not accompaniedby an University,and in Chicagoat the sityfor financialsupport, and the analogousupsurge in dedicatoryin- 99thAnnual Meeting of the Archaeo- DeutschesArchaologisches Institut scrlptlons. . namlng . cltles . . or corporate logicalInstitute of America.For advice, andEcole fran5caise d'Athenes for groups. information,references, and comments photographsand assistance.

American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org UMHOLTZ 262 GRETCHEN tothe Hellenisticperiod an indexof the declineof oldercivic values of thepolis and the riseof the ambitiousindividual, no longerrestrained by thereligious or socialscruples of the ClassicalAge.3 In thearchaeological record of theClassical period, architraval dedicatoryinscriptions by individualsseem to makea suddenand spectacular debut,not in the heartof the Greekworld, but rather in Caria,with the imposingdedications of Maussollosand his brother Idrieus in thesanctu- aryof Zeusat Labraunda(350s-340s B.C.).4 Theseinclude two imposing androns,one dedicated by Maussollos and one by Idrieus, a stoadedicated byMaussollos, and a peristyletemple, a gateway,a suite of oikoi,and anoth- erDoric building, all dedicatedby Idrieus.Many of thesemonuments carryprominent, elegantly carved dedicatory inscriptions in the centerof theirmarble architraves.5 In his publicationof theseinscriptions, Jonas Crampawrites: "It was contrary to theolder Greek spirit to recorda pub- licor private dedication of anedifice to (a)god(s) by an inscription on the wallsor on thearchitrave, though some few instances are known."6 In one formor anotherthis view is sharedby manyscholars.7 It continuesto be widelyaccepted in partbecause it fitsso wellwith much that we know,or thinkwe know,about Greek (and particularly Athenian) political and socialvalues of the 5th centuryand the hostilityof Atheniandemocracy towardanyone setting himself above his fellows.8 Accordingly, the phenom- enonof privatearchitectural dedication, and the prominentinscribing

3. Forexample, Lehmann (Samo- 4th-centuryexamples of architraval detailby Gunter(1985, pp. 118-119). thrace4.2, p.118) writes:"In the dec- inscriptions.Ongoing work by H. R. 7. See,for example, Hornblower theirdedi- 340-30 B.C.... the recordingof Goettesuggests that Athenian choregic 1982,p.274: "By inscribing of . ade . . . . sucha personaldedication of a building monumentscould have taken the form catlonsln consplcuousposloons on t.ze

. . . . . n a monumenta. lnscrlptlon on ltSen- ofbuildings with inscribedarchitraves architravesand facades of religious tablaturewas a noveltyattainable only asearly as the 360s B.C. (Goette1999). buildings,the Hekatomnidsbroke with bya memberof a royalfamily.... The 5. Forthese buildings and inscrip- a firmarchaic and classical Greek precedentfor dedications recorded on tions,see a fullerdiscussion below. tradition.The traditionwas that which thegreat altars of Greeksanctuaries 6. Crampa(Labraunda III.2, p. 5) enjoinedself-effacement by the wasoffered by city-states. . . and,in brieflyadumbrates a slow and sporadic dedicants,however generous, of such the fourthcentury, only royalty could developmentof the practice,which he buildings.... Hence,precedents for assumesuch prerogatives." Similarly, seesbecoming more common in the Hekatomnidpractice may be sought withparticular reference to temples, Hellenisticperiod and normal by frombeyond the Greekworld." Other Hornblower(1982, p.281) remarks: Romantimes. In lightof eastern examplesare listed in n. 3, above. "Greekpractice regarding temple precedents(Egyptian, Lydian, and 8. The institutionof ostracism,the dedicationsis sociallyilluminating. In Persian),however, he concludesthat cessationof the use of funeraryrelief few otherareas is it possibleto traceso it was"natural that Mausollus and sculpture,and the tendencyin por- clearlythe developmentfrom the clas- otherHecatomnids proudly recorded traitureto emphasizecommunally sicalcorporatism of old Greeceto the theirdedications of monumental valuedcivic virtues rather than indiv- assertivenessof the Hellenisticperiod." edificesby meansof inscriptions, idualfeatures all seemto supportthis Otherexamples include Morgan 1993, mostlyplaced on the architraves, generalview; see Scholl1996, pp.26- p. 19;and Labraunda III.2, p.5, both wherethey could be readin the most 29, n. 178.Yet, recent scholarship also .. quotedbelow, as well as Botermann . mpresslve* way. highlightsthe complexityof ongoing 1994,p. 182;Bean 1966, pp.58-59; The mostcomprehensive presenta- tensionsbetween individual and Picard1965, p.95. tionof the precedentsfor and signifi- communalprestige and the remarkable 4. The earliestof theseis the andron canceof the dedicatoryinscriptions rangeof responsesto thesetensions in dedicatedby Maussollos(Andron B) fromLabraunda is thatof Hornblower variousarenas of Athenianpublic life; on the terracebelow the Temple of (1982,pp. 286-288). The possible an excellentexample is PeterWilson's Zeus(discussed below). The monu- contributionsand significance of Near studyof the choregeia(Wilson 2000, mentsat Labraundamay soon have to Eastern(especially Persian) and esp.pp. 11-49, 109-197). surrendertheir status as the earliest Anatolianmodels are discussed in ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 263 of the nameof the donor,particularly in sucha highlyvisible location as thearchitrave, has been frequently viewed as an example of thecitizens of Greekpoleis adopting the practices of foreigners,tyrants, and kings.9 In the followingreconsideration of Greek architectural dedications, I arguethat the significanceand novelty of placinga dedicatoryinscription on a building'sarchitrave should not be overestimated,that foreign influ- enceis negligiblefor this Greek practice, and that fundamental political or religiouschanges need not be invokedto accountfor the proliferationof survivingexamples in mainlandGreece in the secondhalf of the4th century.The inscribedmonuments at Labraundahave deservedly played a prominentrole in scholarshipon thistopic (and will be discussedin more detailbelow), but they are not the sole,or eventhe primary,focus of this paper.The goal here is to assemblea morecomplete picture ofthe rangeof possibilities,precedents, and expectations that shaped Greek attitudes to- wardinscribing architectural dedications. In lightof theirremediable loss of one of the mostessential categories of evidencefor classicalpractice,

...... namey palntecWlnscnptlons on wooc Wor plaster, lt 1S verylmportant not to ignoreor marginalizethe potentiallyrelevant types of evidencethat do remain.Accordingly, the followingdiscussion takes a broadview, consid- eringepigraphical, aesthetic, and religious as well as sociopoliticalfactors, andtheir manifestations in othermedia as well as architecture.I shall arguethat architraval inscriptions should be viewednot as a departurefrom thetraditions of major(uninscribed) public architectural monuments, but ratheras a consistentmanifestation of long-standingepigraphical habits applicableto personalreligious dedications of alltypes.

EXAMPLES FROM THE ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

The extantexamples of inscribedGreek architectural dedications from the Archaicand Early Classical periods are relatively few in number,but theyprovide important background for assessing later monuments. These earlyexamples encompass a varietyof donors,building types, and geo- graphicallocations, as well as of lettersizes, styles, and positions of the inscriptionson the monuments.The follovringsurvey illustrates the variety and flexibilitythat characterizedthis epigraphicalform in its early stages,but also highlights underlying aesthetic principles and shared fea- turesthat continue in latermanifestations. Oneof themost impressive early examples of aninscription on a Greek buildingis animposing (ca. 8 m long)but imperfectly preserved inscrip- tioncarved in largeletters on thevertical face of thelimestone stylobate of theTempleof Apolloat Syracuse,constructed ca. 580 s.c.l°Although the stoneis badlyweathered, approximate consensus has been reached on the

9. Hornblower1982, p. 274: "Once p. 118 (quotedin partin n. 3, above). the traditionhad been breached, private 10.IGXIV 1; SEGXXXl841; citizensfollowed the exampleof the Guarducci1985; letterheight: ca. 0.15- satraps";see alsoMorgan 1993, p. 19 0.18 m;drawing: Guarducci 1967, p. (quotedbelow), and Samothrace 4.2, 343, fig. 173. tion that TOIIEXONIshould be understoodas AsokAxve,but it is not

264 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ identificationof mostof the survivingletters, though not on theirinter- pretation.llOne possible reading of the textis:

K£0M[. .] £5: £s06£a£ T0s£X0V6: ho KV686£taa: X£st[X]£5 TV£La: XaXa F£t0ya.12 Kleom[..]es, son of Knidieidas,made (the temple) for Apollo, and Epik[l]es(made) the columns,beautiful works.

The inscriptionis generallyconsidered to be dedicatory,on the assump- certainwhat is beingdedicated the entiretemple, part of thetemple, or somethingelse entirely.l3 It is generallyagreed that the principal dedicator is Kleom. . es sonof Knidieidas,but his role and status are not clear. Like- wise,it is notclear whether EIIIKAH is anadjective modifying oTvA£ea or thename of a seconddedicator, Epikles.The use ofthe verb £s06N^£ (rather thanav£0Nx£) has suggested to somethat Kleom . . es shouldbe anarchi- tect,not simplya donor,but this neednot be the case.l4In conjunction witha newreading of the inscription,M. Guarduccihas recently revived T.J. Dunbabin'ssuggestion that Kleom . . es wasneither donor nor architect,but instead a localnotable entrusted with responsibility for oversight of theproject.l5 I believe that the dedicatory nature of theinscription must implysome kind of personalfinancial contribution, whether direct (a con- tractorcovering part of the costs)or indirect(an architect working without pay).Whatever his statusand the precisenature of his contribution, thelarge scale of thelettering with which Kleom . . es advertisedhis role is not surpassedin anyextant monument until the Stoaof theAthenians at Delphiat leasthalf a centurylater. The contributionof theLydian king Kroisos to theadornment of the greatArchaic Temple of Artemisat Ephesos(before 547 B.C.) iS attested

11.The extensivebibliography is possiblealternate reading for the last Svenson-Evers1996, pp. 382-383. mostreadily accessed through Engel- twowords. 15. See n. 12, above.Dunbabin mann1981 and Guarducci 1987. Jeffery(1990, p. 265) notesthat the 1948,p. 59, n. 3: "Hewas perhaps an 12. Guarducci1967, p.343; on the inscriptionappears to datelater than officialof the Statecharged with the basisof l9th-centurydrawings she has the buildingitself (i.e., to the thirdor buildingof the temple,as Agathokles morerecently proposed K?kro[rv]rc,: evenfourth quarter of the 6th century). wasof an earlyAthenaion"; see Guar- 506rOr IO5rXOV6: ho Kv8Cr8a: If the inscriptiontruly is thislate I ducci1987, pp. 44-45. Literary xrsrAr crcl)XrLa:xa[X]a Froya (SEG thinkit is likelyto be a reinscriptionof referencesto individualsin analogous EXI 841),reading rsrAr as "seton an earliertext, perhaps originally carved rolesinclude Agathokles at Syracuse foot,instigated" ("e suscito i colonnati") or paintedelsewhere. Reinscription is (Diod.Sic. 8.11), Phalaris at Akragas as in Hom. Od.22.49 (Guarducci1987, attestedfor the Marathonbase beside (Polyainos,Strat. 5.1.1),Theronat expandingon herearlier publication of the AthenianTreasury at Delphiand Akragas(Polyainos, Strat. 6.51- thisreading in RendLinc37 [1982], forthe Altarof the Chians,also at a closedoublet of the Phalarisstory), pp.13-20). Engelmann1981, p.94, Delphi(discussed below). andthe Alkrnaionidaiat Delphi(Hdt. basedin parton wordgroupings 13. Forthe Doricspelling AsrVxv, 5.62.3).Holloway (1991, p. 73) suggestedby the interpuncts,reads: see Burkert1975, pp. 6-7. endorsesGuarducci's view; he sees KAro[....]rc,: rsoxror IO5rXOV6: ho 14. Svenson-Evers(1996, pp. 462- Kleom. . es as an epistatestaking par- Kv8Cr[C]8a: xrsLxAr oli)XrLa: xa[Ba] 463, 466-467) concludesthat this ticularpride in the columnsas his own Fr)ya ( Kleo.... es, son of Knidiei- . nscnptlon. . ls. not an arc.lltect's. specialachievement: "They were an das,made for Apollo also famous col- signature;for other examples of additionto whatwas expected, perhaps umns,beautiful works"). He considers rsoc>r as causative(referring evento whathad originally been xa[X(X)a] Fr pya ("andother works") a to the donor,not the artist),see planned." ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 265

by fragmentsof the inscribedbase molding of fouror fiveof the sculpted marblecolumn drums:

(1) [5a^t£V5] Kto[otoos aV£0NX£V] (2) [5astA£V5Ktootoos av£]0Nx[£v] (3) ,Ba[atA£vsKtootoos] av[£0Nx£v] (4) [,BastA£vsKtootoos av£0Nx]£v.l6 Ki[ng]Kr[oisos] d[e]dicated (this).

The placementof the inscriptionon thesecolumn drums is analogousto that of dedicatoryinscriptions in othermedia. Greek votive gifts of all kindsoften carried their dedicatory inscription on the baseon whichthe giftwas displayed, rather than on theobject itself. Kouroi and korai, both votiveand funerary, were frequently set on inscribedbases, although the figuresthemselves could also be inscribed.l7This was both a practicaland aestheticmatter: the baseoffered a plain,smooth surface suitable for inscribing,and the object itselfwas not cluttered or damaged thereby. In the caseof Kroisos'ssculpted column drums, the inscribed molding under the feet of the figuresfunctions visually as a basefor the relieffigures pro- gressingaround the drums. Similarly, at theTemple of Apolloat Syracuse, thestylobate (the base of thebuilding as a whole)provides a clearlyvisible andreadily accessible location for the dedicatoryinscription. On theGreek mainland, a nearly contemporary marble Ionic treasury buildingat Delphi(mid-6th century) shows a differentapproach. This monumentcarried its dedicatoryinscription on the architrave,in rela- tivelysmall letters in a singleline fromnear the left-handedge, with a short,boustrophedon return at the endof theline. The textis quitefrag- mentaryand no consensusexists on itsrestoration. Georges Roux has pro- posedthe following:

Tov0Nsavtoov TOV8£ zaeTayaBFa[a AsoRxve] Nv0Ce [av£0Nx£]8£xa[av o Aa,uogo Kve8C]v.l8 [Thedemos of the Knidiansdedicated] this treasury and the statue[s]to Pythian[Apollo] as a tith[e].

The restorationof the Knidiansas the dedicatorsin this fragmentary textis basedupon architectural considerations in conjunction with a brief

16.IEphesos 1518; Syll.3 6; London, 17. Raubitschek(1949) presentsa aso ly sokry]v, but Salviat(1977, BritishMuseum B 16. See Hicks1890, wide selection. p. 24) hasestablished that the first no.518,with referenceto Hdt.1.92 for 18. Pouillouxand Roux 1963, survivingletters must have been the Kroisos'shaving donated"the majority p. 68; letter height: 0.03-0.06 m; pho- beginningof the originaltext. Salviat of the columns."For bibliography and tographsand drawings:Salviat 1977, (1977)does not offera texthimself, commentarysee Viviers1992, p.88, pp. 26-27. If Salviat'sreconstruction of but a roughapproximation based on ns.117-118, fig. 12;Schaber 1982, the spacing of the blocks is correct(see his discussionand drawings (esp. p. 32, pp. 13-18. Viviers(1992, p. 88, n. 118) below), then the actualtext must have fig. 6) mightbe as follows:Tov 0nsau- notesthat Schaber'sdrawing (1982, been longer than this or any previous povTov8s xal TayaBCua[xa---ca. 6--- p. 14) is moreaccurate in somedetails version. Syll.38 reads [ Kve8toe]Tov AsoExv] Ilo0Ce[------ca. 25------] thanGuarducci 1967, pp.264-265, 0Noaupov [o]v8s xa1 TayaBEa [Ta 8Exa[av------ca. 12------]v. fig.ll8. 'AsoExve] Ilo0Ce [ocvs0sv]8ExoX[ocv 266 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ mentionin Pausanias(10.11.5).l9The inscribed blocks are unusually shal- lowfor an architrave,but the undersideof the largestand best-preserved blockhas a smoothlyfinished soffit, with moreroughly dressed resting surfacesat its endsonly clearindication that it wasdesigned to spanthe openingbetween two supports.20With the exceptionof the finalreturn, thelettering is generallyconfined to the upperthird of the faceof the blocks;this position,as well as the slightirregularity of the line,is very similarto thatof theinscription on the stylobateof theTemple of Apollo atSyracuse. This is theearliest extant architraval dedicatory inscription; it mayalso be the earliestextant Greek architectural dedicatory inscription bya corporategroup. In Athens,parts of severalinscribed altars survive from the Archaic period.The earliestof these(ca. 600-575? B.C.) iS a largeporos slab, the crowningelement of an altar,or perhapsof a table,whose inscription ran fromright to left acrossthe long, smoothly dressed, front face:

[------ca. 13------av£0]£x£v. A0£vatat Xa[C]ptov . Ia,u£uov . KA£8t?[o h0toS].2l

. . Cha[i]rion,[son of] Kledik[os,dedic]ated [the . . . ] to Athena whenhe wastreasurer.

Thededicator may have been the sameChairion whose tombstone (in Eretria)identifies him as one of the Eupatridai,and who mayultimately havebeen connected to the familyof Kleiniasand Alkibiades.22 A porosaltar of apparentlysomewhat smaller dimensions was dedi- catedto AthenaNike on thewestern bastion of theAcropolis at or shortly beforethe middleof the 6th century.23One block of the dadowas found reusedand in damagedcondition; its frontface was inscribed in fivelines, beginningquite close to the top andleft sideof theblock:

I£g A0£[vata5]

I£S NTX£S

°y°S

nalpO X£8 [£g]

, , £g10 t£a£V. vacat 24 Altarof Athe[na]Nike. Patrok(l)eid[es] made/dedicated (it). IV]) 19.Bommelaer 1991, pp. 141-142; Delphi,were for manydecades Davies(1971, pp.12-15 [600, withthe Pausaniasmentions the Treasury of the concealedby plaster(Salviat 1977, acceptsthe association not follow Knidianstogether with those of the pp.23-24). funerarymarker, but does Chairion's Atheniansand Thebans. 21. IG I3590; letter height: 0.06- Raubitschekin connecting 20. Salviat1977, pp. 28-29. The 0.07 m (roundletters smaller); height familywith that of Alkibiades. drawingsee other,smaller fragments conform to of face:0.30 m, length:2.30 m; Rau- 23. Fordescription and his drawingis thispattern as well; for a drawingof the bitschek1949, pp.364-365 (no.330); Mark1993, pp.32-34; of the undersidesof the blocks,see Salviat photograph:Kirchner 1948, no. 4. The basedon an earlierreading 1977,pp. 26-27, fig.2. Earliertheories placementof the letters,immediately dedicator'sname (Patrokles). 0.03- aboutthe placementof thiscourse belowthe upperedge, resembles that 24. IG I3596; letter height: Raubi- variedwidely; resting surfaces of the on the stylobateof theTemple of 0.04 m, lines4-5 stoichedon; (no.329). blocks,formerly incorporated in a Apolloat Syracuse. tschek1949, pp.359-364 reconstructionin the museumat 22. Raubitschek1949, pp.364-365; ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 267

Becauseof damageto theright-hand side of thestone, the termination of the dedicator'sname is not certain.Here, as at theTemple of Apolloat Syracuse,£z0t£a£(V) indicatesresponsibility for the dedication rather than directauthorship of the handiwork.25 Fromthe secondhalf of the centuryin Athenswe haveportions of two marblealtars with dedicatoryinscriptions on the frontface of their crowningelements. The earlierof these(ca. 530520 B.C.) iS represented by threeinscribed fragments; it wasapparently dedicated by threeindi- viduals,but only the thirdname survives in filll:

[ -? Xat]p£X£t8£g *- 90z£t0£g *[- £]z0t0V *. [- - - IOV O]OV. vacat26 [ . . ., Chai]releides,(and) Thopeithes made/dedicated [the al]tar [for/to. . . ].

The textruns in a singleline fromleft to right,with lettersvery neatly carvedin the upperhalf of thefascia; although the letters lie in theupper partof the band,they are set nearthe middle,rather than along the very top as was the caseon the Templeof Apolloat Syracuse,the Knidian Treasury,and the altardedicated by Chairion.27 The crowningfascia of a whitemarble altar of ApolloPythios, dedicatedby Peisistratos son of Hippias(in or shortly after 522/1 B.C.), borean elegantlycut metrical inscription:

FV£a 108£ h£5 apX£g £tOLOl[palOg hzzto h]Utogo£X£V AZouOMog U0[t]0 £V l£F£V£t.28 In the temenosof ApolloPyth[i]os, Peisist[ratos,] son [of Hippias,] dedicatedthis memorial of his archonship.

The letteringruns in a singleline, slightly above the centerof a flatfascia immediatelyabove a cymareversa molding with lesbian leaf decoration.29 Liketwo of the earlierAthenian altars, and like the KnidianTreasury at Delphi,this monumentis inscribedon a flatsurface in a highposition,

25. Raubitschek1949, p. 359: scriptionmay have been recut at the "Patrokleswas not the mason,but the endof the 5th century.Viviers points dedicator";see alsoMark 1993, p. 33, to similaritiesbetween this inscription with bibliographyin n. 10. andcontemporary or earlierIonian 26. IG I3605; letter height: 0.03- inscriptionsand associates it within- 0.035 m (roundletters 0.02 m);height scriptionson worksby Endoiosor his offace:0.115 m, length:2.30 m. Kirch- atelier.Dillon (1995,esp. pp. 62-65) ner1948, no. 4. surveysanc reJects. varlous . recent argu- 27. Forphotograph, see Raubitschek mentsfor dating after 522/1 B.C.; Aloni 1949,p. 366 (no.331). (2000,pp. 84-86) alsoargues against 28. IG I3948 (IG I2761; EM 6787); downdating. SEGXXXl 31; cf.Thuc.6.54.The 29. The letteringbegan at the left- date,based on the archonshipof Pei- handedge of the monument;at the end sistratos(Develin 1989, p. 47), has of the line the letteringbecame some- recentlybeen much discussed. Viviers whatless tidyand precisc lessregular (1992,pp. 87-88) rejectsImmerwahr's in bothhorizontal and vertical

. . . view(1990, pp. 18, 76) thatthe in- poslhonlng. 268 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

Figure1. Inscribedcrowning ratherthan on the base;this is the locationthat would yield the greatest moldingofthe Altarof Apollo, . . . . Delphi.Courtesy Ecole fran5caise VlSlD1 .lty. in frontof the d'Athenes,photo P. Amandry, neg. The impressivemarble altar dedicated by the Chians L.4187.51 greatTemple of Apolloat Delphi,ca. 500 B.C., wasalso inscribed on its crowningmolding (Fig. 1):

XtoxXAsoVxvt Tov ,8x,uov.30 The Chians(dedicated) the altarto Apollo.

PierreAmandry has arguedthat the survivinginscription belongs to a Hellenisticversion ofthe monument, but that its text and position, though notall details of its letterforms, replicate those of the Archaicoriginal.3l Thebrief inscription consists of a singleline runningfrom the left edge andstopping well short of center;for maximum legibility, the letters nearly fillthe height of theband in whichthey are located. The prominenceand visibilityof theinscription derived not only from its lofty location, but also fromthe colorcontrast between the white marble of the crowningmolding andthe blue-black stone of whichthe altarwas primarily made. Perhapsthe mostprominent dedicatory inscription of all at Delphi wasthat of the Stoaof theAthenians, just below the Altar of the Chians, againstthe greatpolygonal wall supporting the templeterrace. The pre- cisedate of the stoais controversial,but shouldfall somewhere between

30. Syll.3l9a; FdD III.3,no.212; Amandrynotes (1986, p. 217) that"if it Homolle1893, p. 614 (briefmention); werenot forthe mouldingand Herodo- 1896,pp. 617-620; Amandry 1986, tus,this inscriptionwould have been p.206. datedto the fourthcentury." The monu- 31. Amandry1986, pp.216-217. mentas seenon site todayis the result The architecturepreserves Archaic of a modernreconstruction carried out moldingprofiles, but uses hook-clamps partiallyin 1920and more fully in 1959 andhorizontal pour channels. The let- (Amandry1986, pp. 206-209). tersdo not replicateArchaic forms- ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 269

Figure2. Stoa of the Athenians, Delphi. CourtesyEcole fran,caise d'Athenes,photo P. Amandry, neg. 10.836

480 and450 s.c.32The inscriptionon its stylobateis impressivelylarge andbeautiful, with letters among the largest to havesurvived from the 5th century(Figs. 2-3). It is carvedin a singleline and the lettersoccupy nearlythe full heightof the stylobate,running from left to right.The inscriptionreads:

'A0£VatOt aV£0£OaV T£V oToav%at Ta howA[a %]at Ta%oo£ota

h£X0VT£5 TOV wok£[Xto]v.33 The Atheniansdedicated the stoaand the equipme[nta]nd the sternornaments, having taken them from their ene[mie]s.

The Stoaof the Atheniansfollows the well-establishedpractice of placinga dedicatoryinscription immediately beneath the dedication itself.

32. Pausanias(10.11.6) states that accompanylng. lnscrlptlons. . . no .onger originaldedication of the building. the Atheniansbuilt a stoaout of the extant)that the victoriesinclude those Amandryand Fomine (1953, pp. 112- spoilstaken from the Peloponnesians of Phormio(429 B.C.). Becausefeatures 114)believe that this is a dedicationby andtheir allies; he mentionsships' of the architectureand letter style Kimonof bootyfrom Mykale and ornamentsand bronze shields and suggesta muchearlier date, however, Sestos(479-478 B.C.), butWalsh recordsthe namesof the citiesfrom manyscholars believe that Pausanias (1986)argues for a laterdate. The 470s whichthe Atheniansdedicated first hasmistakenly conflated the dedication seemmost probable to me. fruits.Pausanias infers from the of the Peloponnesianspoils with the 33. Syll.329. 270 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

Figure3. Detail of inscriptionon Butin the relationof letterheight to heightof inscribedsurface, it is ef- stylobateof Stoa of the Athenians, fectingat a muchlarger scale the aestheticpreferences shown in the Delphi. CourtesyEcole fran,caise Artemisioncolumn drums and in the crowningmoldings of the altarsof d'Athenes,neg. 12.688 the Chiansand the younger Peisistratos. The prominenceof thisinscrip- tionwas achieved not only through the size of itslettering, but also through its position.Because of the steeplyrising course of the SacredWay, the inscriptionon thestylobate of thestoa would appear at eyelevel or higher asone approached. Thus the location on thestylobate is in no sensea sign of modesty-it is in factan impressiveexample of conspicuousdisplay, successfullyexploiting particular local conditions.34 Severalother, less well preserved,early instances may also be men- tionedhere. Thucydides (6.54.6-7) reports that Peisistratos the Younger dedicatedthe Altar of theTwelve Gods in the Agoraof Athens,but that its inscriptionwas obliterated in a laterenlargement of thealtar. No traces of this(or any subsequent) inscription now survive, but the expansionin whichit vanishedseems to haveoccurred in the finalthird of the 5th centurys.c.35 At Delphi,Plutarch reports that the Corinthianssought andreceived permission to inscribethe treasurydedicated by Kypselosas thatof the city.36Plutarch's wording does not offera clearindication of whetherthis inscription constituted a replacementof one dedicatoryin- scriptionwith another.37 One fragmentary poros block inscribed with the

34. Of course,practical consider- Ilecmxpvoouv av8peavTa xae nov Corinthians.Without more precise ationsalso play a role:the entablature rvTauOa TOOTOVLOsaupov rstypaQat lntormatlon. , . on tlmlng. . we cannot of the stoaseems to havebeen of wood g woArg. ArA

lettersKOPIN has previously been taken as a possibleremnant of the(dedicatory?)inscription referred to by Plutarch.Jean Bousquet, however, has associatedthis block with another closely similar fragment on whichthe lettersi\E survive;he offersthe plausiblerestoration i\r[X(poL rAoxav] KotoLv[0LoLSstoo,uavrLav] ("The De[lphians granted promanteia to the] Corin[thians]").38Accordingly, we cannotbe certainwhether Plutarch re- fersto thisinscription or to another,nor whether Kypselos's name origi- nallyappeared on the building;if it did,it wouldbe the earliestknown exampleof aninscribed architectural dedication by anindividual. At Olympia,Pausanias reports (6.19.15) that the inscriptionof the treasurynearest the stadium says that the treasury and the images within it area dedicationof the Geloans.He doesnot indicatewhere this inscriptionwas located, and no tracesof it nowsurvive. The Sikyoniantreasury, datingto the firsthalf of the 5th century,is inscribedon the frontface of the anta,perhaps indicating a preferencefor displaycloser to eye level: SrxvxvLoL("Sikyonians").39 The inscription was carved over the joint be- tweentwo blocks, of whichonly the uppersurvives; this failure to avoid thejoint mayindicate that the letteringbegan immediately below some objectmounted on the antaabove it. Withoutthe lowerblock we do not knowwhether there was more to theinscription and cannot tell whether it is a dedicatoryinscription for the buildingor for someother offering.40 Architecturalfragments from Delphi and Olympiaare not abundant enoughto indicatewhether most treasury buildings carried inscriptions or wherethese would have been located, but the examplesthat survive suggestthat a rangeof positionswere possible.4l

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON EARLY EXAMPLES

Severalconclusions epigraphic,aesthetic, and sociopoliticalmay be drawnfrom this survey of architecturaldedicatory inscriptions of theAr- chaicand Early Classical periods. Although the inscription from Syracuse

38. Bousquet1970, pp. 672-673. Chianscarried both a dedicatoryand a manteiainscription of uncertaindate,

. . . . The scriptis Delphian,of the firsthalf promantela lnscrlptlon. perhapsof the 4th centuryB.C. On the of the 5th centuryB.C.; the blocks 39.IvO649; SEGXLII 393; brown fragmentaryarchitrave of the Massaliot probablybelong to the horizontal sandstone. Treasury(second half of the 6th cen- corniceof the building.Letter height 40. IvO 650 (roughlycontempo- turyB.C.) arepreserved three letters ca.0.13 m;the lettersfill mostof the rary),carved on the sideof one of the carvedin the late5th or early4th cen- heightof the flatface on whichthey are antaeof the sametreasury, seems to tury:z A A (a secondz waslater inscribed,like those on the stylobateof recordanother dedication. It too has added);see Daux 1958. At Olympia, the Stoaof the Athenians.I disagree letteringthat crosses the joint between too, single-wordinscriptions were with Partida'sview (2000, p. 180) that blocks. addedto somebuildings long after "oftenthe awardof promanteiaor 41. Amandry(1988, pp. 600-601) the originalconstruction (IvO 653: proxeny. . . waspreferable to a plain notesthat poor preservation of the Mry[ato]rxv,on the architraveof the dedicatoryinscription." Although both architraveof the SiphnianTreasury MegarianTreasury in lettersof the mayconfer prestige, these are two very doesnot allowcertainty, but concludes: Romanperiod; IvO 652:Sa,uexv, on a differentcategories of inscription one "Lenom des donateursetait probable- shallowblock from an unknown pertainingto a directtransaction with mentgrave a l'architravedu tresor;il building,letters of the Hellenistic the god andthe otherto a relationship l'etaitsurement au linteau de la porte." period);these may be moreproperly with the Delphiansor the sanctuary The (partiallypreserved) inscription consideredas labelsthan as dedicatory

. . . administration.The Altarof the on the lintelis FdD III.1 197,a pro- lnscrlptlons. 272 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

Figure4. Votivecolumn dedicated by posesdifficulties in detail,all of the architecturaldedications discussed Ithidiketo Athena Poliouchos, aboveemploy the patternsor formulasthat were already well established Athens (EM inv. 6241). Courtesy for votivegifts in othermedia. They includevarious combinations of DeutschesArchaologisches Institut, Athens, the basicelements of Greekdedicatory inscriptions: the nameof the neg.NM 2403 donor,name of the recipient,identification of the gift, andoccasion of the gift.The presenceor absenceof anyof theseelements seems to be determinedby circumstancesspecific to the monument,rather than the resultof any specialrules or habitsapplicable to architecturaldedica- tionsin particular.In short,nothing in the wordingor formulasof these dedicationsdistinguishes them from inscriptions on dedicationsin other media.42 Greatvariety is evidencedboth in lettersize and in placementof the inscriptions,but some apparent preferences may be noted.Well-defined, narrowbands, such as stylobatesand bases (or base moldings), or crown- ingfascias of altars,were often favored locations; this preference is seenas wellin thehabit of inscribingflutes of dedicatorycolumns (Fig. 4).43 Such bandsoffered convenient limits and structure for the lettering,giving it prominence,but also maintaining harmony with the monument as a whole. Substantialvariety in placementon the buildingis possible.Flat stone facesin highlyvisible positions are ideal, but it is particularcircumstances suchas material,scale, and the natureof the site (andprobably of nearby monumentsand inscriptions as well)that most directly affect the placementof the inscriptions.44Clarity and prominence are consistent goals, but thereare no fixedor universalrules governing how theseshould or shouldnot be achieved.

42. It is worthnoting, however, 43. Examplesof votivecolumns includedthe crowningmoldings of thatalthough in offeringsof other thusinscribed: Raubitschek 1949, relativelylow monumentslike altars, sorts(generally quite small in scale) pp.5-28. On all of the monuments the stylobatesof buildingswhose scale the formulais sometimesreduced to discussedthus far, with the exception or locationrendered this position more justthe nameof the divinity,no cer- of theTreasury of the Knidiansat highlyvisible (Temple of Apolloat taincase survives of an architectural Delphiand the SikyonianTreasury Syracuse,Stoa of the Atheniansat dedicatoryinscription that did not at Olympia,the inscriptionsare Delphi),and the architraveor antaof includethe dedicator'sname as positionedwithin a distinctband. smallertreasury buildings. well. 44. Highlyeffective areas for display ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 273

FinaSly,it shouldbe notedthat extant examples of Archaicand Early Classicalarchitectural inscriptions are not restricted to anyparticular geo- graphicalor political center. Moreover, both individuals and poleis are rep- resentedas dedicators.45In both cases the inscriptionserves to recorda relationshipwith the divinityin questionand to presentthe achievement andstatus of the donorto the appropriateaudience.

ARCHITRAVAL DEDICATORY INSCRIPTIONS AT LABRAUNDA

Thereare no extantexamples of architecturaldedicatory inscriptions from buildingsof the secondhalf of the 5th or the early4th century.When theydo reappearin thearchaeological record, later in theClassical period, theseinscriptions show greater uniformity in styleand placement than did the Archaicand Early Classical examples. The buildingmaterial is now almostalways marble, and the architraveis frequentlythe favoredloca- tion.This pattern (i.e., architraval inscription in marble)is usedwith great consistency,authority, and grace by Maussollos and Idrieus in theirdedi- cationsat Labraunda.Examination of the relationshipof thesemonu- mentsto Greektraditions can contribute,at leastindirectly, to a better 45. The factthat no inscriptionsby understandingof architecturaldedicatory behavior on the Greekmain- poleisare attested within cities' own territorieshas led manyto conclude landin thisperiod for which direct evidence is so scarce.To thatend, the thatpoleis inscribed buildings that were followingaccount reviews the architecturaldedications at Labraunda dedicatedoutside of theirown territory, in lightof theaesthetic principles and epigraphical habits identified above but not thosewithin. I suggestbelow as characteristicof Greekpractice in the Archaicand EarlyClassical thatthe primarydistinctions underly- periods. ing thisphenomenon are not necessar- buildingsat Labraundainclude traditional Greek ily onesof geographyand audience, but The Hekatomnid ratherof the natureand funding of forms,Anatolian building types, and some unusual innovations. The heart eachproject, i.e., the moretechnical of the sanctuarywas a small,Archaic temple of Zeus,ultimately replaced detailsof the building'sstatus as a by Idrieuswith a largerperipteral temple (perhaps completing work be- dedication. gunby Maussollos).46Around this earlier temple, Maussollos added two 46. Forbuilding phases, see buildings,probably beginning in theearly 350s.47 One of these,the North LabraundaI.3, pp.40-46. Forearly dedicationsat the sanctuary,see Stoa,was a verytraditional type of buildingfor any Greek sanctuary, but Hornblower1982, p.278. the other,Andron B, wasunusual, perhaps unique, both in its designand 47. Hellstrom1996a, p. 134. its decoration;it employsGreek architectural orders and ornament in a 48. The superstructureof the stoais nonconventionalway and its planseems to owemore to Anatolianthan to to assessthe not well enoughpreserved Greekbuildingtypes.48 In broadterms, the andron, distyle in antis, resem- degreeof conservatismor innovationof orsmall temple. It was,however, intended to its architecturalorder. blesa largetreasury building 49. A good,recent overview of the accommodateritual dining and also included a broad,elevated niche across features,functions, and significance of the backof the interior,perhaps an indicationof dynasticor rulercult this monument,with currentbibliogra- filnctions;the exteriorfeatured a boldlymixed order, with a Doricentab- phy,may be foundin Hellstrom1996a, laturesupported by Ioniccolumns.49 Maussollos's brother and successor pp. 134-136;the architectureis dis- Idrieusdedicated an andron,gateway, and set of oikoi,and replaced the cussedby Westholm (Labraunda I.2, pp.45-51, 84, 93-95, 103-108),as well earliertemple with a largerperistyle structure in the Ionicorder. as by Hellstrom(1981; 1989; 1996a; Thesebuildings are unusual in manyrespects, but in theirdedicatory 1996b). formulasthey are utterly conventional and fillly in accordancewith Greek 274 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

Figure5. Dedicatoryinscription traditionsand practice. The inscription of AndronB (before352 s.c.) may fromAndron B, Labraunda.Photo be takenas representative(Fig. 5): author

MaucscscokBog'EocaTo,uvco[av£0Noc£Tov a]v8pcova [>ca] Ta £v£ovTa 1v Aa,upavvAcot.vacat50 Maussollos,son of Hekatomnos,[dedicated the a]ndron[an]d its contentsto ZeusLabraundos.

The otherarchitectural dedicatory inscriptions from the sanctuaryall follow the samepattern, with someslight variation in nomenclature.A1- thoughsome of the otherinscriptions are fairly heavily restored, in most casesthe architecturalevidence for number and spacing of missingletters makesthese restorationsquite secure.The dedicatoryinscriptions of Idrieusdiffer from those of hisbrother in includingthe adjective MvXacs£vs in additionto thepatronymic 'EocaTo,uvco.5l BothMaussollos's and Idrieus's inscriptionspresent a fairlyfull version of the standardGreek dedicatory formula,with dedicator's name, verb, direct object, and indirect object (Zeus Labraundos)explicitly included in almostall instances.The following examplesillustrate how consistentlyand conventionallythis formulais used.

50.Labraunda III.2, pp. 9-10, Crampa(Labraunda III.2, p. 6) suggests no. 14, pl. 2; letterheight: 0.10-0.12 m. thatby adoptingthis formula,which The termfor the structurededicated, emphasizedlocal ties, Idrieus was

...... e., andron,1S somewnat surprlslng-ln pointedlydistinguishing himself from Greekcontexts it generallyrefers to the his brother.Hellstrom (1996a, p. 138) receptionroom of a houserather than a givesgreater nuance to the distinction: freestandingbuilding. For discussion of Idrieuswas concerned more with inter- the useof androns,with ancientliterary naldomestic consolidation and there- references,see Labraunda III.2, p. 10; forestresses his nativeCarian identity, see alsoHellstrom 1989; 1996b. Maus- whereasMaussollos, looking primarily sollosand Idrieus each dedicated an to his roleon the internationalstage, andron;the otherstructures were desig- hadno reasonto stresslocal roots. It is natedin morefamiliar terms: naos, alsopossible that Maussollos's omission stoa,olkol. . . . of MoBasrugwas not intendedto 51.The relevantportions of the downplayhis Carianidentity, but inscriptionsof the templeand of insteadto emphasizethat Labraunda AndronA arenot preserved,but those wasa pan-Carian,rather than a merely of the Oikoi,South Propylaia, and local,sanctuary. Doricbuilding all include MoBasro$ ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 275

The NorthStoa on thetemple terrace, dedicated by Maussollos, car- riedits dedicatoryinscription in threelines on the easternanta:

[M]avoscoBog 'Eoca[o,uvco] ...... aVE0NX£ zv omv v v

A Aa,uoavvAco. vacat52

vacat [M]aussollos,son of Heka[tomnos], dedicatedthe stoa to ZeusLabraundos.

The Oikoidedicated by Idrieus on thetemple terrace carried a single-line . nscrlpeon. . on a . orlc. arc. lltrave:.

'I8toevg'Eoca.o,uvcoMvXacsevg ave0Noce Tovg o'>covgA

Aa,u,3pavvAco. vacat53 Idrieus,son of Hekatomnos,of Mylasa,dedicated the oikoito Zeus Labraundos.

TheTemple of Zeuswas inscribed in a singleline on theupper of thetwo fasciasof its Ionicarchitrave; the directobject and the dedicator'sethnic aremissing, but have been plausibly restored:

I8toteogEoca[o,uvco MvXaseog ave0Noce Tov vaov Att Aa,u,Btoav]vAcot.vacat54 Idrieus,son of Heka[tomnos,of Mylasa,dedicated the temple]to [ZeusLabrau]ndos.

Threeother monuments dedicated by Idrieus in the sanctuary carried analo- gousformulas on theirarchitraves (the Propylaia, Andron A, andthe Doric building),as dida gatewayat Amyzon.55 The sanctuaryat Labraundais exceptionalin the narrowlyfocused chronologicalrange of its architecturaldevelopment and in the degreeto whichthat development was the work of twoindividuals. Yet the novelty of thecircumstances of construction of themonuments should not lead us

52.This inscription(Labraunda no. 17;letter height: 0.06 m.The letters 94, no. 1; OGIS235. Labraundahad III.2,p. 8, no. 13, pl. 1) is unique areset 0.16 m abovethe loweredge. two closelycontemporary gateways, in beingthe onlyquasi-stoichedon 54. LabraundaIII.2, p. 13, no. 16; designatedby the excavatorsas the inscriptionat Labraunda;letter architraveheight: 0.56 m;upper fascia: SouthPropylaia and the EastPropylaia height:0.024 m. It beginsat the top 0.29 m;lower fascia: 0.22 m;letter (LabraundaI.1), thoughCrampa con- left cornerand is not verticallycentered height:0.08 m, withletters set 0.105 m cludesthat wokxv was the morelikely on the block;dimensions of block: abovethe loweredge of the fascia.For term.Westholm (Labraunda I.2, H. 0.565 m,W. 0.69 m. Later,below the architectureof the temple,see pp.96-97, 111-112),followed by this dedicatoryinscription, was carved LabraundaI.3. Crampa(Labraunda III.2, p. 16), the textof a decreeof 267 B.C. honor- 55. Propylaia:Labraunda III.2, suggeststhat the EastPropylaia was ing Apollonios,oikonomos of Ptolemy. pp. 15-16, no. 18;Andron A: La- the earlierbuilding, destroyed and If Doric,the columnsof this stoawere braundaIII.2, pp. 11-13, no. 15; reusedpartly in the constructionof the probablyca. 4.5 m high:Hellstrom Doricbuilding: Labraunda III.2, SouthPropylaia. Parts of the lettering 1996a,p. 134. pp. 17-18, no. 19;Propylaia at Amy- wereremoved in conjunctionwith this 53. LabraundaIII.2, pp. 14-15, zon:Robert and Robert 1983, pp. 93- reuse. 276 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ to overestimatethe natureand extent of aestheticand conceptual innova- tion representedby theirinscriptions. The Hekatomnidsat Labraunda (andMaussollos at his tomb) repeatedly combined Greekwith non-Greek architecturalidiom and brilliantly clad non-Greek practices and institu- tionsin Greek-styleartistic splendor. A contemporaryGreek would un- doubtedlyhave found the sight of anentire sanctuary filled with architecturaldedications by two men arresting and remarkable. But would he have foundthe formor locationof the dedicatoryinscriptions themselves sur- prising?I believenot. The followingdiscussion highlights the closeness withwhich the aestheticfeatures of the Hekatomnidarchitraval inscrip- tionsreflect contemporary Greek practice for scale and positioning of votive andcommemorative inscriptions. The separate,and more complex, issueof howinscribed architectural votives fit withGreek ideas concern- ing entitlementand propriety is thenconsidered.

AESTHETIC PRECEDENTS AND CONTEXT

We havealready seen that, as Greekdedicatory texts, the Hekatomnid architecturalinscriptions are quite unremarkable: their formulas are in no wayunusual for or inconsonant with Greek traditions.56 In aesthetic terms as well,the inscriptionsat Labraundafollow closely the sameprinciples that governedArchaic and EarlyClassical architectural inscriptions throughoutthe Greekworld. Some variety exists, but most are carved on the smoothface of a narrowhorizontal band at a prominentlocation on the building.The architravalposition places them at a heightabove the viewercomparable to thatof the inscriptionsof the Altarof the Chians andof theTreasury of theKnidians at Delphi.It is possiblethat the use of two fascias,rather than three, on the Ionicarchitrave of the Templeof Zeusat Labraundawas intended specifically to betterframe and accom- modatethe handsomededicatory inscription.57 Moreimportantly, however, the Labraundainscriptions fit comfort- ablynot onlywithin the broad aesthetic parameters observed in architecturalinscriptions of theArchaic and Early Classical periods, but also with relatedmonuments in theirmore immediate High and Late Classical context.Although thus far discussion has focused on freestandingstructures, thesewere by no meansthe only kind of inscribedarchitecture in the Clas- 56.This pointis emphasizedby sicalGreek world. From the later5th centuryonward, many funerary Gunter(1985, p. 119). monumentsdevelop increasingly elaborate architectural frames. These can 57. Hellstromand Thieme providean overhanging brow, offering some protection from weather, but (LabraundaI.3, p. 54, n. 66) survey precedentsfor architraveswith two for the mostpart they are intended to highlightand set off the images fascias;they note that three fascias within.It is easyto appreciatethe architectural component in theexamples wouldmean that letters would need to in whichframe and relief are carved from a singleblock (Fig. 6), but many be smaller,and that the use of a Doric funerarymonuments at a largerscale (usually less well preserved)offer architraveon AndronB (despiteIonic evenmore impressive parallels for the inscribed architraves at Labraunda. columns)allowed letters to be larger In theselarger monuments the reliefsculpture was set into a separately thanwould be possibleon an Ionic architravewith fascias. The letterson constructedarchitectural frame. Many of the mostimpressive reliefs be- AndronB are0.10{).12 m high, cameseparated from their architectural frames long ago, but fragments of whereasthose on the templeare only suchframes, at all scales,indicate that the architrave,or an architravelike 0.08 m high. ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 277

Figure6. Funeraryrelief stele of Damasistrate,Athens (NM 423). CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut,Athens, neg. NM 423

band,was the mostfrequently used location for inscriptions(Fig. 7).58 Imposingas these monuments were, they were not necessarily intended to suggestthe heroizationof the deceased.59 Votivereliefs too madeuse of architravalareas to carryinscriptions. Theirdevelopment seems, in looseterms at least,to accordclosely with thatof funeraryreliefs: both appear in thefinal decades of the5th century andbecome more numerous and varied throughout much of the4th century.But differences in functionand context of displaylead to differences in appearanceas well.Architectural frames are rarer for votivethan for

58.These large-scale architectural arenow nameless, while their less ratherthan conception. framesare generally thought to dateto grandlycommemorated contemporaries 59. Ridgway(1997, pp. 160-161) the middleof the 4th centuryor later, remainclearly labeled on one-piece andClairmont (1993, p. 40) emphasize butdating can be difficultwhen the stelai.Funerary monuments with thatthe naiskosframe does not, in and sculpturalcomponents have been lost. independentarchitectural frames seem of itself,imply heroization. This is im- One ironicconsequence of the use of to becomelarger and to occurmore portantfor the presentargument: it was larger,independent architectural frames frequentlyas the 4th centurypro- not only"heroes" who couldhave their is thatmany of the figuresrepresented gresses,but theirdifference from the namesinscribed on architraves. on the mostimposing funerary reliefs late-Sth-centurystelai is one of scale . . . . .

278 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

t \ A t;:- A A w - s 1<8 ,-V-, ' aM - , J07

->--

t - T | B * I z o rs ;

I f TDAToktEOYt O E O ;I;; XE :;N O r ::::; :; A ^ F I O Y | r o Y N | S Y S ^Ai:PLEt:A:;E?n::Ny;:'0:o:y;:; :::f:;::; :: X £ o Y N X E fr X funeraryreliefs.60 When they do appearthey can occasionally be naiskos- Figure7. Inscribedarchitrave of likein form,but architectural frames without a gable(resembling the side funerarynaiskos of Alexos,Athens of a building,or perhaps a stoa)are far more (NM2584). Courtesy Deutsches common,in partbecause they ArchaologischesInstitut, Athens, canaccommodate larger groups of figuresand more complex actions. A1- neg.72/3870 thoughsome votive reliefs feature inscribed architraves or architravelike bands,many more were set up on tallbases, which would have carried the dedicatoryinscriptions.6l These raised bases seem often to haveprovided a morespacious and highly visible location for inscriptions, with architraval inscriptionsappearing only on a few of the largermonuments, though evensome of the smallerarchitectural frames may originally have carried paintedinscriptions, now lost.62 There was apparentlyno single,correct placefor inscriptions nor way of inscribingthem, nor was there a hierar- chyofostentationin inscriptionlocation. Individuals chose how andwhere to inscribe,with practicalcircumstances determining how best to attain thegoal of maximumvisibility. Thesehabits of funeraryand votive inscribing do notoffer conclusive evidencefor contemporarypractice in full-size,functional, freestanding architecture,but they do suggestthat, in othermedia at least,architraval (orsimilarly prominent) labeling was a standardpart of the visualland- scapeof late-Sth-centuryAthens.63From the late 5th century onward, the cityof Athenswas surrounded with inscribed funerary naiskoi or naiskos- stylestelai. The Peiraieusmay have been even more crowded with these impressivemonuments, virtually all carrying the names of thedeceased on thearchitrave or on flatfascias or bandsnear the top.64In sum,inscribed architraves,including personal names in both funeraryand votive contexts,had been commonplace in Athens,and probably much of therest of theGreek world, for halfa centurybefore the startof the Hekatomnid buildingprogram at Labraunda.

60. Architecturalframes for votive (ata levelallowing for effective notationsof theseframes, see offeringsare discussed briefly by van visualdisplay), see vanStraten 1992, Lawton1995, p. 12. Straten(1992, pp. 265-266). For votive pp.248-249. 63.This kindof labelingoccurs in reliefs,van Straten (1992, p. 265) ob- 62. I amgrateful to CarolLawton a broadcontinuum, including true servesthat"antae seem to occurfrom forthese observations, and for fur- architraves,fascias resembling archi- ca.420 B.C., the completearchitectural therinformation and bibliography traves,horizontal geisa, and flat framesomewhat later." Early examples concerningvotive reliefs. Document surfacesor bandswith no particular offunerary reliefs with architectural reliefsfrequently feature projecting architecturalanalogy whatsoever; framesinclude the steleof Ktesilas moldings(taenia plus other forms) modernattempts to isolatearchitraval andTheano, ca. 410-400 B.C. (see betweensculpture and text, often inscriptionsfrom this continuumand Stewart1990, fig. 430); the names inscribedwith the openingline or viewthem as a strikingnew departure ofthe deceasedare inscribed on the headingof the document(Lawton mposean artltlualSO. atlonon one architrave. 1995,p. 11);for development of aspectof a muchmore broadly based 61. Forthe practiceof setting moreexplicitly architectural frames phenomenon. votivesup on a pillaror tallbase inthe 4th century,and votive con- 64. See Scholl1994;1996. ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 279

ENTITLEMENT AND PROPRIETY

Giventhe widespreaduse of architravalinscription in othermedia, it is clearthat if the architravesof votivestructures were never inscribed in ClassicalGreece, this would have represented a specific and very narrow exclusion a notableexception to an otherwisewidely used set of prac- ticesand expectations for epigraphical displayofindividuals' names. Many scholarsbelieve that a specificexclusion of thissort did indeed exist, that the rulesfor architectural dedications were different than those for dedi- cationsof othertypes, and that the inscriptionof a donor'sname on an architecturalvotive, or on a templein particular,would have been unac- ceptablein a waythat inscriptions on giftsof othersorts were not.65 The likelihoodor extentof this exclusionis difficultto assess,since much of the relevantevidence is eithernegative or indirect.66In the followingdis- cussionI firstaddress the questionof whatkind of limitations,if any,ap- pliedto individuals'dedication of buildingsin ClassicalGreece, and then considerspecifically epigraphical restrictions. Thereis no questionthat limitations of varioussorts did applyto Greekvotive behavior. Many categories of offeringscould only be given by those entitledto do so. Obviousexamples include the erectionof militarytrophies, choregic monuments, and athleticvictor statues. The rightto offerthese types of dedicationshad to be earnedby conspicuous achievementin the appropriatefield.67 The findsat mostGreek sanctu- ariessuggest, however, that, apartfrom commemorativededications of thosetypes, almost anything could be dedicatedby almostanyone.68 Fulfillmentof vows,and expressions of gratitudefor economic prosperity or for otherdivine favors received or hopedfor, offered scope for a tre- mendousrange and varietyin personaldedications. Special local tra- ditionsof thecult or the requirements of specific ritual occasions may have exertedsome influence, but generally, for most dedicators at mostsanctu- aries,the principalconstraint seems to havebeen theirown financial

65. Forexample, Henner von ignorerson identite."Amandry is not with the text[tIoOoAopo]q Es4nBo Hesberg(1994, p. 39) writes:"In hereaddressing the questionof temples ts[z]apX£[sat----ca. 8---- (IGI3 derPolis klassischer Zeit hat es specifically,or of individualvs. corpo- 999).Other kinds of monuments starkeWiderstande dagegen, dass ratedonations, but I wouldmaintain mayhave been subject to restriction eine Einzelpersonihren Namen thatthe sameprinciples apply in all accordingto context,rather than aufden von ihrgestifteten Bau setzt." cases. type.For example, in recognitionof Similarly,Botermann (1994, p. 181): 66. I amnot aware,for example,of distinguishedservice, the statecould "Tempelwurden den Gotternvon anyinstance in whicha buildingknown awardthe rightto set up a hermin the Gemeindenoder Individuen gebaut, to havebeen a personaldedication can northwestpart of the agora(Agora III, ohnedass diese ihrer Eitelkeit durch be conclusivelydemonstrated to have pp.301-313); this was a carefully eineBauinschrift Ausdruck gaben." beenuninscribed. controlledactivity at thislocation, Amandry(1988, p. 600),by con- 67. Evenin the caseof military butit is not clearwhat restrictions, trast,emphasizes continuity of dedi- monuments,however, there was if any,would have applied to the set- catoryexpectations and practice apparentlyscope for both publicly tingup of hermselsewhere. acrossall media:"Lestresors etaient awardedand privately initiated 68. Fordiscussion of variousaspects des monumentsvotifs, au memetitre commemoration.For example, a of Greekvotive behavior, see van Stra- queles groupesde statueset autres fragmentof a 5th-centurydedica- ten 1981(esp. pp. 78, 81, 88, 102); ex-voto.Quelque forme que revetit tionfrom Eleusis, a reliefdepicting 1992. l'offrande,le donateurne laissaitpas a manleading troops, is inscribed 280 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

capacity.69This general situation of freedomand abundance in individual votivebehavior is reflectedin the complaintin Plato'sLaws aboutthe proliferationof dedicationsand founding of shrinesfor every conceivable reason.70 Social,political, or familystatus could be a requirementor limitin determiningthe natureof participationin variouscult activities (e.g., the Panathenaicprocession, the Eleusinianmysteries), but these do not seem to havebeen decisive factors in determiningthe kindsof votiveofferings individualscould make. This point emerges clearly in DianeHarris's study of the inventoriesof dedicationsto Athenastored in the Parthenonand Erechtheionin the 5th and4th centuriess.c. She notesthat the most impressiveoffierings are not necessarilymadebythe dedicators ofthe highest socialstatus, and that few of the dedicatorsrecorded in the survivingin- ventoriesare of particularlyhigh status, or otherwiseattested at all.7l Butif, in ClassicalGreece, differences in statusamong individuals do not imposesignificant limitations on whatmay be dedicatedby whom, whatof thatlarger difference, considered by many to be absolutelyfunda- mental:the difference between individuals and states? Were there kinds of votivegifts or offerings that states could make that individuals could not? Again,it wouldseem not. Greek states could award honors and privileges to individuals,and could appoint of ficers to regulatevarious aspects of the organizationand financial affairs of cults,but there does not seem to have beenany specific type of giftthat a statealone could dedicate to a divinity. It hasoften been assumed that temples differed significantly from other dedicationsin thisrespect. For example, Catherine Morgan writes:

FromArchaic times at least,the rightof templecommission was a prerogativeof the state(although individuals, such as theAlk- maionidaiat Delphi,often contributed money or materials),and thisremained the ruleoutside the eastGreek world until changing conceptsof kingshipand personal rule during the Hellenisticperiod encouragedthe kindof personalinvestment evident in, forexample, the Philippeionat Olympia(c. 335 s.c.).72

In fact,however, although extant physical remains are scarce, literary andepigraphical texts attest a numberof examplesof privatesponsorship of templesand otherreligious monuments in mainlandGreece in the Classicalperiod. Themistokles may have built a templeto Artemis(?) Herkanebefore the battle of Salamis.73He restoredthe telesterionof the Lykomidaiat Phlyaand decoratedit with paintings(probably in the 470ss.c.).74 He alsobuilt a templeto ArtemisAristoboule near his home

69. Indeed,the traditionof aparche 71. Harris1995, p. 228 (withspe- considersa shrineto ArtemisHerkane dedicationssuggests that financial cificreference to the Erechtheion a plausiblecomponent of Themistokles' prosperityvirtually required that inventories). religiousactivities; Parker (1996, p. 155, thanksbe renderedwith a suitably 72. Morgan1993, p. 19. n. 9) urgesskepticism: "the ascription impressivededication. 73. SEGXXVI 121 (perhapsearly to Themistoclesin a textof this char- 70. Leg.lO.909e-9lOa. This pas- 1st centuryA.C.), concerningthe repair acterhas little authority." sageis citedand the phenomenondis- of sacredbuildings in the Peiraieus, 74. Plut. Them.1.3. Nearthe end of cussedby Uta Kron(1996, p. 166).For mentions(line 45) a shrineof -kane, his life he alsoset up a shrineto the the introductionof newcults by indiv- whichThemistokles set up beforethe DindymianMeter in Magnesia(Plut. iduals,see Parker1996, pp. 215-217. battleof Salamis.Garland (1992, p. 76) Them.30). ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 28I

in Melite.7sShortly before 419/8 B.C., a certainTelemachos (otherwise unknownto us)founded the sanctuary of Asklepioson theSouth Slope of the Acropolisin Athensand set up a woodenpropylon at its entrance.76 Thispropylon, perhaps depicted in therelief decoration of themonument Telemachosset up (ca.400 B.C.) to commemoratehis foundation,was probablyreplaced in stoneduring the courseof the 4th century.77Konon builta sanctuaryto Aphroditein Peiraieusas a dedicationafter the defeat of the Lacedaemoniannavy off Knidosin 394 s.c.78Xenophon dedicated a sanctuary,with temple and altar and cult image, to EphesianArtemis on his estateat Skillous.79 Norwere these temples and sanctuaries the onlyexamples of private architecturalsponsorship or adornmentin mainlandGreece in the 5th (andearly 4th) century.In Athens,Peisianax built or sponsoredthe Stoa Poikile(ca. 460 B.C.) andKimon decorated the Theseion with paintings (ca.470).8° At Delphi,Brasidas may have helped sponsor the Treasury of Brasidasand the Akanthians (ca.420 s.c.).81 This broad range of examples stronglysuggests that the mainlandGreeks did not needa Macedonian king(or even their own eastern cousins) to setan example for temple building by individualsin the late 4th century.Moreover, Peisianax and the StoaPoikile seem to showthat, even in Sth-centuryAthens, building by individualswas not necessarilyrestricted to sanctuarycontexts alone.82 It is noteworthythat so manyof the exampleslisted above pertain to the foundationof newcults by individuals.New cultsmay have offered a somewhatmore flexible venue for prominently expressing devotion to a divinity(and engaging in conspicuousdisplay) than did existingcults, especiallymajor ones. But differences would have been primarily practical, ratherthan moral, in nature:established cults are more likely already to

75. Plut. Them.22.1-2; de Her. muchbetter known than that of Tele- of Konon'stemple in the Peiraieus,see Mal. 37.This templeshould almost machos(unattested before the dis- Funke1983, pp. 175-189. certainlybe associatedwith the re- coveryof SEG XXV 226). Sophokles 79. Paus.5.6.5-6;Xen. An. 5.3.9, mainsof a smallanta-temple exca- wasa priestin the healingcult of withfurther description at 5.3.11-12. vatedbyJ. Threpsiades in 1959and Amynos( Vit.Soph. II); SaraAleshire 80. StoaPoikile: Agora XIV, pp.90- publishedby EugeneVanderpool (1989,p. 9) suggeststhat his hostingof 94;Paus. 1.15.4. The Theseionis (1966).Identification is basedon Asklepiosmay have been as a private sometimesattributed to Kimon,but it anlnscrlptlon. . . commemoratlng . t ze householdcult, as opposedto the is not knownwhether it wasa personal renewal(apparently) of the sanc- formal,public one, for which Tele- projector a publicone undertakenwith tuaryby Neoptolemosof Melite, machosclaims credit. SEG XXV 226 his leadership.See Plut.Thes. 36.1-4; ca.330 B.C.; the extantremains date recordssome opposition by the Kery- Plut.Cim. 8.5-7; Paus.1.17.2-3,6; primarilyto the timeof thisrebuild- kes:y9£a[nT0V T°] XOpLo xat £vta Boersma1970, p.242. Plutarch'sac- ing.Pierre Amandry's doubts (1967- [£z£XCb]UAaV wosat (lines21-23). countof the roleof Periklesin the con- 1968)about the identificationand/or Aleshire(1989, p. 9) notesthat this structionof the Parthenonpresents dateof theseremains do not affect oppositionwas probably based not specialproblems and will be discussed the valueof Plutarch'stestimonia for onlyon the Kerykes'ownership of separatelybelow. the originaldedication. landwithin the Pelargikon,the ulti- 81. Plut.Lys. 1; Mor. 400F. 76.This foundationis recorded,in matesite of the sanctuary,"but also 82. Boersma(1970, p. 9) notes bothwords and relief carving, in the [on] theirsupport for the private (in referenceto a somewhatshorter Telemachosmonument (IG II24960- healingcult at the Amyneion." list):"Theseexamples give the im- 4963;SEG XXV 226);Aleshire 1989, 77. Forthe propylon:Aleshire presslon. t zatprlvate . atlzens. . were pp.7-11; Mitroupoulou1975. For 1989,p. 34. SEGXXV 226, line 34: alloweda largemeasure of freedom revisedtext and discussion, see SEG ioBowo[Xto];cf. lines35-36: in suchmatters. Yet this kindof activ- XLVII232. [£z£OX]£l)aO0! Ta E[UBowokea]. ity cannever have been very common, The roleof the playwrightSopho- 78. Paus.1.1.3. For discussion of becauseordinary Athenians could not klesin bringingAsklepios to Athensis the locationand political significance affordto financea big project." 282 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ havetemple buildings, which would make architectural gifts by individu- alscomplicated or even redundant. In anycase, it is clearthat private constructionof temples,as well as other forms of architecturaldisplay in reli- giouscontexts, was in factpossible in mainlandGreece throughout the Classicalperiod and that those who couldafford to andfelt so inclined couldapparently engage in it with littlerestriction, at leaston privately ownedproperty.83

NATURE AND RO LE O F D ED I CATO RY INSCRIPTIONS

The freedomto dedicatebuildings does not necessarily imply the freedom 83.Walter Burkert (1988, p. 43) to inscribethem. The physicalremains of the buildingsmentioned above considersanathemata (including temple buildings)"a form of display. . . which, aretoo scant to indicatewhether they carried inscriptions, but the fact that in contrastto othersuch forms, does largerand better-preserved temples apparently did not hasled manyto not raiserivalry or envybecause the conclude,afortiori, thatsmaller, private dedications must also have been objectsare no longerprivate property." uninscribed.Consideration of the natureand role of dedicatoryinscrip- I wouldnot go quiteso far therewas tionssuggests that this inferenceis by no meansnecessary, and perhaps probablyno areaof Greeklife from whichrivalry and envy were entirely noteven valid. absent but,to somedegree, dedica- The contractualnature of manyaspects of Greekreligion has long tionsdidenjoy a specialstatus. Re- beenrecognized. Dedicatory inscriptions, because of theirpublic and per- strictionsand limitations could clearly manentnature, present a particularlystrong manifestation of thiscontrac- havebeen imposed by the administra- tualoutlook. At a minimumthey declare whose property the dedicated torsof a givensanctuary or area,but a objecthas become, but often they mark more fully the transferof owner- lawmakeror assemblywould have had to be boldindeed to deprivethe godsof shipfrom the dedicatorto the divinityby namingboth parties and other templesor giftsoffered on privately detailsof thetransaction, such as gift and occasion. The actof dedication, ownedland. thegiving of thegift, establishes a relationship between donor and deity 84. ChristianeSourvinou-Inwood a relationshipthat the dedicatory inscription commemorates and announces (1992,p. 265) writes:"Dedications by to all.84Accordingly, the circumstances inwhich such inscriptions are likely individuals,like polis and group dedications,were often commemorated to appearwill be thosein whichthe relationship,the transferof owner- throughinscriptions, which perpetu- ship,is clearand straightforward. By this criterion, however, major, 'pub- atedthe memoryof the donor'saction liclysponsored" temples are precisely the kind of buildingleast likelyever andhis-her claim to a specialrelation- to havecarried dedicatory inscriptions. In the casesfor whichwe have shipwith the divine." informationit is clearthat the fundingof suchprojects was generally di- 85.The Templeof Zeusat Olympia verse,involving a varietyof sources,often over a longperiod of time,and wasbuilt from spoils when the Eleians tookcontrol of the sanctuaryfrom Pisa frequentlyrelying at least in parton thedivinity's own resources.85 A temple (Paus.5.10.2) it maybe thatthis builtusing a god'sown money can hardly be presented as a giftfrom some- monumentrepresented, at leastin part, one elseto thatgod. In short,the largerand more expensive the temple, a redeploymentof resourcespreviously andmore complex its funding,the less likelyit wouldbe everto beara dedicatedin the sanctuary.The funding ,. . . . of the Parthenonis a vexedquestion, c .edlcatory lnscrlptlon. butdivine revenues do seemto have Theseobservations have significant implications for how we under- playedat leasta smallrole (Ameling standsmaller, privately funded architectural gifts. Modern scholarship on 1985,p. 51, n. 18;see alsoKallet-Marx this subjecthas tended to organizeits categoriesand expectations based 1989;Samons 1993; Giovannini 1997). on the natureof the object(buildings vs. othertypes of votives)rather Contributorsto the 4th-centuryre- thanthe natureof the relationship(personal gifts vs. projectsof other buildingof theTemple of Apollowere namedat Delphiin accountsdisplayed sorts).This is surelyan error. Whatever the reasons that major, corporately in the sanctuary,but no simplededica- sponsoredtemples lacked inscriptions, these reasons do not necessarily toryformula could possibly have en- applyto templesdedicated by individuals.On the contrary,temples (or compassedthis diverse and interna- otherstructures) dedicated by individualsfall into a differentand more tionalgroup. ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 283

straightforwardcategory of religiousrelationship than larger projects that in somecases might not be properlyclassed as dedicationsat all.Their epigraphicneeds and opportunities will havediffered accordingly.86 In- deed,throughout the Hellenisticperiod, major temples sponsored by statefunds, the god's own resources, or widely based subscriptions appar- entlycontinue to remainuninscribed, in sharpcontrast to the abundant contemporaryexamples of inscribedbuildings dedicated by individuals. In lightof this cleardistinction in laterperiods, and the importanceof the contractualnature of votiveinscriptions in general,we shouldexpect that individualswould always havebeen the mostfrequent inscribers of dedications,even in the morepoorly attested early periods. As we haveseen, literary evidence is not lackingfor architectural projectscarried out by individuals in theClassical period. DidThemistokles, Peisianax,Telemachos, Konon, or Xenophon inscribe their buildings? In noneof theseinstances are there physical remains sufficient to indicate whetheror howthe structurewas inscribed, but in Plutarch'sday, at least theTreasury of Brasidasand the Akanthiansat Delphicarried a promi- nentinscription naming the dedicators.87Others may have been similarly adornedas well,in accordancewith the limitsand potential of materials andsetting in eachcase.

DATE AND DISTRIBUTION OF EXTANT EXAMPLES

In the absenceof firminformation about the appearanceor inscribingof the architecturaldedications now attested only in literarysources, it has seemednatural to manyto interpretthe later,better-preserved examples as signsof a newHellenistic ethos or the resultof privatecitizens aping theactions of kings.The extant, datable, 4th-century examples from Greece do fall,for the mostpart, within the timeof Macedonianhegemony. It is mycontention, however, that the broad range of typesof buildingsand of individualdedicators using inscriptions in the finalthird of the 4th cen- turyare more consistent with the florescenceof an existingand wide- spreadtradition than with the suddenintroduction of a new one.The followingselection illustrates this geographicalbreadth and diversity of context. The Leonidaionat Olympiawas a guesthostel of impressivescale and expense,sponsored apparently exclusively by a singleindividual,

86.The lackof dedicatoryinscrip- "theAthenians dedicated . . ."on most 87. Plut.Lys. 1.1: 'O 'Axav0Cxv tionson majortemples is oftenex- of the majortemples in the cityof 0Naa0Q°S rV 5r(P°tS =trQa(Ptlv rXt plainedby assertingthat religious Athens,and that the onlyreason this Totaurrv "BQas8aq zat 'Axav0tot as' buildingswere inscribed only in cases was not donewas that it wasunneces- 'A0Nvav." Plutarchcontinues with the wherethere was risk of ambiguity,for saryand otiose. I believe,however, that, observationthat, because of the exampletreasury buildings in interna- farfrom being otiose, such a formula- inscription,many think that the statue tionalsanctuaries, but not withinthe tionwould have been strictly accurate insideis of Brasidas,whereas actually it homecommunity, where identity of in onlythe rarestof circumstances; representsLysander. He alsomentions bothdivinity and dedicators alike mosttemples lacked dedicatory in- the inscription(though not its wouldbe well known.This position scriptionsbecause no singlegroup, not connectionto the building)at Mor. assumesthat it wouldhave been tech- eventhe polis,could rightly claim sole 401C,and the buildingat Mor.400F. nicallypossible to write,for example, financialresponsibility for them. 284 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ probablyin the 330s s.c.88The survivingarchitrave blocks indicate that the donor'sname was inscribed not just once, but on at leasttwo sides of thebuilding:

A[C]v8[N]sAsov Naitos sso[ces xat avs0Nxsi\Ct 'OBv,usX].89 L[e]onid[e]s,son of Leotos,a Naxian,ma[de and dedicated (this) to ZeusOlympios].

Two monumentsat Thasosdating to the later4th centurycarry architravaldedicatory inscriptions. A grand,two-storied facade, featuring Ionichalf-columns above Doric pillars, was erected on theinterior side of the Gateof Zeusand Hera by one Pythippos, probably son of Paiestratos. The survivingfragment reads:

Ilv0C=wosIla[CsoT,oaTov].90 Pythippos,son of Pa[iestratos]. 88. Forbibliography and discussion, A largesquare hall with columned porch near the Herakleionwas dedi- see Svenson-Evers1996, pp.380-387; forPausanias's (5.15.2) misreading of catedby Thersilochos (probably son of Orthomenes)in the finalthird of the dedicatoryinscription (taking the 4th century.Its architravalinscription reads: NA- IOS as HAEIOS),see Svenson- Evers1996, p.381. Os,ooBo[xog'OpOoswov? T@t aNF@t] a[vsONxcv].9l 89.IvO 651. Svenson-Evers(1996, p.383) pointsout thatother restora- Thersilo[chos,son of Orthomenes]d[edicated this to . . . ]. tionsare possible, for example, £z06[nOr

£X T@V t86UV AlL 0XUzLU] . In theAmphiaraion at Oroposa largestoa dating to themiddle of the4th 90. Etudesthaszennes III 21. A Pythippos,son of Paiestratos,appears centuryB.C. carriedan impressive dedicatory inscription on itsDoric frieze in a list of archonsand theoroi dating course,with one letter per metope.92 The onlyletters preserved are O, II O ca.315-285 B.C. Forarchitecture and (twometopes on oneblock), and a finalN (followedby a blankmetope); it date,see Martin1968, esp. p. 173. is thereforenot possibleto saywhether the building was dedicated by an 91. Etudesthasiennes III 22. individualor a group.93 92. Fordetailed description, bib- Withinthe city of Athens,choregic monuments constitute an impor- liography,and discussion, see Petrakos 1997,pp.259-260, no.339 (with tant body of 4th-centuryarchitraval dedicatory inscriptions.94 These fig.13).The friezeblocks are of arenot, for the mostpart, fully functional buildings, but rather architec- poros;metope height: 0.48 m, letter turalstructures used as basesfor the tripodsdedicated to Dionysosby height:0.21 m. Someof the letters victoriousproducers in the dithyrambiccompetitions. These monuments havesmall holes for the attachment entailsome of the sameproblems as naiskos-typefunerary monuments: of gildedbronze letters (I16xP£S ow£S it is oftendifficult to matchsuperstructures to foundations or even some- yta rrv spoqAq ypa,u,uav aso xaBxlvo£=lXpoo° £Bas,ua: Petrakos timesto otherelements of thesame structure; these problems can, in turn, 1997,p.259). makedating difficult as well. One such "floating"epistyle fragment 93. Forattempts at restorationof from aboutthe middleof the 4th century95recordsthe dedicationof the text,see Petrakos1997, p.260. Ktesippos: 94. Most of the securelydatable examplesthus far known belong to the finalthird of the century,but new re- Kcx,oowtswat8[v sutxa]. searchsuggests the existenceof some Kn7cezzogXaD,o[ov AE,xvcoc,] examplesseveral decades earlier. Goette CX°v°NYstv v v i\a[- - NvAst?]96 (1999)has argued that impressive i11- scalearchitectural choregic monuments (The tribe)Kekropis won in the boy[s'competition]. canbe datedback to the 360s at least. Ktesippos,son of Chabr[ias,of Aixone], 95. Goette1989, p. 97. was producer.Da[-was flute-player]. 96. IG II23040. . . . . P .

ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 285

Figure8. Inscribedarchitrave of choregicmonument dedicated by Lysikrates,Athens. Courtesy DeutschesArchaologisches Institut, Athens

Someof thelater choregic monuments are better preserved and better known.The innovativeand impressive cylindrical monument dedicated by Lysikrates(335/4 B.C.) iS a monopteroswith darkblue screen walls closingoff mostor all of the spacesbetween its whiteCorinthian col- 97. Forfull discussion see Wilson umns.97The inscriptionwas carved in threelines on the threefascias of 2000,pp.219-226, including consider- the epistyle(Fig. 8): ationof Bauer'sproposal (1977) that the frontintercolumniation was left AusxocRoaqgAusx0z8ou Ktocouvrog opento reveala statueof Dionysos zX°£°Yrt displayedwithin. XAxapavxc,wax8xv zvxxa. (9zxv UArx. 98. IG II23042. Austa8NgXA0Nvaxog r8C8asocr. EuatvrTog oXr.98 99. In emphasizingthe difficulties ln reaclng the lnscrlptlonanc . trleze, Lysikrates,son of Lysitheides,of Kikynna,was producer. Wilson(2000, p.222) mayunderesti- (Thetribe) Akamantis won in theboys' competition. Theon was matethe clarityof freshstone and flute-player. paintedletters; I believehe is too Lysiadesthe Athenian was trainer. Euainetos was archon. pesslmlstlc. . . ln. saylng. ot r the* lnscrlp-* - tion that"undersuch conditions it wassurely illegible." Although Mace- This inscriptionprovides an indirectindication that the architravalposi- donianfeatures are recognizable in tionwas by thistime quite canonical. A lowerlocation, such as the stylo- the architecturalstyle of the monu- bateof themonopteros or the crown of thebase, might have offered greater ment,and seem to fit wellwith Lysi- legibility,but established aesthetic expectations and conventions favoring krates'family connections and the the architravalposition seem already to havebeen strong enough to out- politicaland military context of 335/4 weighthis practical consideration.99 B.C. (McCredie1984), the architraval positionof the inscriptionhas good Otherroughly contemporary examples include a monumentof un- precedentsin Atticaand should not be certaintype (ca. 335-320 B.C.), withan architrave adorned with a seriesof takenas"Macedonian." crownsand with brief inscriptions alluding to the servicefor which they 286 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ wereawarded;l°° the choregicmonument of Euagides(328/7 B.C.), inscribedon its Ionicarchitrave;l01 and Lysikles' monument, inscribed on its Doricarchitrave.102 The slightlylater monument of Nikias,son of Niko- demos,commemorating a victory in thedithyrambic competition for boys in 320/19B.C., alsocarried its dedicatoryinscription on its architrave.l03 Locatedjust to the northwestof the sanctuaryof Dionysos,this monu- mentwas a full-sized(16.68 x 11.79m) building similar to a temple,with a prostyleporch of sixcolumns in the Doricorder.104 Mostof thedatable, inscribed choregic monuments belong to thepe- riodduring or afterthe reignof Alexander.Do theirprominent inscrip- tionsrepresent the influenceof Macedonianroyal practice?105 A look at 100. IG II23206; Goette 1989, thevisual landscape of Athensin the4th centurystrongly suggests other- pp.94-95. wise.As we haveseen, Attic funeraryreliefs, from the late 5th century 101.IG II23052; SEGXLV 696. onward,frequently bore the nameof the deceasedon the architraveor an 102.IG II23054; SEG XLXIX206. equivalentflat upper fascia; likewise, votive plaques were often thus in- 103.IG II23055. scribed.In viewof theseabundant local precedents, it is difficult(and un- 104.Hintzen-Bohlen 1997, pp. 6S necessary)to demonstrateany significant role for external influence in the 61. Plutarch(Nic. 3.3) seemsto erro- neouslyassociate this monumentwith formor placement ofthe inscriptions on 4th-centuryAttic choregic monu- the 5th-centurygeneral and statesman ments.The proliferationof theseprominently inscribed monuments does Nikias,son of Nikeratos,who is saidto not indicateany introduction of foreignhabits, breakdown in the social havededicated several tripods with his structureof the polis,or easingof (putative)restrictions on privatearchi- brothersin 415 B.C. (cf.Pl. Grg.472a; tecturalactivity; it is simplya functionof continuingevolution in a well- Hintzen-Bohlen1997, p.61, with n.460). Forother large-scale choregic establishedmedium of competitivedisplay.l06 monumentsof the late4th century,see Similarly,these geographicallydiverse examples not only from the annotatedlists provided by Goette Athens,but from Olympia, Thasos, and perhaps Oropos as well repre- (1989,p. 97) andHintzen-Bohlen sent a rangeof buildingtypes, none of whichseems particularly likely (1997,pp.145-147). to have been affectedby any directinfluence from Macedonian (or 105.In the caseof the Lysikrates Hekatomnid)monuments, or evenfrom each other. Given the numbers, Monument,JamesMcCredie (1984, pp.182-183)has arguedfor Mace- geographicalrange, and approximatecontemporaneity of thesemonu- donianinfluence in variousaspects ments,it is moreefficient to seein thema naturalmanifestation of long- of styleand design of the building, standing,filndamental Greek social and religious habits, rather than to butthe inscriptionis not one of the assumeexternal influence or to positthat foreign royal practice was so elementsfor which he claimsspecifi- quicklyadopted and imitated by private individuals in suchwidely varying callyMacedonian precedents. 106.Wilson (2000, p.221) notes, contexts. withreference to the monumentof In sum,a combinationof archaeological,epigraphical, and literary Lysikrates:"The stylistic change evidencesuggests a strongpossibility that dedicatoryinscriptions were shouldnot deceiveus into imagining inscribedor painted on at leastsome of thevotive structures now attested thatkhoregic display had necessarily solely(or primarily)in ancientliterature. This evidencealso pointsto begunto operatewith a completely differentdynamic in thisperiod. Even the architraveas a logicallocation for such inscriptions, on bothaesthetic at the heightof city-state'corporatism,' andpractical grounds, with good comparanda known in othermedia. The therewas always a tensionbetween the lackof inscriptionson buildingsnot sponsoredby individualsis in no collectiveideals of the polisand the waypredictive of epigraphicalpractice on buildingsdedicated by indi- moreor less acknowledgedpre- viduals.Accordingly, the increasein the numberof extantinscriptions eminenceof individuals."See also in the secondhalf of the 4th centuryneed not representanything other Wilson2000, p.235. 107.As, for example,in the caseof thanthe resultsof the ongoingtrend, in bothpublic and private archi- the propylonto the Athenian tecture,toward more extensive use of permanentmaterials (especially Asklepieion,originally wooden, but marble).l07 rebuiltin stone,as mentionedabove. ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 287

ANCIENT ANECDOTES

Severalancient anecdotes appear to reveala deepantipathy for inscriptionsof the sortthat I arguecould have been almost commonplace. De- spitethe fact that these stories concerningThemistoklesand theTemple of ArtemisAristoboule, Perikles and the Parthenon,and Alexander the Greatand the Artemision at Ephesos areoften rejected (or ignored) as apocryphalor anachronistic, assumptions based on themnevertheless con- tinueto colormodern views.l08 In thefollowing discussion I do notseek to proveor disproveauthenticity, but rather to pointout thatin no casedo thesestories, even if authentic,imply any Classical aversion to architecturaldedicatory inscriptions. In eachof theseanecdotes the locusof the conflictdescribed lies not in the proposeddedicatory inscription per se, but ratherin the specificcircumstances of the particularbuilding in question. Forexample, in a list of occasionsof publicdiscontent with Themi- stokles,Plutarch reports: "He offended the multitude also by building the templeof Artemis,whom he surnamedAristoboule, or Best Counsellor, intimatingthus that it washe whohad given the bestcounsel to the city andto theHellenes.''l09 If this building did carry an inscribed (or painted) dedication,it wouldhave been the implications of the epithetof thegod- dess,not the nameof Themistokles,or the factthat he haddedicated a 108. So, for example,Botermann temple,that would have rendered the inscriptionoffensive. (1994,p. 182) on Alexanderand A roughlycontemporary, nonarchitectural example, taken by many as Ephesos:"Die ganze Episode ist eine evidencefor state-enforced anonymity of dedications,concerns Kimon and Anekdote.Aber eine signifikante, deren the hermsdedicated after his victoriesat Eionon the Strymonin 476/5 historischerKern das Befremden der B.C. Aischinesclaims that the victorious generals asked the demos for per- griechischenOffentlichkeit uber missionto dedicatethe herms,but were allowed to do so onlyon condi- AlexandersAnmassung ist." 109. Them.22.1-2 (Loeb,B. Perrin, tion thatthey not inscribetheir own names.ll°The pointof contention trans.).Garland (1992, p. 76) sug- hereis notthe inscribing of dedications,but rather the fair apportionment geststhat the offensemight lie in of creditfor a particularachievement. This storydoes not indicatethat upstagingthe publiccult of Artemis individualdedications would never be allowed,only that in thiscase the Boulaia,worshipped in the Agora. demoswas not willing for this particular honor to be consideredan exclu- 110.Aischin. 3.183-185. This formulationand emphasis are no sivelypersonal one.lll doubtshaped to somedegree by Similarissues are raised in Plutarch'saccount of Perikles'building ac- Aischines'desire to arguethat tivitiesand the financing of theParthenon. According to Plutarch,Perikles Ktesiphonhad acted improperly respondedto his opponents'criticism by askingthe Assembly whether he in proposinghonors for Demosthenes. wasspending too much;when they answered with a strongaffirmative he 111.This emphasisis clearalso in announcedthat he himselfwould fund the constructionand would in- Plutarch'sreference to theseherms (Cim.7). The sameprinciple is illus- scribehis own name as dedicator. "When Perikles had said this, whether it tratedat Cim.8.1, where Miltiades is wasthat they admired his magnanimityor viedwith his ambitionto get saidto havebeen refused an olive theglory of hisworks, they cried out with a loudvoice and bade him take crownin partdue to the wordsof freelyfrom the publicfunds for his outlays,and to sparenaught whatso- Sophanesof Dekeleia:"when you ever.''ll2 havefought alone, then demand to be honoredalone." Thisstory is problematicin manyrespects and may indeed deserve to 112.Plut. Per. 14.2 (Loeb,B. Perrin, be dismissedas anoutright fiction, but such rejection should be basedon trans.). groundsother than an a priori assumptionthat a proposalof personal 288 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ financingfor publicbuildings or the use of personaldedicatory in- scriptionswould have been inconceivable in ClassicalAthens.ll3 Such an offerof privatefunding for a publicproject may not be asfar-fetched as it is oftenassumed to be.The StoaPoikile (or Peisianakteios) may well have beensponsored in thisfashion. Few Greek cities at anyperiod could un- dertakemajor projects without some special source of revenuebeing de- votedto theproject; "matching grants" from individuals may have helped to providethat revenue more often than we realize.For example, a frag- mentaryinscription (the Springhouse Decree) from the 430s seems to includethe responseof the demosto anoffer of fundingfrom Perikles and membersof hisfamilyfor some kind of waterworks.ll4The offerwas appar- entlydeclined, with thanks, by the demos,but nothingin the remaining fragmentsof thedecree suggests that the offer was considered inappropri- ateor unusual. Of coursethis decree, even assuming it is correctlyunder- stood,does not provethat Perikles would or couldhave used the threat describedby Plutarch,but it doessuggest that neither the ideaof private architecturalsponsorship nor the tensions and rivalry between public, com- munalachievement and private, individual accomplishment would have beenwholly out of placein 5th-centuryAthens.ll5Thepoint here is notto claimthat Plutarch is accuratelydescribing an actual debate, but rather to makeclear that, whatever its status,his accountcannot be takenas evidencefor a Classicalaversion to architecturaldedicatory inscriptions. Within the contextof Plutarch'snarrative, as in the otheranecdotes discussedso far,the issuesat stakeare the properapportionment of responsibility,credit, and glory, not excessin personaldisplay or the appro- priatenessof inscribingarchitectural dedications.ll6 The storymost frequently referred to in scholarlydiscussions of Late Classicalarchitectural sponsorship is that of Alexander and Ephesos. Strabo, followingArtemidoros, reports that Alexander promised to payall the expensesfor rebuilding the Temple of Artemisat Ephesos(destroyed by fireon the nightof Alexander'sbirth) if he couldhave a dedicatoryinscription,but the Ephesians were unwilling.ll7 Strabo remarks that Artemi-

113.Ameling (1985, esp. pp. 59-61) thanks.Scholars differ on whetherthe wasa projectin whichthe boundaries presentsa veryskeptical view of Plu- thanksaccompany a refusal(Connor betweenpersonal and public spheres tarch'saccount, emphasizing parallels 1971,p. 127,n. 69) or an acceptance werequite problematic and the poten- with2nd-century A.C. Imperialbuild- (e.g.,Mattingly 1961, p. 164)of the tialfor abuse a sourceof realanxiety. ing practice;see alsoStadter 1989, offer.Ameling (1985, p. 59) believes The chargesagainst Perikles and Phei- pp. 181-183.For funding of the thatmodern understanding of this text diasall seemto haveinvolved excessive Parthenonsee Giovannini1997; hasbeen prejudiced by Plutarch(Per. "personalizing"or appropriation in one Samons1993; and Kallet-Marx 1989. 14), andthat the inscriptionis so frag- wayor another:the inclusionof Peri- 114.IG I3 49 (= IG I254); SEGX mentarythat no conclusionsshould be kles'face on the shieldof Athena,and 47, XII 19,XIX 12.The textis badly basedon it at all. the embezzlementof funds.Plut. Per. damagedand most of the documentis 115.Perikles could not, in anycase, 31.2-5;Diod. Sic. 12.39.1-2.Sugges- missing,but what remains includes havepaid for the entirecost of the tion of an inscriptionon the Parthenon partsof two amendments.A conser- Parthenonas built,but this neednot wouldbe a yet moreextreme version of vativeversion of the textis presented affectthe possibilitythat private and this samekind of personalappropria- byWoodhead (1973-1974, p. 761). publicfinancing would have been tion of the monument. The matterstreated include water consideredand balanced and, in some 117. Strab.14.1.22 (C 640). supply,a deslre. to mlnlmlze. . . expense, cases,played off againsteach other. Botermann(1994, p. 182;see above, referenceto the sonsof Periklesin the 116.The chargesagainst, and exile n. 108). dativecase, and probably a motionof of, Pheidiassuggest that the Parthenon ARROGANCE? ARCHITRAVAL 289 notfitting for dorospraised the Ephesianwho told Alexander that it was reflectdeep- agod to makededications to the gods.Does this response dedication seatedantipathy toward dedicatory inscriptions or even toward accountcon- oftemples by individuals?By no means.As withPlutarch's is notbased cerningPerikles and the Parthenon, the Ephesians'objection (orinscrib- onthe inappropriatenessof the ideaof Alexander'sbuilding theirtemple. ing)a temple; they object only to hisbuilding and inscribing Alexanderwasnot claiming a privilegeof anoutrageous or unprecedented theirown type,but in thiscase it wasa privilegethe Ephesians considered be deprived anddid not wish to relinquishor share.They did not want to forthe work ofthe credit,both with the goddess and their fellow Greeks, her theythemselves had alreadydone, and planned to do, in rebuilding of col- temple.Inscribed fragments from the basemoldings of a number com- umnsshow that individual contributions were in factepigraphically memoratedon the building itself.ll8 on Alex- In bothof thesestories, Plutarch's on Periklesand Strabo's appropria- ander,the oppositionbetween public monument and private meanssuggest tionis drawnin theclearest possible terms. But they by no is byusurp- thatthe only way an individual can have a monumentinscribed represented inga publicright. On the contrary,stories in whichcities are socialben- asunwilling to giveover into private hands the religiousand patrondeities efitsof communalresponsibility for great temples of their (such havelittle bearing on attitudestoward the distinct class of buildings thatare asthose of Themistokles,Telemachos, Konon, and Xenophon) could moretruly and appropriately personal in theirorigins. Individuals Classicalpe- make,and claim credit for, architectural dedications in the in nature riod,but gifts (orother monuments) that were truly corporate individual. werenot to be subsumedor obscuredunder the nameof any by an in- 118.IEphesos 1519; 29 fragments Theseanecdotes describing resistance to the appropriation claimto "best fromat leasteight (and probably more) dividualof somethingthat should be public(Themistokles' mostcomplete Artemision) differentcolumns. The counsel,"Perikles' claim to theParthenon, Alexander's to the ofthese (1519a, in fourfragments) butnone of emphasizethe importance of givingcredit where credit is due, reads:[ ] yL[ ] Sap8LNvNA0T[,UL]8L thatproperly fall (1890, themimplies any restriction on inscribingmonuments x[o]vovAo[v avr0Nxrv]. Hicks attestedex- no.510a)notes that the withina person'sown responsibility.Indeed, the numerous pp.173-174, 4th centuries letterforms "precisely suit the dateof amplesof structuresbuilt by individuals in the5th andearly the dedications therestoration of the templein makeit clearthat, in theirproper context, private architectural of the fourthcentury B.C." to be made secondhalf wereacceptable and appropriate and were in no wayexpected andhe connectsthe inscriptionswith . . . severaanclent . testlmonla concernlng anonymously. thetemple's financing: Strabo (14.1.22 [C 640]) notesthat the jewelry and personalpossessions of the Ephesian CONCLUSIONS womenwere sold to raisemoney; the pseudo-AristotelianOecon. 2.20 reports of dedica- I haveargued that architraval inscriptions carrying the names thatthe Ephesianspassed a lawre- of majorsocial or to the city torsof buildingsshould not be consideredthe product quiringwomen to surrender an expressionof theyhad, and allowing any religiouschanges in LateClassical Greece, but rather whatgold Literaryevi- who gavemoney sufficient for a col- Greekvotive and epigraphical traditions of long standing. as therange of umnto havetheir names inscribed denceshows that architecture (including temples) fell within dedicators;and Pliny (HIXT 16.40 [213]) thatindividuals could and did make throughout the Clas- "allAsia" contributed to votiveofferings informsus that the Archaicperiod on, the architravewas among the the rebuilding. sicalperiod. From 290 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ favoredlocations for inscriptions, with particularly frequent use in votive andfunerary contexts from the late 5th century onward. Apart from practicaland aesthetic considerations, the primaryissue governing whether a buildingcould carry a dedicatoryinscription was not arrogancevs. modesty,not state vs. individual, but financial responsibility. The structure must representa truegift to a god froma distinctand nameable individual or group;few large-scale, corporately funded projects fully met those criteria. Availabilityof, and priorities for, both public and private capital would certainlyhave affected the frequency,scale, and permanence of architecturaldedications by individuals; these factors would have varied from place to placeand decade to decade.For Athens in particular,the second half of the5th century was a timeof extraordinarycollective self-assertiveness on the partof the demos,which reveled in manyof the activitiespreviously availableonly to wealthyindividuals.ll9 The currentstate of the evidence, however,does not justify the supposition that Athenian democratic ideology (muchless, universal Greek morality) required that the inscribingof architecturaldedications be governedby rules significantly different from thosegoverning religious dedications of othertypes. Epigraphical anonymity(voluntary or otherwise) should no longer be assumedto havebeen a governingprinciple for personalarchitectural dedications in Classical 119. See,e.g., Ober1989; Kallet- Greece. Marx1993. ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 29I

REFERENCES

AgoraIII = R. E. Wycherley,Literary Burkert,W.1975. "Apellaiund andEpigraphical Testimonia (Agora Apollon,"RhM 118, pp. 1-21. III),Princeton 1957. . 1988."The Meaning and AgoraX1V = H. A. Thompsonand Functionof theTemple in Clas- R. E. Wycherley,TheAgora of sicalGreece," in Templein Society, Athens:The History, Shape, and Uses M. V. Fox,ed., Winona Lake, ofan Ancient City Center (Agora pp.27-47. XIV), Princeton1972. Clairmont,C. 1993.ClassicalAttic Aleshire,S. 1989.TheAthenianAskle- Tombstones:IntroductoryVolume, pieion:The People, Their Dedications, Kilchberg. andthe Inventories, Amsterdam. Connor,W. R. 1971.The New Aloni,A. 2000."Anacreonte a Atene: Politiciansof Ffth-CenturyAthens, Datazionee significatodi alcune Princeton. iscrizionitiranniche," ZPE 130, Daux,G. 1958."Le Tresor de Marseille pp.81-94. a Delphes,"BCH 82, pp.358-367. Amandry,P. 1967-1968."Themistocle Davies,J.K. 1971.Athenian Propertied a Melite,"in XatocaTWtocowref Av. Familes,Oxford. K. 'OpRavAow4, Athens, pp. 265- Develin,R. 1989.Athenian 0ff rials, 279. 684-321B.C., Cambridge. . 1986."Chios and Delphi," in Dillon,M. P.J. 1995."The Lakedai- Chios:AConference at the Homereion monianDedication to Olympian in Chios,1984, J. Boardmanand C. Zeus:The Date of Meiggs& Lewis E. Vaphopoulou-Richardson,eds., 22 (SEG11,1203A)," ZPE 107, Oxford,pp. 205-232. pp.60-68. . 1988."A propos de monu- Dunbabin,T. J. 1948.The Western mentsde Delphes:Questions de Greeks:The History of Sicily and chronologie(I)," BCH 112, pp. 591- SouthItalyprom the Foundation of the 610. GreekColonies to 480 B.C., Oxford. Amandry,P., and Y. Fomine.1953. La Engelmann,H. 1981."Die Bau- Colonnedes Naxiens et le Portiquedes inschriftam Apollonion von Athenians(FdD II.4), Paris. Syrakus,"ZPE 44, pp.91-94. Ameling,W. 1985."Plutarch, Peritles Flaceliere,R. 1937.Plutarque, sur les 12-14,"Historia 34, pp.47-63. oraclesde la Pythie.Texte et traduction Bauer,H. 1977."Lysikratesdenkmal: avecune introduction etdes notes, Baubestandund Rekonstruktion," Paris. AM 92, pp. 197-227. Funke,P. 1983."Konons Ruckkehr Bean,G. E. 1966."TheInscriptions," nachAthen im Spiegelepi- in TheSanctuary of Hemitheaat graphischerZeugnisse," ZPE 53, Kastabos,J. M Cookand W. H. pp.149-189. Plommer,eds., Cambridge, pp. 58- Gadbery,L. 1992."The Sanctuary of 65. theTwelve Gods in the Athenian Boersma,J. S. 1970.Athenian Building Agora:A RevisedView," Hesperia Policyfrom561/0 to405/4 B.C., 61, pp.447-489.

,> . oronlngen. Garland,R. 1992.Introducing New Bommelaer,J.-F.1991. Guidede Gods:The Politics of Athenian Delphes:Le site (Sites et monuments Religion,London. 7), Paris. Giovannini,A. 1997."La partici- Botermann,H. 1994."Wer baute das pationdes alliesau financement neuePriene? Zur Interpretation der du Parthenon:Aparche ou Inschriftenvon PrieneNr. 1 und tribut?"Historia 46, pp. 145- 156,"Hermes 122, pp. 163-187. 157. Bousquet,J. 1970."L'inscription du Goette,H. R. 1989."Ein dorischer tresorde Corinthea Delphes,"BCH Architravim Kerameikosvon 94, pp.669-673. Athen,"AM104, pp. 83-103. 292 GRETCHEN UMHOLTZ

. l999."Mausoleumor "Institut de corre spondance CoinageDecree," Historia 10, ChoregicMomument? On the hellenique,"BCH 17,pp.611-623. pp.148-188. Self-Representationof the Athenian .1896. "Inscriptiondu grand McCredie,J.R.1984."The'Lantern UpperClass under the Democracy" autel,"pp.617-633 in "Institutde of Demosthenes'and Lysikrates, (paper,Toronto 1999). correspondancehellenique," BCH Son of Lysitheides,of Kilynna," Guarducci,M.1967. EpigrafiagrecaI, 20, pp.581-732. in StudiesPresented to SterlingDow Rome. Hornblower,S. 1982.Mausolus, on His EightiethBirthday (GRBM . 1985."Nuoviriflessioni Oxford. 10),A. Boegeholdet al.,eds., sull'epigrafedel tempiodi Apolloa Immerwahr,H. R.1990.Attic Script: Durham,pp.181-183. Siracusa,"RendLinc 40, pp.15-17. A Survey(Oxford Monographs on Mitroupoulou,E.1975. A New Inter- .1987. "Iltempio arcaico di ClassicalArchaeology), Oxford. pretationof the TelemachosMonu- Apolloa Siracusa:Riflessi nuove," Jeffery,L. H.1990. TheLocal Scripts ment,Athens. in Saggi in onoredi GuglielmoDe ofArchaic Greece, rev. ed. (Oxford Morgan,C. 1993."TheOrigins of Angelisd 'Ossat,S. Benedetti, Monographson ClassicalArchaeol- Pan-Hellenism,"in GreekSanc- G. MiarelliMariani, and L. Mar- ogy),Oxford. tuaries:NewApproaches,N. Mari- cucci,eds., Rome, pp. 43-45. Kallet-Marx,L. 1989."Did Tribute natosand R. Hagg,eds., London, Gunter,A. C. 1985."Looking at Fundthe Parthenon?"ClXnt 8, pp.18-44. HecatomnidPatronage from pp.252-266. Ober,J. 1989.Mass and Elite in Demo- Labraunda,"RES 87, pp.113-124. .1993. Money,Expense, and craticAthens:Rhetoric, Ideology, and Harris,D.1995. TheTreasures of the Naval Powerin Thucydides'History the Powerof the People,Princeton. Parthenonand Erechtheion,Ox£ord. 1-5.24, Berkeley. Parker,R.1996. Athenian Religion: Hellstrom,P. 1981."The Androns at Kirchner,J.1948.Imagines inscrip- AHistory, Oxford. Labraunda:A PreliminaryAccount tionumAtticarum:Ein Bilderatlas Partida,E.2000. TheTreasuries at of TheirArchitecture," MedMusB epigraphischerDenkm21erAttikas, Delphi:AnArchitectural Study, 16,pp.58-74. 2nd ed. (G. Klaffenbach),Berlin. Jonsered. . 1989."Formal Banqueting at Kron,U. 1996."Priesthoods, Ded- Petrakos,B.1997. OC EXCyp?£f IOV Labrauxlda,''in Architecture and ications,and Euergetism: What Q,oco1rov,Athens. Societyin HecatomnidCaria (Boreas PartDid ReligionPlay in the Picard,C. 1965."Sur les dedicaces 17),T. Lindersd P.Hellstrom, Politicaland Social Status of Greek monumentalesapposees en Grece eds.,Uppsala, pp.99-104. Women?"in Religionand Power auxentablements de faSades .1996a."Hecatomnid Display in theAncientGreek World. Proceed- d'edificessacres ou civils,"in Xtx,oc- of Pomrerat the LabrayndaSanctu- ings of the UppsalaSymposium, 1993 pCOV £Cf Av. K. 'OpA&vAov1, ary,"in Religionand Powerin the (Boreas24), P.Hellstrom and B. Athens,pp. 91-107. Sncient GreekWorld: Proceedings Alroth,eds., Uppsala, pp.139-182. Pouilloux,J.,and G. Roux.1963. of the UppsalaSymposium, 1993 LabraundaI.1 = K.Jeppesen, The Pro- Enigmesa Delphes,Paris. (Boreas24), P. Hellstromand pylaea(Labraunda I.1), Stockholm Raubitschek,A. E.1949. Dedications B. Alroth,eds., tippsala, pp.133- 1955. from theAthenian Akropolis: 138. LabraundaI.2 = A. Westholm,The A Catalogueof theInscriptions of the .1996b."The Andrones at Architectureof theHieron (Labraunda Sixth and Fifth CenturiesB.C., Labraynda:Dining Halls for I.2), Lund1963. Cambridge,Mass. ProtohellenisticKings," in Basileia: LabraundaI.3 = P.Hellstrom and Ridgway,B. S.1997. FourthCentury Die Palasteder hellenistischen Konige, T.Thieme, The Temple of Zeus Stylesin GreekSculpture, Madison. W. Hoepfnerand G. Brands,eds., (LabraundaI.3), Stockholm1982. Robert,J.,and L. Robert.1983.Fouilles Mainz,pp. 164-169. LabraundaIII.2 =J. Crampa,The Greek d Amyzonen CarieI: Exploration, Hesberg,H. von. 1994.Formen privater Inscriptions,Pt. 2:13-133 hlstolre,, . . monnales, * et lnscrlptlons,* * - Repr2sentationin derBautunst des 2. (LabraundaIII.2), Lund 1972. Paris. und 1. Jahrhundertsv. Chr.(Arbeiten Lawton,C. 1995.Attic Document Salviat,F.1977. "La dedicace du tresor zurArchaologie), Cologne. Reliefs:Artand Politicsin Ancient de Cnidea Delphes,"in Etudes Hicks,E. L.1890. The Collectionof Athens,Oxford. delphiques(BCH Suppl.4),Athens, AncientGreek Inscriptions in the Mark,I.1993. TheSanctuary of Athena pp.23-36. BritishMuseum III, Ox£ord. Nike in Athens:ArchitecturalStages Samons,L.J., II.1993. "Athenian Hintzen-Bohlen,B.1997. Die and Chronology(Hesperia Suppl.26), Financeand the Treasury of Kulturpolitikdes Eubulos und des Princeton. Athena,"Historia 42, pp.129-138. Lykurg,Berlin. Martin,R. 1968."Sculpture et peinture Samothrace4.2 = K. Lehmannand Holloway,R. R. l991. TheArchaeology dansles facadesmonumentales au D. Spittle,Theilltar Court(Samo- ofAncientSicily,London. IVesiecle av.J.-C.," RS 1968, thrace4.2), New York1964. Homolle,T.1893."Seance du 15/17 pp.171-184. Schaber,W.1982. Die archaischen decembre1893," pp. 611-615 in Mattingly,H. B. 1961."The Athenian TempelderArtemis von Ephesos: ARCHITRAVAL ARROGANCE? 293

Entwurfsprinzipienund Vanderpool,E., andJ. Threpsiades. Rekonstruttion,Waldsassen. 1966."Themistokles' Sanctuary of Scholl,A. 1994."HokuTwaBavTwa ArtemisAristoboule,"ArchDelt 19, 11vN,u£ea:Zur literarischen und 1964,A [1966],pp.26-36. monumentalenUberlieferung vanStraten, F. T.1981. "Giftsfor the aufwendigerGrabmaler im Gods,"in Faith, Hope,and Worship: spatklassischenAthen," JdI 109, Aspectsof ReligiousMentality in the pp.239-271. AncientWorld, H. S. Versnel,ed., . 1996.Die attischenBildfeld- Leiden,pp.65-151. stelendes 4. Jhs. v. Chr.:Untersuch- .1992. "Votivesand Votaries in ungenzu den kleinformatigen GreekSanctuaries," in Le sanctuaire Grabreliefsim sp2tklassischenAthen grec(Entretiens sur l'antiquite (AM-BH 17), Berlin. classique37), A. Schachter,ed., Schroder,S. 1990.Plutarchs SchrftDe Geneva,pp.247-289. Pythiaeoraculis. Text, Einleitung, Viviers,D.1992. Recherchessur les undKommentar,Stuttgart. ateliersde sculpteurset la cite Sourvinou-Inwood,C. 1992."Further d Athenesa l'epoquearchaique Aspectsof PolisReligion," Annali (AcademieRoyale de Belgique, dell'Istitutouniversitario orientale di Memoirede la Classedes Beaux- Napoli,Dipartimento di Studi Arts),Brussels. delmondoclassico e delMediterraneo Walsh,J.1986. "The Date of the antico,Sezione di archeologiae storia AthenianStoa at Delphi,"AJA 90, antica 10, pp.259-274. pp.319-336. Stadter,P. A. 1989.A Commentaryon Wilson,P.2000. TheAthenian Institu- PlutarchsPericles, Chapel Hill. tion of the Khoregia:The Chorus,the Stewart,A. 1990.Greek Sculpture:An City,and the Stage,Cambridge. Exploration,New Haven. Woodhead,A. G.1973-1974."The Svenson-Evers,H. 1996.Die Date of the 'SpringhouseDecree' griechischenArchitekten archaischer (IGI2 54), ArchCI25-26, pp.751- undklassischer Zeit, Frankfurt. 761.

GretchenUmholtz TRINITYCOLLEGE DEPARTMENTOF CLASSICS 300 SUMMITSTREET HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06IO6 [email protected]