hesperia 74 (2005) PATRONS OF 6 Pages 395-42 ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS OF THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS Three Studies
ABSTRACT
In three studies of votive offerings, the author explores the role played by private patrons in the production of art and inscriptions in Athens in the Archaic and Classical periods. The studies concern additive sculptural groups a produced by the contributions of multiple dedicators, form of display ex plained within the context of votive religion; epigraphical evidence for col on laboration between East Greek sculptors and Athenian patrons 6th- and votive and dedications that have either been mis 5th-century monuments; as vase or identified belonging to Athenian potters and painters erroneously reconstructed as metal or stone vases.
INTRODUCTION
The most pressing concern for most studies of artistic patronage in Ath ens in the Archaic and Classical periods has been public patronage, namely, identifying the patrons responsible for the construction of temples and other buildings and for the choice of subjects in architectural sculpture.1 After 480 b.c., the best-attested patron is the Athenian demos itself. In Archaic Athens, by contrast, the tyrant Peisistratos and his sons and the as post-Kleisthenic democracy have been identified by modern scholars or patrons sponsors of public art.2 Even the study of Athenian black an and red-figure pottery, obvious realm for the exploration of the role of
1.1 would like to thank follow the Agora Excavations. Aileen Ajootian, 1989,1995; alsoAngiolillo 1997 and individuals for me Ben the in ing granting per Nancy Bookidis, Millis, Peter essays Sancisi-Weerdenburg mission to see and otherwise and two anon 2000 for objects Nulton, Olga Palagia, up-to-date bibliography. readers see facilitating my research: former ephor ymous Hesperia contributed Kleisthenic democracy: esp. Coul Ismene Trianti and son et Christina Vlasso references that improved this paper. al. 1994, Boedeker and Raaflaub extra to poulou of the Acropolis Museum; Finally, thanks go Karen E. 1998, andMorris and Raaflaub 1998, director Charalambos Kritzas and Rasmussen for 8 and of producing Fig. collections essays inspired by the to for Chara Karapa-Molisani of the Epi Robert Houston scanning my 2,500th anniversary in 1992-1993 of graphical Museum; and director John drawings. Kleisthenes' reforms. 2. Peisistratid see Camp and Jan Jordan of theAthenian tyranny: Shapiro
? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens
American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org 396 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
private patrons, has been approached in light of Peisistratid iconography and cult sponsorship since the publication of John Boardmans first article on Peisistratos and Herakles in 1972.3 In the private realm, Archaic Attic funerary monuments have attracted the lion's share of attention. A consid erable number of studies concerning the significance of their sculpture and inscriptions followed the publication of G. M. A. Richters sculptural catalogue (1961) and L. H. Jefferys 1962 epigraphical catalogue of in scribed funerary monuments from Athens and the Attic countryside.4 One major issue regarding patronage raised by private funerary monuments in Athens?the apparent gap between the Archaic monument series and the resumption of inscribed funerary stelai commemorating private individ as uals late in the third quarter of the 5 th century b.c.?has been explained outcome at the of various larger factors work in the public sphere.5 Votive monuments dedicated in sanctuaries inAthens and Attica have as been less intensively studied products of patronage than architecture, vase painting, and funerary sculpture.6 Though the Athenian demos emerges as a patron of votive statues in the Late Archaic period, the majority of inscribed, monumental sanctuary dedications of the Archaic and Classical periods attest to the patronage of private individuals.7 The bulk of the con evidence for dedications of freestanding sculpture in sanctuaries is on centrated the Athenian Acropolis. The Acropolis material, in particu lar the preserved votive inscriptions, permits the study of patronage by individual, named patrons. The rich prosopographical evidence for the
3. 1972. For to the realm of is 1999 on Boardman subsequent private sphere public major exception Jacquemin see 15 inscribed lists and collective monumental votive at bibliography, Shapiro 1989, pp. casualty offerings Delphi. 17, 61-64,157-163; Angiolillo 1997, commemoration of the war dead in the For Archaic and Classical votive statues on see pp. 134-142; Blok 2000, pp. 28-30. Demosion Sema (Stupperich 1994); the Acropolis, Keesling 2003, the of 429 b.c. and Hurwit 4. On Archaic funerary monuments, Athenian plague (Mi also 1999, pp. 57-63,116 see Richter 1961; Jeffery 1962; and kalson 1984, pp. 223-224); and the 136 passim, 145-153,199,250-253; b.c. esp. D'Onofrio 1982,1988; Sourvinou Periklean citizenship law of 451/0 Kissas 2000; Shapiro 2001. on 7. of a Inwood 1995; Kaltsas 2002, the (Meyer 1993, pp. 112-119; Stears The only certain example Phrasikleia kore and kouros from 2000, p. 52, who also dates the earliest dedication of freestanding sculpture by Merenda in Attica; and Niemeier 2002, Classical stelai to the 430s or 440s b.c. the Athenian state in the Archaic pe new than ca. 430 riod is commemo the preliminary publication of rather after b.c.). White the quadriga group used as the over the sculptures found in the Kerameikos. ground lekythoi grave goods rating victory Boiotians a ca. in b.c. 5. The head of kouros found in the in the period between 480 and and Chalkidians 506 (replaced to ca. 430 continued to monu after the Persian sack of the Kerameikos and dated stylistically represent Acropolis ca. b.c. now as Morris in the are 480 is interpreted the mental grave markers (I. 1992, 480); preserved inscriptions latest monument in the Archaic series pp. 104-118); Clairmont (1983, pp. 60 DAA 168 and 173 (IG I3 501). A colos column without a (Knigge 1969; 1991, pp. 33-34, fig. 32). 73) argued that these represented sal votive preserved for the in monuments in the Demosion Korres Explanations gap funerary public inscription, published by (1997), a was in 480 cannot be monuments in Athens include sump Sema. Role of the Parthenon sculptors: destroyed but it could be at tuary law dated after Solon's reforms Friis Johansen 1951; Richter 1961, dated precisely, and thus 113 to or to (Garland 1989; Seaford 1994, pp. 74 pp. 54-55; cf. Engels 1998, pp. tributed either the Peisistratids 92; Parker 1996, pp. 133-135; Engels 119. the Athenian demos. If the monument was as 1998, pp. 97-106); the dismantling of 6. Exceptions: Schneider 1975 and replaced after 480, Korres sug reuse 1992 on it is more to have been a Archaic tombs for in the Themis Holloway the Acropolis korai, gests, likely b.c. but now 85-88. monument of the toklean city wall in 478 (S.Morris cf. Keesling 2003, pp. public democracy, by a of votive with noted 1992, pp. 305-307); 5th-century Most studies offerings focus analogy the quadriga group restraint in on nonmonumental above and the in the culture of public display portable, votives; Tyrannicides (Morris 1994); the displacement of see, e.g., the conference papers pub Agora. commemorative monuments from the lished in ScAnt 3-4 (1989-1990). One PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 397
dedicators of votives in Athens intersects in interesting ways with data from other them Attic black- and sources, among funerary monuments, red-figure pottery, and ostraka. In addition, the inscribed dedications of were the Archaic period in Athens less conventional than the funerary same me monuments of the period, presenting greater variations in size, more con dium, and sculptural types that may express directly the patrons tribution to the monument's form. Unlike funerary monuments, private dedications inAthens also bridge the gap between the Archaic and Clas sical periods without any apparent break.8 In this article I present three separate studies concerned with private patrons and their dedications inAthenian sanctuaries. The first study deals sec exclusively with Archaic material, but the phenomena treated in the ond and third studies extend into the Classical period. Joint dedications? names votive monuments inscribed with the of multiple dedicators?have recently been studied by Christoph L?hr under the larger rubric of "Fami one lienweihungen."9 Three well-preserved examples of particular class of are are joint dedications examined here in the first study: these inscribed or bases for votive statues statuettes featuring later additions to the origi as nal monument, indicated by separate inscriptions and multiple phases of cuttings for the attachment of sculp ture. These additions resulted in the statues or statuettes on same dedication of multiple grouped together the not as base, but clearly conceived thematically unified sculptural "groups." In the second study, I reevaluate the significance of letter forms and as spelling evidence for the ethnic origins of the sculptors, letter cutters, and patrons of votive monuments in Athens and Attica. Though the in on scriptions funerary monuments have been used to link closely sculptors from Ionia and the Cyclades with East Greek clienteles living inAthens, same seems the evidence of inscribed dedications from the period to attest collaboration between East Greek craftsmen and Athenian patrons. a The third study deals with group of inscribed stone bases from the as Acropolis identified by A. E. Raubitschek supports not for statues, but stone or vase instead for bronze vessels dedicated by Athenian potters and one painters. Iwill show that only of these bases is likely to have supported a or bronze vase, and that this should be interpreted as agonistic sacrificial in rather than as the dedication of a or vase In significance potter painter. a addition, fragmentary 4th-century dedication attributed to the Athe nian potter Kittos may in fact be an anatomical votive from the Athenian on Asklepieion the South Slope of the Acropolis.
JOINT DEDICATIONS
One subset among the sanctuary dedications of the Archaic and Classical 8. For the of the chronology periods recently collected by L?hr consists of private joint dedications made see Acropolis dedications, Keesling more one same as together by than named member of the family. As many 60-61. 2003, pp. 60 of these from sanctuaries the Greek world were included 9.L?hr2000. throughout M. L. Lazzarini in her of Archaic votive consist 10. Altars: Lazzarini 1976, nos. 762, by catalogue inscriptions, not of 764, 766; ceramic vase: no. 314; metal ing only freestanding statues, but also of votive altars, ceramic vases, vessel: no. 689. and metal vessels.10 L?hr discusses 74 preserved examples dedicated jointly 398 CATHERINE M. KEESLING by relatives, dating from the Archaic period through the end of the 4th con century b.c.11 The Athenian Acropolis has produced by far the largest centration of joint dedications in the Greek world, with at least 33 ex ca. ca. b.c. amples dating between 600 and 450 and accounting for nearly a on tenth of 6th- and 5th-century dedications inscribed stone from the
sanctuary.12 Some general observations about the joint dedications from the are re Acropolis in order. Surprisingly few of the inscriptions specify the were lationship between the dedicators. Nine dedicated jointly by rela were tives, and two by fellow demesmen; the remaining 22 dedicated by one individuals whose relationship to another remains uncertain. Though were seems to assume a many of these probably relatives, it unsafe priori were that all connected by family ties.13The familial relationships directly attested by the formulas of the dedicatory inscriptions all fall within the definition of the anchisteia, the bilateral kin group extending to the degree of second cousins.14 The Acropolis material does not appear to include any men joint dedications by and women, and the only examples of such in s are a Lazzarini catalogue mid-5th-century dedication from Locri (no. an a 342), altar from Eretria dedicated jointly by father and daughter (no. 262), and the Late Archaic dedication of the husband and wife Demokydes and Telestodike from Paros (no. 803) made from their common property (arco xolvc?v).15 men The simplest explanation for the lack of joint dedications by and women before the 4th century may be that husbands and wives normally not did hold property in common, and that (in Athens at least) daughters a received their inheritance in the form of dowry separately from their an brothers.16 One indication that inheritance might have been important use occasion for joint dedications is the frequent in their inscriptions of was occa the term apar che, "first-fruits"; though inheritance not the only an sion for dedicating apar che, this is the term used by Herodotos (1.92.1 4) in the later 5th century to describe Croesus's dedications in various Greek sanctuaries from the of his inheritance.17 proceeds
11. L?hr's (2000, passim) examples DAA29, HO, 112, 384 (two brothers); Telestodike: Kr?n 1996, pp. 157-158; CEG 414. made of joint dedications appear under the 297 (two sisters); 53,217,228,291 Telestodike another or dedication on her own on Paros classification "von mehreren Ver (father and children siblings). (Laz wandten errichtet." Demesmen: DAA 94,160; for the zarini 1976, no. 726; CEG 413), on names 12. Joint dedications from the financial role of neighbors and demes which the of her father (Ther men see and son Acropolis dating to the 6th and 5th in the Athenian household, siles) (Asphalios) also appear. was as centuries: DAA 8,29, 30,41,53, 80, Cox 1998, pp. 194-195. DAA 178 16. The dowry daughters' share kerameus 90, 93,94, 99,110,112,114,115,117, dedicated by Mnesiades and of inheritance inAthens: Foxhall 1989, 131a (IG I3 843), 160,178,186,209, Andokides; there are known Athenian pp. 32-43. names 210,217,221,227,228,291,292,297, potters of both (Wagner 2000, 17. Of the 13 joint dedications that 317, 331, 339, 382, 384. My list dif p. 383). preserve some indication of motive, 10 fers from that of Raubitschek (DAA, 14. Littman 1979; L?hr 2000, (DAA 29,41, 94,114,117,160,210 some cases 165-167. Cf. the of p. 466), in (DAA 131a, 191) pp. prevalence [both dedications], 217 [original dedi restora commemoration of the of two dedica because I favored alternative patrilineal line cation], 291,292 [one or are tions interpretations, and in others of descent (especially fathers and sons) tions]) called apar chai, compared on two or (e.g.,DAA 75, 83,162,279) because I Archaic Attic gravestones (D'Ono with designated dekate, "tithe" a more conservative of two dedica adopted approach frio 1998, pp. 116-117). (DAA 186,292 [one to restoration. 15. Eretria dedication: L?hr 2000, tions]). For the significance o? apar che relatives: no. CEG 323. and and see 6-10. 13. Joint dedications by 54; Demokydes dekate, Keesling 2003, pp. PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 399
same The majority of joint dedications from the Acropolis took the as same a statue form the other private dedications of the period: single a with single dedicatory inscription. Here I examine three Archaic joint dedications?one found built into the Klepsydra springhouse below the on com Acropolis and two found the Acropolis?that attest particularly plex forms of collaboration between the dedicators and show the impact that different forms of patronage could have upon the display of Greek were sculpture. In each of these three examples, earlier statue dedications new one case a son renovated when dedicators, in of the original dedicator, new or new added statues statuettes and inscriptions to the original base. are to The results additive sculptural groups consisting of statues added one case the monument at different times, and in statues of drastically no to one an different sizes, all with recognizable thematic relationship on other apart from their patrons' desire to associate them by placing them the same statue base.18
The first inscribed base for a joint dedication to be examined here to was dates originally the Late Archaic period, but reused in the Hellenis tic period in the parapet of the Klepsydra springhouse on the North Slope just below the Acropolis, where it remains in situ today.19 The base (Agora on one narrow 15517; Fig. 1) originally stood vertically of its ends just like an an architectural orthostate, Archaic dedication type similar to examples from the Acropolis.20 Most of the dedicatory inscription, written retro a near grade in smoothed band the top edge of the front face of the block over two : and divided inscribed lines, has been preserved: [ca. 4-5]? ?cv? ?exev :dex?xev :xal h[o]i rcqc??e? [:Att?]aIaovi :xal Mcpikoq ("-s and his a children dedicated tithe to Apollo, and Diphilos"). The final two words, xal AicpiXo?, appear from their placement to be a later addition to the not a original inscription, though certainly carved by different hand. Though B. D. Meritt associated the Klepsydra base with the sanctuary of Apollo on Hypoakraios nearby the North Slope, all of the inscribed dedications to found in that sanctuary date the Roman Imperial period. Since the was over Klepsydra base, however, flipped and reused at least twice even was before it built into the springhouse of the Klepsydra in the Hellenistic a re period?as indicated by the dowel holes for bronze statue and the two on mains of architectural dowels the back of the base?it is possible
18. For a distinction between as "para sion: Nulton (2003, p. 25) points and or in soon b.c. tactic" "syntactic" (narrative out, it might date after 480 see teracting) sculptural groups, Jacque (cf. Parsons 1943, p. 240). min 1999, pp. 159-161; cf. L?hr (2000, 20. See DAA 80 (IG I3 802; Kissas who the valid no. a pp. 153-155), questions 2000, pp. 267-268, C48), pillar of this distinction. in the an ity base shape of orthostate with 19. and Stamires a on one Meritt, Lethen, three-line vertical inscription no. 16 of its narrow ends and a bronze 1957, p. 79, 24, pis. (photograph single statuette to of the inscription) and 25 (drawings); originally attached its top the Travlos 1971, pp. 323-331; IG I3 950. surface above inscription. The third For the block's location and the date of line of the inscription (a sculptor's sig see its reuse, Parsons 1943, pp. 239 nature?) appears to have been added to 9. The date of the the text a 240, fig. inscription, original recording joint dedi as ca. 500-480 b.c. in IG cation given P, by Philon, Aristion, Nau-, and cannot be determined with any preci Pyrion. 4-00 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
-, . ,o
-'i
\
' - v
N .
? .'.? i
1. Figure Archaic orthostate base built into the parapet of the Klepsy dra springhouse (Agora 15517). Inscribed face (above) and four cut tings for the attachment of bronze on statuettes the top of the base (below). After Meritt, Lethen, and Stamires 1957, pi. 25
that it traveled one from any of several sanctuaries of Apollo in the vicinity of the Acropolis.21 two one Three small plinth cuttings, rectangular and oval, can be seen in clearly the drawing of the Klepsydra base published by Meritt in 1957, here as 1. All most reproduced Figure three likely held the bronze plinths of small statuettes a bronze clamped in place by lead soldering, technique well attested by examples from the Acropolis and elsewhere. The irregu 21. For of holes on can the sanctuary Apollo larly shaped surrounding the oval cutting the far right be seeTravlos 91 if an oval statuette on a Hypoakraios, 1971, pp. explained standing rectangular bronze plinth with 95; Nulton 2003. Other likely prove feet at the corners were attached both statuette at beneath the and the four niences include the of sanctuary Apollo corners of the the sizes and Patro?s on the west side of the plinth. Judging by length-to-width propor Agora to tions of their plinths, it is safe say only that these lost statuettes were (Travlos 1971, pp. 96-99; Hedrick 1988) and the to be probably standing human figures. Pythion, probably located near the Ilissos River south mention the for Though previous publications only plinth cuttings east on of the Acropolis rather than three statuettes, the four round dowel holes located between the two rec the North Slope (Nulton 2003; cf. Par also look ancient. Since the three tangular plinth cuttings (see Fig. 1) plinth sons 1943, pp. 233-237; Travlos 1971, are over cuttings equally spaced the top surface of the base, they may have pp. 100-103). PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 4OI
2. Joint dedication of One Figure the to which a bronze statuette simos and Theodoros from the comprised original dedication, quadruped a was a = without plinth later added by second dedicator, Athenian Acropolis (DAA 217 Diphilos.22 Though the of the statuette on the far left was rotated toward the Acr. 4184). Courtesy Deutsches Arch?o plinth slightly Athens there is no other to or logisches Institut, (neg. 1995/121); center, evidence suggest physical interaction the Aehnen photo matic coherence in the original group of three statuettes. If, as I suggest, a a horse were at some quadruped (or and rider) added point after the origi nal dedication, the lack of coherence would only have become more pro nounced.23 This a type of monumental sanctuary dedication, consisting of on changing assemblage of individual figures combined top of the same inscribed so as a base, resembles nothing much cult table of the type placed in statues to front of cult receive offerings, both temporary and perma nent, from multiple worshippers.24 The inscribed DAA base 217 (Acr. 4184) from the Acropolis consists of four a joining fragments of rectangular pillar capital reconstructed in the storerooms of the Acropolis Museum. Two separate dedicatory inscrip tions on a appear the front of the base: two-line inscription on the lower abacus below a a painted cymation molding, and very fragmentary one line on a inscription second, shorter abacus above the molding (Fig. 2).25 Differences in two the letter forms of the inscriptions?e.g., four-barred in the sigma upper inscription, compared with three-barred sigma in the were lower one?indicate that they carved by different letter cutters. Given that the names are son dedicators' Onesimos, of Smikythos and son (lower), Theodoros, of [Onejsimos (upper), the natural inference is that the joint dedicators were father and son, and that the sonTheodoros's was to inscription added his father Onesimos's original dedication. Since Raubitscheks DAA publication of 217, it has been generally accepted that
22. For a similar of a of from the example Psakythe Acropolis (DAA the Persian destruction of the sanctuary bronze statuette attached to a stone IG I3 Kissas 81; 656; 2000, pp. 100 in 480 b.c. The table, like the Klepsydra base without a see no. plinth, the quad 101, B23) consisted of three bronze base, resembles an architectural ortho dedicated Timarchos and statuettes on a with the state. the on ruped by single base, Among offerings found the Classical and left-hand statuettes both the was a signed by Early sculptor right- Kalapodi offering table Onatas (DAA 236; IGV 773; Kissas rotated toward the center one. bronze kouros statuette attached with no. 24. For cult or tables in lead to a 2000, pp. 161-162, B99). offering soldering cutting (Felsch 23. Cf. IG V 950 for the see Gill 1991. suggestion general, At Kalapodi 1991). that the three statuettes with in an plinths (ancient Hyampolis) Boiotia, 25. In addition to DAA, pp. 239 and was a tem see represented Apollo, Artemis, offering table found inside 241, Kissas 2000, pp. 123-124, Leto. The Late Archaic dedication porary cult building constructed after no. B52; IG I3 699 (ca. 500-480 b.c.?). 402 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
Figure 3. Joint dedication of One simos andTheodoros (DAA 217). view Top showing four cuttings for the attachment of statuettes. C. M.
Keesling
son the dedicator Onesimos, of Smikythos, is identical to the red-figure cup painter Onesimos because few other examples of the name Onesimos can be found inAthens before the Roman period.26 In addition to appear on name ing DAA 217, the of Onesimos Smikythou appears (or can be on a on restored) series of eight inscribed marble perirrhanteria dedicated the Acropolis {DAA 349-353, 357, 358, and IG I3 933). Though Raubit schek at one was point suggested that the pillar capital DAA 217 damaged in B.c. the Persian sack of 480 and restored after 480 by Onesimos's son was Theodoros, the best-preserved, left-hand fragment found in February 1886 a together with 14 marble korai in large Perserschutt deposit west of to soon the Erechtheion likely date after the Persian sack.27 Thus, both two inscriptions, and the phases of dedication they represent, should date before 480 B.c., a result that agrees with the identification of Onesimos vase same name. with the Athenian painter of the It is not possible to determine how an interval have between Onesimos's vase long may passed origi 26. For the painter Onesimos, nal dedication and the second son inscription added by his Theodoros. see LGPN11, s.v. 'Ovyjgiuoc 3; Robert son as The top surface of this base (Fig. 3) is difficult to interpret because it 1992, pp. 43-50 (identified the a Panaitios Painter), 117-118; Cook features series of four cuttings of different shapes and dimensions, ap 165 career dated for the attachment of four statuettes different 1997, p. (Onesimos's parently using techniques. from late the 6th century through 1, on the far left, a with an exten Cutting long rectangle irregularly shaped ca. 480 B.c.). sion on its was filled with lead broken off at the right side, entirely (now 27. See DAA, pp. 247-248, contra The rounded in about be for the see back). protrusion (crosshatched Fig. 3) halfway dicting p. 462; findspot, Kawadias col. no. tween the front and back edges of the cutting almost certainly marks the 1886, 81, 5, fig. 2; Lindenlauf location of the foot of a bronze statuette, its bronze com 1997, pp. 70,107-108; original plinth no. cf. Lolling 1890, p. 42, 4, and L?hr pletely submerged beneath the lead soldering. A hole in the lead covering 2000, pp. 37-38, no. 40. the bronze in front of this in plinth just protrusion (blackened Fig. 3) may 28. Cf. Kissas 2000, pp. 123-124, or may not mark the position of another foot.28 no. B52. a 29. A similar "extension" for lead Nearly all of the floor of cutting 2 has broken away, but series of to appears on the small, round dowel holes used help lead soldering (now lost) adhere to soldering pillar capi talDAA 291 I3 Kissas were. (IG 697; 2000, the sides of the cutting show where the cutting's left and right edges pp. 162-165, no. B101). For the func 2 also features a shallow extension at the front left Cutting rectangular tion of the round dowel the holes along corner.29 The floor of a narrow with see cutting 3, long, rectangle length-to sides of the plinth cutting, Raubit a width proportions of approximately 3:1, features shallow round hole schek 1938, p. 143; Kissas 2000, p. 9. PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 403
^ S. 4. of One Figure Joint dedication simos andTheodoros (DAA 217). 1 Hypothetical section through the C. M. pillar capital. Keesling
a a that might have received the end of nail used to attach bronze plinth more to the cutting. The floor of cutting 4 is shallower and roughly worked than that of cuttings 2 and 3, and it is the only plinth cutting on x DAA 217 whose full dimensions have been preserved (0.31 0.16 m). The length-to-width proportion of cutting 4 is approximately 2:1.With out any evidence for the fastening technique used, it is conceivable that or a on cutting 4 received either a small marble statuette bronze statuette a bronze plinth. A hypothetical section through DAA 217 (Fig. 4) suggests possible on a reconstructions. This inscribed capital originally rested top of thick as or as as a rectangular pillar wide nearly wide the capital itself, with large on tenon fitting into the rectangular mortise the preserved capitals under on side. The differences in size, shape, and technique between the cuttings were not the top surface suggest that they contemporary.30 The original a dedication by Onesimos might have consisted either of single statuette over or in cutting 2, centered the supporting pillar, three statuettes roughly one a equidistant from another in cuttings 1, 2, and 4. In second phase, a corresponding with the dedicatory inscription ofTheodoros, fourth statu 30. another base ette On Acropolis for in cutting 3 may have been added. statuettes, DAA 81 (Kissas one or more multiple Alternatively, Theodoros may have replaced original statu 2000, pp. 100-101, no. B23), slightly ettes dedicated Onesimos on the base in 1,2, or 4 at the same were by cuttings different attachment techniques time that he added another statuette in cutting 3. The addition of the used simultaneously. In this case, there added of a fourth statuette in 3 in a second after the is a single dedicator (Psakythe) and a weight cutting phase dedication would to the signature of the sculptor Hermippos. original help explain why pillar capital eventually The in the center and two plinth cuttings broke apart into halves, completely shattering cutting 2. The occasion on the right feature shallow round nail one or more for Theodoros's dedication may have been damage to statu a holes approximately centimeter in or ettes dedicated by his father, might simply have been the result of diameter, while the on plinth cutting Theodoros's intent to the or to fulfill his own or his the left has much smaller holes for nails complete dedication or father's vow. there is insufficient evidence to reconstruct the for lead soldering around its edges. Though types The statuettes on the left and of statuettes narrow right dedicated by Onesimos and Theodoros, the long, shapes were turned toward the center one, of all four cuttings find parallels in preserved bronze statuettes represent a suggesting thematically related group. and Athenas of the "Promachos" 31. most ing quadrupeds striding, attacking type: See, recently, Keesling were on several contemporary examples of the latter type found the Acropo 2003, pp. 81-85. The length-to-width lis.31 It is even that the four statuettes were proportions of the plinth for the best possible repeated images, rep statuette the same in the same preserved Athena Promachos resenting subject pose. from the the Athena dedi on Acropolis, DAA 210, assembled from four fragments found the Acropolis and cated Meleso are 2.23:1 by (NM 6447), now on display in the EpigraphicalMuseum (EM 6320B + 6392 + 6501 + x 0.053 close to the 2:1 (0.118 m), is a of the same of as DAA 4 on 6376), larger example type rectangular capital proportions of cutting DAA 217. 217.32 Here, two in this case carved the 32. DAA, pp. 239-241; IG V 695 separate dedicatory inscriptions, by same on the front and sides of the The incom (ca. 500-480 b.c.?); Kissas 2000, hand, appear right capital. no. on pp. 114-115, B42. plete three-line inscription the front of the base (Fig. 5) names Chares 404 CATHERINE M. KEESLING or -chares Cholargeus as the dedicator: [?]xaP?? [?1 no XoAocpY?
33. of to for a a Cf. the square proportions 0.217 m); the plinth cutting p. 114) both restored slightly shorter a marble statue a horse or a of ca. 1.30 m for the base. The the plinth cutting for seated figure (probably length on monument of is not discussed the funerary Anaxilas rider) fully preserved. 5th-century examples by For of Naxos in the Kerameikos Museum 35. the preserved marble Mattusch (1988, p. 193) suggest the x horses and horses with riders from dimensions for the (I 388), with dimensions of 0.72 following quadru m see Tri dedicated -chares and 0.73 (Kissas 2000, pp. 62-63, the Acropolis, Eaverly 1995; peds by Tychan no. m A29). ant! 1998, pp. 183-188. For equestrian dros: 1.15 long (= 75% of 1.53 m) statues see 34. DAA 196 is another rectangu in bronze, Keesling 2003, and 1.36 tall (= 89% of 1.53 m) for the lar 89-91. 0.266 m 75% pillar capital (Raubitschek 1938, pp. larger one; and long (= pp. 158-160; Kissas 2000, pp. 108-110, 36. For the dimensions, see Kissas of 0.355 m) and 0.316 tall (= 89% of no. is to no. B42. Raubit 0.355 for the smaller. B35). Its height comparable 2000, pp. 114-115, m) that of DAA 210 (0.198 m, compared schek (DAA, p. 240) and Kissas (2000, PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 405
Figure 5 (top). Joint dedication of and from the -chares Tychandros = Athenian Acropolis (DAA 210 EM 6320B + 6392 + 6501 + 6376). of-chares Dedicatory inscription on the front of the inscribed base. C. M. Keesling
Figure 6 (center). Joint dedication of -chares and Tychandros (DAA 210). of Dedicatory inscription Tychan on of the base. dros the right side C. M. Keesling
Figure 7 (right). Joint dedication of -chares and Tychandros (DAA 210). surface of the base two Top showing plinth cuttings. The small, complete cutting on the right belongs to the dedication of Tychandros; the large, on the left be incomplete cutting to the dedication of-chares. longs C. M. Keesling 4o6 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
8. Reconstruction Figure of the joint dedication of-chares and Tychandros (DAA 210). Courtesy K. E. Rasmussen, Archeographics
on narrow usually inscribed the end rather than the long side of the base; seems it also unlikely that the two dedicators -chares and Tychan to dros would have chosen juxtapose equestrian portraits of such different sizes with one another on the same inscribed base. Both lost statues may on as as these grounds be restored horses without riders, in Figure 8. statue was a The dedicated byTychandros much smaller marble quad or one ruped horse with rider with its dedicatory inscription beneath of its two long sides. Combining the offerings dedicated separately by -chares on same and Tychandros the inscribed base resulted in the awkward juxta two same position of marble statues, probably of the type but of strikingly a was different sizes. The sole justification for such sculptural "group" the to on desire of -chares and Tychandros combine their individual offerings same or at some the inscribed base, either simultaneously point after the monument on original of-chares had been dedicated the Acropolis. Given are that both dedications aparchai, -chares and Tychandros may have placed on same to their offerings the base demonstrate that they both received same an or a income from the source, be it inheritance windfall profit. The mean difference in scale might that Tychandros received less income from this source than did -chares.
The reconstruction of three Late Archaic joint dedications from Ath ens raises questions about the origins and significance of Greek sculptural as a groups. We normally think of such groups phenomenon characteristic PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 407
of the Classical period, represented not only by large-scale bronze row as groups of thematically linked statues, such the Athenian Marathon dedi at or cation Delphi the eponymous heroes in the Athenian Agora, but also as by figures depicting mythological events, such Myron's Early Classical on Athena andMarsyas group the Acropolis.37 In the Archaic period, lifesize statues on and over-lifesize familial portrait groups consisting of standing same were the base dedicated in the Samian Heraion (the Geneleos group) at and Didyma. Given the greater scale, however, and the absence of large on scale familial portrait groups the Acropolis before the 4th century B.c.,38 not an such dedications do provide obvious model for interpreting the Late Archaic groups of small votive statuettes attached to the same base. or If the Klepsydra base, DAA 217, DAA 210 included multiple statu ettes same or of the type subject, such duplication cannot easily be ex or plained in cultic terms, like the phenomenon of paired multiple votive images of Demeter, Kore, and other female deities described by Theodora Hadzisteliou Price.39 In the case of DAA 210, the contribution of two dedi cators same apparently resulted in duplication of the sculptural type; in the two other examples discussed here, duplication within groups of four statu ettes more is also possible. A convincing parallel is the group of 20 large scale bronze Apollos dedicated by the Liparians at Delphi, commemorat a ing the Liparians' capture of 20 Etruscan ships in naval battle (Paus. 10.16.7). Though the date of this dedication is uncertain, it is probably roughly contemporary with the three votive statuette groups from Ath common ens.40 Such nonrational "votive groups" may have been in the Archaic period, and they continued to be dedicated in Greek sanctuaries row alongside the lifesize bronze groups typical of the Classical period. at Though the Liparian dedication Delphi appears to have been unique for its size and prominence, private, familial dedications of multiple divine are a a images attested in the Early Hellenistic period by dedication of group of eight marble statuettes representing Demeter, Kore, and Hades same over course at by members of the family the of 100 years Kyparissi on or Kos.41 A Late Archaic Early Classical relief from Athens (NM 29) two depicting identical armed Athenas, considered by Hadzisteliou Price to a and M.-A. Zagdoun be divine image duplicated for cultic reasons, a might in fact have been joint dedication, though it lacks both an ar context an chaeological find and inscription.42 This form of sculptural pa tronage with its origins in the Archaic period deserves further study.
row cen 37. For groups of the 5th featured portraits of Konon and his dou 1997, pp. 47-50, no. 5, pp. 148 see Mat son seen tury b.c., Ioakimidou 1997; Timotheos by Pausanias 151; CEG2 831. tusch 1994. Cf. Schanz 70 was (1980, pp. (1.24.3), originally dedicated by 41. Kabus-Preisshofen 1975; Kron who treats in at a 77), the Tyrannicides the Konon; later date Timotheos 1996, pp. 149-150. as a his name to Athenian Agora "dramatic" group, added his father's (L?hr 42. See Hadzisteliou Price 1971; a she from both row no. It remains no. 1:3. type distinguishes 2000, pp. 76-77, 86). Zagdoun 1989, p. 46, 56, pi. and with unclear from the groups groups physically preserved portions The latter suggests that the image of of the base whether or not the was un interlocking figures. group Athena duplicated "dans d?sir 38. Lack of familial included additional and de rendre intenses ? la 5th-century any statues, plus fois l'appari on the which statues were added Timo tion divine et portrait groups Acropolis: by la valeur de l'offrande qui 106. The theos. est was Keesling 2003, p. early lui addressee." The relief origi 4th-century Konon and Timotheos 39. Hadzisteliou Price 1971. nally published byMylonas (1891). dedication on the which 40. Acropolis, Delphi Liparian group: Ioakimi 4o8 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
PATRONS, SCULPTORS, AND THE INTRO DUCTION OF IONIC SCRIPT TO ATHENS
most Perhaps the direct example of the effect private patrons had upon comes Athenian art not from the Archaic period, but from the mid-5th b.c. century During the roughly 50-year period between the end of the ca. Archaic funerary monuments in 480 and the widespread production of monuments ca. High Classical grave with reliefs beginning in 430 B.c., deceased non-Athenian individuals continued to be commemorated with some inscribed stelai, of them with sculptural decoration, in the Kerameikos came and other cemeteries.43 The majority of these "patrons" from the or on monuments Cyclades Ionia, and the inscriptions their almost always not featured the Ionic long vowel eta (H), officially adopted in Athenian B.c. use eta on decrees until the archonship of Eukleides in 403/2 The of several of these inscribed gravestones initially led to their being mistak to cause enly dated the 4th century B.c.44Whatever the for the 5th-cen tury gap in Athenian funerary monuments, it appears that the traditions of non-Athenians continued to be accommodated, and that individuals monu who died abroad continued to be considered particularly worthy of mental commemoration as they had been inArchaic Athens.45 use or in Letter forms, spelling, and the of particular words formulas a source inscriptions still constitute relatively untapped of information about to patronage in Archaic Athens due lingering uncertainties about their monuments found in significance. It is clear that several Archaic funerary as Athens and Attica commemorated non-Athenians, identified such by their ethnics, and that most of those commemorated in this fashion came or on not either from the Cyclades from Ionia. The inscriptions some, but all, of these monuments feature letter forms native to East Greek alpha as as a bets, such four-barred sigma, dotted theta, and gamma written use vertical stroke with a horizontal stroke at the top. They also feature the of eta and omega to represent long vowels and psilosis, the omission of the heta is aspirate represented in the Attic alphabet by the character (H).46 It were clear that sculptors from the Cyclades and Ionia working in Athens as in the Archaic period, indicated by the signatures of Archermos of Chios on on Acropolis dedications and of Aristion of Paros several funerary on monuments, including the kore of Phrasikleia.47 In the scholarship
38-39 46. in Threatte 43. See S tears 2000, p. 31, where 44. E.g., Harrison 1956, pp. See, general, 1980, of For the lost Athenian 31-43. For an the resumption of sculptural grave (Kaletor Teos). pp. early-5th-century as from Marathon with Ionic stones for Athenians is also dated decree of Archinos calling for the adop inscription as ca. b.c. tion of the Ionic see Theo see 1984. early 450 Funerary inscrip alphabet, gamma, Vanderpool tions between ca. 480 FGrH 115 discussed 47. Archermos of Chios: in possibly datable pompos, F155, by see, and ca. 430 b.c.: IG I31236bis, 1237, Woodhead (1981, pp. 16-19). addition to DAA 3, two bases from the Chian 1237bis, 1250,1254,1270,1280,1281, 45. Commemoration of death abroad Acropolis signed by unknown monuments: Sour 9 F Kreeb 1282,1300,1301 (deceased from Cher in Archaic funerary sculptors (DAA [IG 756] and sonese), 1302-1305,1323-1325,1332 vinou-Inwood 1995, pp. 285-290. An 1986 [IGI3 830bis]). Aristion of Paros: of the commemora 1208 1335,1341,1342 (Andros), 1345 Archaic example IG F 1261 (Phrasikleia), (funerary (Chios), 1346 (Knidos), 1348 (Cor tion of an Athenian who died abroad is monument for Antilochos), and 1211 from monument for inth), 1351 (Lampsakos), 1353 (Les the inscribed stele for Chairion (funerary Xenophantos, son influ bos), 1355 (Messenia), 1356 (Miletos), Eretria (IG I31516), which identifies of Kleiboulos). For Cycladic 1358 (Pallene), 1359 (Pallene), 1360 him as "Chairion the Athenian, of the ence upon the form and decoration of on (Phaselis), 1370 (Stagira), 1371 (Syra Eupatrids" (discussed inKeesling 2003, votive column monuments the see McGowan 1997. cuse), 1376, and 1377-1379 (Torone). pp. 183-184). Acropolis, PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 409
Archaic Greek sculpture, the tyranny of Peisistratos and his sons, during as which the family's personal relationship with other tyrants such to to Polykrates of Samos led the emigration Athens of East Greek poets, as has been suggested the historical occasion for the migration of East to Greek sculptors Athens.48 not one Didier Viviers has argued only for the Ionian origin of par ticular sculptural workshop inArchaic Athens?that of Endoios, Philergos, and Aristokles?but also for close links between these sculptors and East use Greek patrons living inAthens.49 He cites the of Ionic letter forms and on statue as spelling bases with Endoios's and Philergos's signatures evi were more dence that they Ionians accustomed to the Ionic than to the comes native Attic alphabet. The link with East Greek patrons inAthens from the presence of the signatures of Endoios, Philergos, and Aristokles on several of the known funerary monuments for deceased individuals iden as or tifiable East Greeks by their ethnics by inscribed epigrams alluding to their foreign origins.50 Anna Maria D'Onofrio attempts to expand the list of East Greek patrons further through prosopographic conjectures.51 a Angeliki Andreiomenou, in her publication of newly discovered grave a relief for Boiotian from Akraiphia signed by Philergos, further suggests ex that Philergos and other Ionian sculptors working inAttic workshops erted considerable influence upon not only the style and format of Archaic funerary monuments, but also upon letter forms, spelling, layout, punc tuation use, and word choice in metrical epigrams. She also expands the to to un circle of attributions the workshop identified by Viviers include as signed works such the so-called "Brother and Sister" stele in theMetro politan Museum of Art.52 Viviers' contention that sculptors inArchaic Athens normally carved own on an their signatures statue bases, crucial to his identification of East Greek sculptural workshop operating inAthens, depends upon his identi fication of hands in inscriptions.53 Though hand identification has been as a used successfully method of analysis by Stephen Tracy for Athens in the Hellenistic period, Attic epigraphists have routinely denied the possi bility of identifying hands inArchaic inscriptions because the lack of stan dardization in letter forms and letter heights makes it too difficult to iden to an tify features particular individual hand.54 As Jeffery herself admitted of her attempt to identify the "masons" who carved Archaic Attic funerary
48. Richter 37 to the a small to see See, e.g., 1961, p. brought Acropolis by Athens, Slings 2000, pp. 60-66. was course ("Such Ionic influence of number of private' dedicants, either 49. Viviers 1992. natural in the Peisistratid era and is islanders or their Athenian travelers, 50. E.g., Viviers 1992, pp. 103-114 observable in in is of an Attic sculpture gen presence suggestive 'Ionian (Leanax of Samos, signed by Philer Immerwahr 181 in the and art of the 116-124 Carian son eral"); 1990, p. ("The quality patronage gos), (the Tyr-, of to in sanctu pressures leading Ionian influence early sixth century Athenian Skylax, signed by Aristokles). came the late sixth century clearly from ary").Raubitschek's hypothesis (DAA, 51. D'Onofrio 1998, pp. 113-116. the Ionians brought toAthens by the p. 16) that the sculptor Pythis who 52. Andreiomenou 1999, esp. was an Peisistratids"); and Tolle-Kastenbein signed DAA 10 and 90 Ionian pp. 95-105; 2000, esp. pp. 96-106. works to 1992, pp. 137-138. Glowacki (1998, who shipped his ready-made 53. Viviers 1992, pp. 21-51; cf. Jef out pp. 84-85), however, points that Athens has been weakened by the fery (1962, pp. 151-152), who cited or Ionian "influence" is evi of a third statue base with in same Cycladic discovery examples which the "mason" dent on the in the near Porto monuments Acropolis already Pythis's signature Raphti inscribed signed by differ first of the 6th b.c. ent quarter century inAttica (IG I31018ter). For the tradi sculptors. must tion that Ana 54. See ("Although it be kept inmind Hipparchos brought esp. Tracy 1984; 1990, see that all of these objects could have been kreon of Teos and Simonides of Keos pp. 2-4; also Dow 1975, p. xiii. 4io CATHERINE M. KEESLING
masons inscriptions, she could not be certain that some of the different were same individual hands rather than variations produced by the crafts can man; this type of stylistic grouping without certainty that the work be a attributed to single individual has elsewhere been called the identi fication of "analytical individuals."55 Raubitschek and Jeffery attempted to on independently identify hands the Acropolis dedications of the 6th b.c. and 5th centuries with differing results: of the 13 hands and four pos sible hands identified by Raubitschek and the 15 hands and three possi are ble hands identified by Jeffery, only six identical.56 Another complicat on ing factor is the possibility that texts may have been drawn the stone by one hand and the inscription cut by another: this has been confirmed by Viviers, who found traces of preliminary incision beneath the inscribed on monument letters the funerary of Tyr- the Carian signed by Aristokles from the Kerameikos.57 monuments Any comparison between the Archaic funerary from Ath ens not as as seems. and the dedications is simple it In the traditional chronologies for Archaic Athenian sculpture and inscriptions, the funerary are con and votive monuments from both Athens and Attica not strictly temporary. Instead, the bulk of the funerary monuments have been dated earlier than the bulk of the dedications. Jeffery published her catalogue of on a inscriptions funerary monuments before the publication of kouros head from the Kerameikos extended the dates for the production of funerary ca. B.c. sculpture downward to 480 Consequently, she dated all of the in ca. scriptions before 500 b.c., Richters date for the end of the Archaic one funerary sculpture series.58 The epigraphical criterion Jeffery consis to monu tently used explain why the majority of the inscribed funerary ments should date before the majority of the Acropolis dedications in her on chronology is letter height: the funerary inscriptions the whole feature s taller letters than the dedications.59 Though Jeffery terminus ante quern ca. use as a a of 500 and her of letter height chronological (as opposed to generic) marker may be questionable, the result is consistent with the lack
... 55. Redman 1977. 349-353, 357, 358 (all marble perir bases and who sometimes drafted in an 56. Raubitschek's identifications rhanteria dedicated by Onesimos); (in paint? charcoal?) inscription of a which an indifferent letterer in the appear in individual catalogue entries Jeffery adds another fragment same and in DAA, pp. 436-437; Jeffery's perirrhanterion, IG V 933; (5)DAA workshop?Mason B?then cut." in in the base in the 58. See Richter appear only the individual entries 112, 369, Tyrannicides 1961, pp. 37-39, I3. six iden P where it is also that Peisistra IG The overlapping hand Athenian Agora (IG 502), and the suggested are tos have for the tifications the following: (1)DAA Leagros dedication in theAgora (IG V might been responsible DAA 298 and IG Y 1018 law. The 94 (signed by Hegias) and the Salamis 951); (6) post aliquanto sumptuary "gap" decree (IG I31); (2)DAA 58 (signed by (both herms signed by Euphron of between the sculptural and epigraphical Euthykles) and the Hekatompedon Paros). chronologies has been noted by Engels decree (IG V 4); Immerwahr (1990, 57. Viviers 1992, pp. 116-124; Kis (1998, pp. 103-104). a of sas no. A41. Other 59. Cf. Threatte's re p. 94) adds fragmentary inscription 2000, pp. 70-71, (1980, p. 5) have been marks on the "lower standard of ortho unknown type from Piraeus (IG I3242) possible examples identified on Monu on and the first epigram the by Harrison (1956, pp. 38-40) and graphy" funerary monuments, ment of the Persian "it "whether because of carelessness or War epigrams (IG Jeffery (1962, pp. 120-121): might no. on the of the stone I3 503/4), all attributed to the "Heka be suggested that 9 (IG I3 1211) is semi-literacy part one mason cutter or tompedon Master"; (3)DAA 85 (signed the work of (C), whose the person responsible for DAA hand be traced on other his by Kalon of Aigina), 86, 87; (4) may perhaps preparing copy (the purchaser?)." PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 411
of overlap in clienteles and sculptors between the two major genres of monuments private commemorative inArchaic Athens. Despite D'Onofrio having recently collected 16 possible examples of name matches between the clienteles of Archaic funerary monuments and dedications inAthens, the lack of patronymics for two-thirds of the indi on monuments viduals named funerary significantly weakens any argu or even ment for identity with the dedicators of votive monuments, for fam seems ily relationships.60 On the contrary, it remarkable how few prosopo can graphic links be found between the patrons of funerary monuments as and dedications inAthens in the Archaic period, aswell how little over lap there is between the sculptors who signed them: only Endoios, Philergos, are and Aristokles known to have signed both types of monuments.61 use on The of Ionic letter forms and spelling Archaic and Early Clas a sical (ca. 480-450 b.c.) dedications inAthens requires different explana tion than the presence of East Greek patrons. In contrast to the consider commem able numbers of Archaic and 5th-century funerary monuments as orating individuals with foreign ethnics, ethnics identifying patrons ever on same non-Athenian hardly appear the dedications of the period.62 to A distinction needs be made between the adoption of Ionic letter forms, as use such four-barred sigma, and Ionic spelling, represented by the of eta.63 Though it is probable that East Greek craftsmen introduced four barred sigma and other letter forms to Athens over the course of the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods, the idea that the four-barred sigma was officially adopted inAthenian state documents in the 440s is an infer ence on from extant inscriptions stone. On the other hand, the official to B.c. change from the Attic the Ionic alphabet in 403/2 in decrees and
60. D'Onofrio commemorated stelai two of these 1998, pp. 110-113, by funerary sculptors, sculptors (Pythis names on at 120-121 (list of 61 funerary found Velanideza in Attica, and the [IG I3 1018ter] and Euphron [IG Y with a monuments, 22 patronymic). [Lys]eas andArisftion] who dedicated 1018]) also signed Acropolis dedica Alkimachos, son of Chairion, dedicated DAA 8, but Raubitschek (DAA, pp. 13 tions. There are three Archaic Attic DAA 6 I3 ca. 520-510 restored these names on the (IG 618, b.c.?, 15) Acrop gravestones for individuals named but a later date is and a de olis to create possible), dedication specifically the Xenophantos: IG I31211 (son of Klei ceased named name with the monu ca. Alkimachos (no patro match funerary boulos, 530-520 b.c.); 1216 was commemorated IG I3 ments. restorations are nymic) by Other certainly (ca. 525-500 b.c.); and 1218 (son of 1234 500 The name ca. (ca. b.c.). Alkima possible. Sophilos, 510 b.c.; discussed in chos reappears between ca. 470 and 61. Endoios: DAA 7; IG I31380 Viviers 1992, pp. 125-129). 420 b.c. as a halos name on Attic red (stele of Lampito); IG I31214 (Neilo 62. Exceptions: IG I31006 (Aristo Adden nides see also of figure pottery (ARV2, p. 1698; base); Keesling 1999; damos Metapontum, from Eleusis, Immerwahr Marx 2001. DAA ca. and DAA da2, p. 392; 1990, p. 167, Philergos: 7; IG I3 500-475 b.c.); 76 (Phayl no. s.v. the 1162; LGPNll, AXxiuaxo? 3, 1365 (Leanax of Samos); funerary los of Kroton), 252 (-theos of Sikyon), 5-7; Brenne 2000, p. 33) and in a casu stele from Akraiphia published by An and 297 (dedicated jointly by Aristo list of 459/8 dreiomenou In addition alty (IG I31147bis). The (1999,2000). mache and Charikleia, daughters of recurrence of the name in two different to the monuments IG of signing funerary Glaukinos Argos). contexts in the 5th casts some I31218 son of 63. On the of century (Xenophantos, Sophi adoption Ionic letter doubt the association of the two forms in upon los), 1229 (Oinanthe), and 1256 (stele and spelling Athenian epi Archaic monuments with a indi of Aristokles a single Aristion), signed lost graphy, see, in general, DAA, pp. 447 vidual (cf.D'Onofrio 1998, p. 110). dedication from Pallene inAttica (IG I3 448;Threatte 1980, pp. 33-51; Immer D'Onofrio (1998, p. Ill) also includes 1009). Though only five dedications wahr 1990, pp. 78,108,179-182; in her list of name matches from Athens and Attica not Lyseas belonging Threatte 1996, pp. 679-680. to names (IG I31257) andAristion (IG I31256), the Acropolis preserve the of 412 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
TABLE 1. FOUR-BARRED SIGMA IN DEDICATIONS ON STONE, DOWN TO CA. 450 B.C.
IG I3 (DAA) Spelling/Usage Context Date (IG I3)
683 (3) mixed ca. 510-500 1018ter p ca. 510-500 763 (7) mixed ca. 500-480 764 (70) Attic ca. 500 805 (308) Attic ca. 500-480 837 (294) Ionic ca. 480-470 1018 Ionic ca. 475-450 857 (298) Ionic ca. 470-450 858 (297) Ionic ca. 470-450 859bis(117) Attic ca. 470-450 941 (355) Attic ca. 470 875 (175) Attic ca. 450 876 (136) mixed ca. 450
other state documents?including the use of eta?is both externally at extant tested and supported by the evidence of inscriptions.64 Four-barred sigma and eta in fact show different patterns of adoption on dedications from Athens. As Table 1 shows, before ca. 450 B.c. four was as barred sigma just likely to appear within the context of inscriptions are that otherwise purely Attic in their letter forms and spelling (those marked "Attic" in the table) as it was to appear either in pure "Ionic" in or scriptions inmixed Attic-Ionic inscriptions. What this pattern suggests is that for both the letter cutters of dedicatory inscriptions and the patrons of dedications, the use of four-barred sigma was not considered inconsis tent with the native Attic alphabet. The evidence of the ostraka found in the Athenian Agora supports this interpretation. As Mabel Lang has found, the small percentage (9-13%) of writers of ostraka in the 480s and 470s B.c. a on who used four-barred sigma used it idiosyncratically, "as variation at a the regular [three-barred] sigma to represent sounds perceived by least to small part of the writing population be different."65 By the end of the norm 5th century B.c., four-barred sigma had already become the inAth no ens: the latest ostraka, dating between ca. 417 and 415, show other forms of this letter. amore The long vowel eta may be reliable marker of the work of letter or eta on cutters trained in the Cyclades Ionia. A list of examples of dedi
not in in the an was on the 64. Four-barred sigma found inscription recording alliance four-barred sigma used state on to a Athenian documents inscribed between Athens and Egesta (IG I311), Agora ostraka: mark the end of stone b.c.: from b.c. word or to after 443/2 Meiggs 1966, which they down-date 458/7 word group, combine with to chi to the double conso p. 93;Walbank 1974, p. 168. Official (the archonship of Habron) 418/7 (X) produce from the Attic to the Ionic b.c. of nant later and to change (the archonship Antiphon). represented by S, 26-27. Three-barred continues to a or alphabet: Threatte 1980, pp. sigma precede dental (0 T). Though to in on Athenian vases dated the earliest of The principal challenge Meiggs's appear dipinti Lang group ca. 420 b.c. to Brenne and Walbank's claim that the four until "and sporadically Agora ostraka the 480s, was the barred sigma officially adopted thereafter" (Immerwahr 1990, (2000, pp. 37-47) shows, using in Athens in the 440s b.c. comes from p. 179). ostraka found in the Kerameikos, that some to 470s. Chambers, Gallucci, and Spanos 65. Lang (1982, pp. 80-83) iden should date the situations in (1990), who find three-barred sigmas tified three specific which PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 413
TABLE 2. ETA IN DEDICATIONS ON STONE, DOWN TO CA. 450 B.C.
IG I3 (DAA) Spelling/Usage Context Date (IG I3)
800 (191) mixed ca. 490-480 (294)837 Ionic ca. 480-470 1018Ionic ca. 475-450 (298)857 Ionic ca. 470-450 (297)858 Ionic ca. 470-450 (140)859 Ionic ca. 470-450 865(46)mixed ca. 460-450 876 (136) mixed ca. 450 953 Ionic ca. 450
cations from Athens and Attica down to ca. 450 b.c. appears in Table 2. eta occurs Though the sample is relatively small, it is noteworthy that in combination with other features of Ionic spelling and Ionic letter forms, more often than not in inscriptions written in "pure" Ionic script, rather than where Attic and Ionic features are mixed. In contrast, on the ostraka? no reason were which there is to doubt written by Athenian citizens? a eta on over only single appears the 1,000 examples from the Agora dated seems to the 480s and 470s b.c.66 Unlike four-barred sigma, eta not to have become common among the writers of ostraka until the last quarter use of the 5th century b.c., when all of the Agora ostraka show the of eta to represent the long vowel. on some What the mixed Attic-Ionic alphabet dedications before ca. b.c. an 450 may reflect is attempt by the craftsmen who carved the in to own scriptions mediate between their training in Ionic spelling and the wishes of Athenian dedicators. Instances of corrections from Ionic into can no Attic spelling support this interpretation; I find corresponding 6th or 5th-century examples of corrections in the opposite direction, from Attic were on spelling into Ionic. Corrections in general avoided the Acropolis dedications, and most of the corrections that were made resulted from causes other than confusion arising from the introduction of Ionic spell ing. Instead, dittography, divergence from normal formulas, and the desire to adjust letter spacing produced the majority of the recognizable correc tions.67 On the Late Archaic pillar base DAA 258, however, the letter cutter name first carved the initial letter epsilon to spell the of the fe an male dedicator Ei?co without initial consonantal heta (psilosis). He then
never an 66. Lang 1982;Agora XXV, p. 13. used in actual ostracism. see the Archaic gravestone IG P 1260 taken Havelock the of the Though by (1982, Otherwise, diversity writing (CEG 72; SEGXL 39; the significance as evidence that Athenian on ostraka that citizens either of the correction was out pp. 198-201) suggests pointed by citizens to wrote own or someone used professional scribes their had else Martin [1990]). On DAA 53 (dedica write ostraka for them, the hoard of write them on an informal basis (Phil tion of Smikros and his children), the 190 ostraka Themistokles writ as was against lips 1990, p. 136). end of the second line it origi ten 14 different hands that was was by only 67. DAA 246 (the dedication of nally inscribed erased and recarved found Broneer of to increase the by (1938, pp. 228-243) Hippotherides Acharnai) shows both the spacing between on the North of the an uncorrected and a cor Slope Acropolis dittography letters (visible in the photographs in remains the ostraka rected mistake exceptional: appear spelling (Vanderpool DAA, p. 54). to have been thrown into a well and 1970, pp. 45-46); for a similar case, 414 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
\
-I- ft,(8 .QfvA?iErOIEU^ O-Hp e/ MI Kg^fr?gOEKE>VfrOEKNMPOri0 4-q>l
H-*B
Figure 9. Dedication of Iphidike corrected the initial to a heta. The in the Attic from the Athenian Acropolis, signed epsilon resulting inscription = of Chios (DAA 3 alphabet reads: Het?? [i ?v?dexev ("Heido dedicated me").68 byArchermos EM 6241). Detail below shows the On another Late Archaic dedication from the Acropolis, the votive letter cutter s correction of an eta column base DAA 3 dedicated awoman named and by Iphidike signed by into an in the the Ionian Archermos of the letter cutter carved epsilon sculptor's sculptor Chios, originally C. M. an signature. Keesling eta in the verb ztzovi\gzv in the sculptors signature, but later corrected to an to the eta epsilon conform with Attic spelling conventions (Fig. 9).69 In addition to the correction, the lack of consonantal heta before the ar ticle ? in the signature and the compact, squarish appearance of the letter a ing also point to the work of letter cutter trained in Ionia. Though the an dedicator Iphidike has often been assumed to be Ionian woman, the correction instead suggests that she was an Athenian, and that either or an Archermos himself Ionian letter cutter in his workshop carved the inscription.70 cutters a East Greek sculptors and letter clearly did play major role in a introducing Ionic script to Athens, development that began in the Ar at cen chaic period but only reached its fruition the very end of the 5th an tury B.c.71Though considerable evidence supports the existence of East Greek clientele for funerary monuments in Athens in the 6th and 5th centuries B.c., the assumption of an East Greek clientele does not work for an the sanctuary dedications of the same period. Instead, Athenian clien some tele appears to have exerted influence over the inscribing practices of non-Athenian letter cutters. If not direct evidence for literacy, the differ conven ing patterns of adoption of Ionic letter forms and Ionic spelling on a tions, and the evidence for corrections from Ionic into Attic spelling at an small number of Acropolis dedications, the very least point toward awareness on cutters of script the part of both the letter who carved in on scriptions stone and their patrons.
an Ionian but 68. See IG l3 813; cf. Raubitschek's apparently woman, a metic or a rich reading (DAA, p. 288) of the corrected whether distinguished as not correc hetaira cannot be decided." letter phi (
VASES ON BASES
vase The role played by the dedications of Athenian potters and painters on as an the Acropolis element of their "biographies" has gone unremarked re in many recent critiques of connoisseurship, hand attribution, and the vase construction of artistic personalities in the study of Athenian paint seen ing.72We have already that the dedicators of DAA 217, the Acropolis base for four statuettes described in the first part of this article, may be vase son. identified as the red-figure painter Onesimos and his Several of as Raubitschek's approximately 30 identifications of Acropolis dedicators or were to known potters painters speculative, contributing his larger the sis connecting dedications by craftsmen and other non-aristocrats with the Kleisthenic reforms of 508/7 B.c.73One corollary to Raubitschek's dedi on cations by potters and painters the Acropolis is the suggestion that some vase Athenian red-figure painters made dedications there late in their lives: this observation originates from attempts to reconcile conflicts be tween the chronologies of Attic red-figure vase painting and the relative dates for the dedications Raubitschek derived from the letter forms of
their inscriptions.74 most A related claim, stated clearly in the appendices to DAA, has yet to be reexamined: that four of the inscribed bases from the Acropolis or vases supported ceramic, stone, bronze dedicated by Athenian potters or vase painters.75 If correctly reconstructed and interpreted, these dedica an occu tions would represent unusually direct link between the banausic a pation of the patron and the form of monumental dedication, and would as or vase identify potters painters four patrons whose occupation would otherwise remain unknown: Aischines (DAA 48), Smikros (DAA 53), Kepha[los] (the joint dedicator of DAA 209 with Iatrokles), andXenokles, son of Sosineos (DAA 42). a A black-figure potter named Aischines is known from "signed stray" on was found the Acrooolis, and his attributed work dated by Beazley to B.c. same the last decade of the 6th century Raubitschek assigned the date to the letter forms of the inscribed column DAA 48 (IG I3 631) dedicated a by Aischines.76 DAA 53 is the inscribed round capital from lost votive column dedicated to Athena by Smikros and his sons (xal izai?eq) as a a fjiVY][ia[epycolv OaXA?Vccov, "memorial of thriving works (business)." The vase a painter Smikros is red-figure Pioneer whose work Beazley dated to
72. 1997 a are on See, e.g., Whitley (with thy that all these dedications later tings top in which may have fitted than and most of them can be vases response by Oakley [1998]) and Neer 525 b.c., the bases of made of clay, stone, 1997, pp. 21-26. Cf. Vickers and Gill dated after 510 b.c. It is, therefore, safe or bronze; the names of the dedicators to assume that the Athenian are as or (1994, pp. 93-95), who reject the banausoi, incidentally known potters claim that and vase who became in the course of customary potters wealthy painters: Aischines, Kephalos, Smikros, painters dedicated monumental votive the second half of the sixth century, Xenokles." on as a as well see offerings the Acropolis being gained social standing when 76. For the potter, ABV, p. 351 of the was symptom modern scholarly the democracy established." (Acr. 2692; Graef and Langlotz 1925 overvaluation of Athenian 74. painted See Keesling 2003, pp. 71-74. 1933, vol. I, pi. 113); Scheibler 1979, pottery. 75. DAA, p. 465: "Four pedestals p. 12. 73. See DAA, p. 465: "It is notewor (Nos. 42,48,53,209) have circular cut 4i6 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
ca. 520-500 b.c.77 Though Raubitschek suggested translating naldeq here on as or and another Archaic votive base (DAA 64) references to pupils own workshop apprentices rather than the dedicators children, the for on mula is well enough attested elsewhere?for example, the Klepsydra a base discussed above?to support familial interpretation not specifically to or was a linked craft workshops any other business.78 Smikros descrip tive name common in Athens in the 5th century b.c., when it occurs in citizen casualty lists from three different tribes.79 A roughly contemporary, on was a Late Archaic dedication the Acropolis made by tanner called Smikros (DAA 58). For these reasons, Raubitscheks identification of the dedicator Smikros vase same name with the known painter of the is speculative. In truth, the name matches between the dedicators Aischines (DAA 48) and Smikros same names (DAA 53) and the known potter and painter of the constitute as vases the sole evidence for identifying their Acropolis dedications rather on than statues: the round, shallow cuttings with level floors the tops of own both bases fit Raubitscheks criteria for identifying the plinth cuttings on of marble korai. The plinth cutting Smikros's and his sons' dedication can (DAA 53) be compared with extant under-lifesize Acropolis korai with or as circular near-circular plinths, such the Red Shoes kore (Acr. 683).80 vase a Raubitschek's third hypothetical dedication is fragmentary rect names angular pillar capital (DAA 209) inscribed with the partially preserved of the joint dedicators Iatrokles and Kepha[los]. Here the association with a an Athenian potter is extremely tenuous: 4th-century Athenian envoy to a a a to Chalkis named Kephalos had father called kerameus by scholiast name Aristophanes' Ecclesiazusae.81 The dedicator's might in fact be more common a Kepha[lion], in 5th-century Athens. Only small segment on can recon of the plinth cutting the top of the base survives, which be as a or as an structed either the circular cutting for marble kore statue oval cutting for a kouros.82 most The final example proposed by Raubitschek, though the plau sible candidate for the type of votive monument he had inmind, may also or vase have nothing to do with Athenian potters painters. The dedication of Xenokles, son of Sosineos (DAA 42; Acr. 6960), is a small, unfluted
an even statue on 77.ARV2, pp. 20-21,1619-1620; 7,11,12,14,15, 66, 71, 76, 78, 94, smaller kore the left hand side Paralipomena, pp. 322?323; Addenda2, 124,171). (Raubitschek 1939-1940, s.v. p. 154; Boardman 1975, pp. 29-30; 79. LGPNll, Suixpo? 23-25; pp. 24-25, fig. 15). The diameter of the a ca. Neer 2002, pp. 87-89,133-134. For IG I31186, line 83 (Aiantis, 411 plinth cutting for the Red Shoes kore is IG line 5 0.20 and that of the circular signature of Smikros from the Acrop b.c.); I31184, (Akaman m, cutting see 181 for the smaller kore is 0.12 m. In his olis, Graef and Langlotz 1925 tis, 423 b.c.); IG P 1147, line (ML 459 DAA 1933, vol. II, p. 238. 33; Erechtheis, b.c.). initial publication o? 48 (Raubit Shoes schek 78. Examples: Lazzarini 1976, 80. Red kore: Langlotz 1939, 1939-1940, p. 27, figs. 22,23), nos. no. 9. The diameter of the Raubitschek had that the cir 686 (D?los), 800 (Delphi); L?hr pp. 52-53, suggested nos. on DAA 53 is cular kore Acr. 456 2000, 19, 27, 64, 70, 81 (Agora plinth cutting 0.225 m; plinth (diameter a the diameter of the round for fit in the relief dedicated by cobbler and his plinth 0.175 m) might larger cutting. children), 123,158,175. Dedications the Red Shoes kore is 0.18-0.19 m. 81. DAA, pp. 238-239; cf. LGPNII, unnamed who their The Red Shoes kore stood s.v. 5. by paides give originally K?cpako? name are on the of a 82. Cf. Kissas father's in the genitive slightly right-hand side preserved 2000, pp. 112-113, more common nos. with no. B39. (L?hr 2000, 1, 4, 5, rectangular pillar base (DAA 292), PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 417
10. Archaic column base from Figure the Athenian Acropolis, dedicated by = Xenokles, son of Sosineos (DAA 42 Acr. 6960). Photo C. M. Keesling
a on marble column with circular cutting top (Fig. 10).83 The floor of the cutting is convex, and the holes around the edges may have been designed to receive either metal nails or some of the lead used to attach the lost to convex offering the cutting. The profile of the cutting suggests that it a a convex might have held bronze vessel with foot, and the dimensions m extant (0.15 in diameter) are consistent with those of bronze hydrias.84 name a Though the of the dedicator, Xenokles, matches that of potter of ca. name was com black-figure Little Master cups dated to 525 B.c., the mon; his father's name Sosineos, on the other hand, was not.85 D'Onofrio an was has pointed out that individual named Sosineos commemorated by a ca. B.c. funerary monument of 575-550 in the Kerameikos, and in this
nos. a ca. 83. DAA, pp. 45-46; IG P 690 pp. 108-110, 263-265, and IG Y 690 gives date of 500-480 b.c. for the inscribed column DAA (ca. 500-480 b.c.?); Kissas 2000, p. 232, fig. 28); the profiles of several examples 42, no. convex of the cut to B184. would fit the shape 25 45 years after thefloruit of the on DAA a Xenokles. This is 84. The foot diameters of the pre ting 42. For bronze hydria black-figure potter from 480-460 foot one of a name match between served bronze hydrias of the Archaic Aigina (ca. b.c., example diameter 0.133 inscribed as a a known or vase and a and Classical periods collected by m) joint potter painter to two see on the contribut Erika Diehl range from 0.135 dedication by brothers, L?hr dedicator Acropolis m nos. no. to made 0.158 (Diehl 1964, BU, B12, 2000, pp. 39-40, 42. ing the belief that potters see B36, B54, B128, B131, B138, B210). 85. For the potter Xenokles, their dedications late in life (si huius s.v. donarii dedicator iam The foot diameters of Archaic bronze LGPNlly SevoxXrj? 1;ABV, esset, senexfuerit; at be Y hydrias found Olympia range pp. 184-186, 688; Paralipomena, IG 690). tween 0.14 and 0.16 m (Gauer 1991, pp. 76-77; Boardman 1974, p. 60. 4i8 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
case I am inclined to agree that the dedicator Xenokles Sosineou was re lated to this Sosineos, and that there is little justification in identifying him with the black-figure potter Xenokles.86 a an The dedication of bronze hydria attached to inscribed column or might be either agonistic sacrificial in its significance. Though bronze are lebetes and tripods normally considered the prize vessels par excellence was as a in Greek athletics, a bronze hydria worth 30 drachmas awarded race as as prize in the Panathenaic torch early the third quarter of the 5th were as century B.c.87 Beginning in the 5th century, bronze hydrias given war prizes alongside lebetes in the games commemorating the dead at Marathon.88 were also used to water for Hydrias, however, carry sacrifices, a was meant and it is possible that Xenokles' dedication of bronze hydria to allude to sacrifice in much the same way as statues and statuettes repre a senting sacrificial animals, familiar type of votive offering in the Archaic and Classical periods.89 Similarly, dedications of bronze bowls and tripods in sanctuaries were in some cases Greek multivalent, commemorating ago nistic victory and in others associated with sacrifice.90 In either case, dedi cations of bronze vases that were "monumentalized" through their attach as no ment to inscribed stone bases such that of Xenokles probably had as a connection with the potters and vase painters of the Kerameikos cli to entele.91 Vessels of sacrificial significance attached bases may well have been a common dedication type in Greek sanctuaries in the Archaic and Classical periods, and given the widespread disappearance of bronzes of we all types should not be surprised if only their bases survive.92 an to There is important Late Classical postscript Raubitschek's hy pothesis that Athenian potters and painters of the Late Archaic period vases dedicated attached to inscribed stone bases. In 1934, Meritt pub a lished Pentelic marble fragment found in Late Roman fill in front of the
nos. a bronze 86. D'Onofrio 1998, p. 113. pp. 114-119, 15-17,20,21g, 22a, probably supported footed as a either a or a smaller 87. The hydria is listed prize in 22b, 23,24. vase, hydria pour ca. 380 b.c. 89. the use of in sacri vessel the diameter of the Panathenaic prize list of For hydrias ing judging by (IG II2 2311, line 89); for a revised text fice, seeDiehl 1964, pp. 171-209; the cutting (0.13 m). An uninscribed further refer Van Straten round from the of the inscription and 1995, pp. 41-42, fig. 41, capital Acropolis pub see 53 ences, Shear 2003. A hydria ap pp. 49-50, fig. (late-5th-century lished by Kissas (2000, pp. 199-201, in a scene of a sacrifice scenes on Athenian no. has a circular with a pears already red-figure red-figure B156) cutting race to ca. b.c. convex floor 0.16 which torch dated 430-420 pottery). (diameter m), as and chore like DAA have a (Neils 1992, pp. 178-179; Shear 2001, 90. Tripods agonistic may, 42, supported bronze pp. 335-339). The 30-drachma price of gic dedications: Scheibler 1988; Aman hydria. at 92. On the dedications of the hydria awarded the Panathenaia dry 1976, pp. 15-19; Podlecki 1981. Acropolis, was in the Geometric suggests that it made of bronze Sacrificial associations: Herrmann bronze tripods began a (Diehl 1964, p. 195). Comparable 1979, pp. 6-7. Kron (1998) makes period (Touloupa 1991). Uninscribed same in similar about dedications of bases for bronze or lebetes ceramic vessels of the period point tripods were metal sickles in Greek sanctuaries. in Kissas Athens considerably cheaper (published Stevens 1951; and no. (Johnston 1991, pp. 227-228; Sparkes 91. The Late Archaic Potter Relief 2000, pp. 211-213, B166, pp. 229 in no. and several inscribed 1996, pp. 140-145; Neer 2002, the Acropolis Museum, normally 230, B180) as the dedication of a pp. 211-212). interpreted pot bases (DAA 317-322, 372) survive a ter of from the Archaic There is also 88. For bronze hydria inscribed red-figure "Acrocups" (Beazley period. as a from near a series of more than 50 of prize Marathon found 1946, pp. 22-23; cf. Raubitschek 1942), fragments Thessaloniki, see IG I3 525; Vander had a central acroterion (now in the inscribedArchaic bronze lebetes (IG Y 1969. For other inscribed bronze Museum fr. pool Epigraphical [EM 6520]) 550-583, ff). see with a concave that prize hydrias, Kephalidou 1996, circular, cutting PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 419
on as Metro?n the west side of the Athenian Agora that he identified only a a "circular plinth." The vertical surface of the plinth features complete, cen two-word dedicatory inscription (IG II2 4921a) in lettering of the 4th tury b.c., Kltto? ?v?OYjxe.93 Raubitschek later identified the fragment spe as a a cifically "the lower part of pedestal for marble basin" (perirrhanterion), a and compared it to series of Late Archaic marble perirrhanteria with on son inscribed rims dedicated the Acropolis by Onesimos, of Smikythos, the dedicator of DAA 217 discussed in the first part of this article.94 He associated Kittos with the 4th-century ceramic workshop of Bakchios and a on Kittos, attested by series of signatures Panathenaic prize amphoras dated by their archon years to the second quarter of the 4th century.95 same A potter named Bakchios?but not necessarily the Bakchios on a b.c.?was whose signature appears Panathenaic amphora of 375/4 an buried in the Kerameikos with inscribed funerary monument of the b.c. second half of the 4th century (IG II2 6320). The inscription refers to won specifically the craft of the deceased, claiming that he stephanoi contests "in all the this city established."96 The "contests" in question have as been interpreted the competition held every four years to award the con contract to produce the Panathenaic prize amphoras for the athletic tests of the Greater Panathenaia: P. Valavanis has argued that the work shop of Bakchios and Kittos may in fact have produced all of the ampho ras awarded in the second and third quarters of the 4th century.97 Finally, ca. to two between 330 and 320, the city of Ephesos awarded citizenship Athenian potters named Bakchios and Kittos in thanks for providing the city with black-glazed pottery (ui?a? x?pafio?) and a hydria for Artemis (I.Eph. 1420). The fragmentary marble perirrhanterion from the Agora to an dedicated unnamed deity by Kittos thus appeared to provide 4th century evidence to support Raubitschek's link between monumental dedi cations and Athenian potters. name The Kittos is attested in other contexts in 4th-century Athens, once name on again raising the problem of duplication: the Kittos named not a the Agora fragment might be member of the known family of pot more ters.98 The serious problem in this case, though, is Raubitschek's as a identification of the fragment the base for perirrhanterion. Meritt's on photograph shows the inscription the vertical face of the round plinth,
no. 93. Meritt 1934, p. 66, 59 Bentz 1998, pp. 27-31. quarter of the 4th century B.c. (dis I (Agora 28). 96.Wilhelm 1909, pp. 40-42, cussed by Engels 1998, pp. 121-154). 94. Raubitschek 309-310. stone 1942, pp. fig. 18; 1921, pp. 39-44; CEG2 567 The earliest known examples of are vases There eight perirrhanteria (DAA (EM 161). The name, patronymic, and of any kind from Athens date to are B.c. 349-353, 357, and 358 [= IG I3 926 demotic (Kerameus) of Bakchios the end of the 5th century (lou inscribed in letters on a 932], and IG Y 933) inwhich Onesi large short trophoroi: Kokula 1984, pp. 15-20, mos's name is or in one the preserved has been cylinder carved piece with 31-34; Dehl 1981; lekythoi: Prukakis conjecturally restored. rectangular base where the epigram is Christodulopulos 1970, pp. 62, 65). 95. of on For the workshop Bakchios inscribed. The circular cutting the 97. Valavanis 1997, pp. 90-91. and m name Kittos, seeABV, p. 413; Addenda2, top surface of the cylinder (0.20 in 98. Instances of the (LGPNll, m s.v. pp. 107-108; Beazley 1943, pp. 455 diameter and 0.05 deep) probably Kirco?) include a metic metal 19 a marble vase of as a 457; Frei 1973, pp. 21-22, fig. supported funerary worker listed dedicator of silver of Bakchios on a one of the common in Attic in an (signature fragmen types phiale inscribed inventory of to tary amphora dated 375/4 b.c.); cemeteries before the sumptuary law ca. 330 b.c. (IG II21554, line 10), dis Vickers and Gill 1994, pp. 96-97; of Demetrios of Phaleron in the last cussed by Hurwit (1999, pp. 61-62). 420 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
11. b.c. Figure Inscribed 4th-century plinth for marble head from the Athenian Agora, dedicated by Kittos (Agora 128). View from above show ing remains of the neck. Courtesy American School of Classical Studies at
Athens, Agora Excavations
a but view of the fragment from above (Fig. 11) reveals that the object was a or a dedicated by Kittos not perirrhanterion even marble vase, but a rather slightly under-lifesize human head: the neck rises asymmetrically a from the plinth, and shows clear depression between the carotid arteries on in the neck, above the inscribed plinth. The plinth is higher the left on (0.07 m) than the right (0.06 m), suggesting the beginnings of uneven shoulders. The neck breaks off well below the chin, and there are no traces or of hair other features that would reveal the subject represented by the lost head.99
Both the function and setting of the marble head dedicated by Kittos was pose problems. Though it is conceivable that the head originally in to to a or a tended be attached either separately carved marble body to one wooden using the acrolithic technique, preserved marble heads of both types tend to have bottom tenons much thicker than the short (0.05 m on high) plinth which the Kittos head stood. Unlike such marble heads, was to on 99. The diameter of the neck at the the head dedicated by Kittos designed stand upright its in break is 0.108 m. The vertical of scribed The have been in a shallow edge plinth.100 plinth might placed cutting the at plinth is distinctly marked only (no more than 0.02 m on the top of a base without the deep) obscuring the front; at the back, it merges into the a dedicatory inscription. The closest parallels for such display, themselves back of the neck. are the heads of a series six to an 100. For the acrolithic unique, marble of goddesses attached technique, at see Early Hellenistic altar Pherai inThessaly, published by Stephen Miller.101 H?ger-Weigel 1997; Lundgreen were 1997, pp. 11-13. For marble statues Here the heads placed in plinth cuttings and secured in with place with see separately inserted heads, molten lead, the normal attachment technique for the plinths of marble Claridge 1990, pp. 142-144; Hermary and name on altar statues, accompanied by labels inscribed the itself rather 1998. on than each head's plinth. 101.Miller 1974. We might conjecture instead that the marble head dedicated by Kittos 102. See CorinthXlV, pp. 119-120, was an to nos. 2-6; no. 2 30) is a anatomical votive dedicated Asklepios, whose sanctuary in the (pi. 4th-century female head 0.291 m with the base of Athens was founded on the South of the in 420/19 tall, city Slope Acropolis of the neck "extended in a to b.c. heads were less common than other as anatomical flange Though body parts serve as a surface" resting (p. 119), votives dedicated in several lifesize Asklepieia, 4th-century freestanding, much like the plinth of the head dedi terracotta heads were found in at cated Kittos. the Asklepieion Corinth.102 Among the by PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 421
lost votive offerings listed in the inscribed inventories of the Athenian are in Asklepieion four heads. Many of the anatomical votives dedicated Asklepios sanctuaries in Athens and Attica, unlike those from Corinth, were made of marble and inscribed.103 The terracotta heads from Corinth no give indication of the dedicators' illnesses, and thus the head dedicated not by Kittos might have featured any special characteristics identifying it as an anatomical votive other than its unusual format. The proposed reidentification of Kittos's dedication as a marble head dedicated to
Asklepios, like the reinterpretation of Archaic dedications of metal vessels on on removes bases the Acropolis, effectively the connection Raubitschek hypothesized between the dedication type and the dedicator's occupation as a potter.
CONCLUSION
some Though private patrons clearly exerted influence upon the format of dedications and the texts of their inscriptions, their role in Archaic and com Classical Athens defies casual generalizations. Some patrons chose to on same a bine their offerings the base with separate inscriptions, form of sculptural display difficult to reconcile with aesthetic principles, but justi a now fied within the context of votive religion. On statue base built into on the Klepsydra springhouse the Acropolis North Slope (Agora I 5517) an and Acropolis base dedicated by Onesimos and Theodoros (DAA 217), even same statuettes that may have included multiples of the sculptural were a on type lined up in row; another statue base from the Acropolis (DAA 210), two marble quadrupeds of drastically different sizes stood per to one another. pendicular The effect private patrons had upon the content and style of inscrip tions has always been particularly difficult to determine. Ionic letter forms and spelling conventions were common on Archaic dedications from Ath ens. use one seems The of feature of Ionic spelling, the letter eta (H), to correlate with the work of non-Athenian sculptors and letter cutters, but not with non-Athenian patrons. In general, the clientele for sanctuary dedications inArchaic Athens seems to have been distinct from the clien tele for funerary monuments, which included more non-Athenians of seem Ionian origin. Standard dedication types and occasions for dedication or not to have varied according to the occupation social status of the dedi cator. In this respect, the so-called Potter Relief from the Acropolis, which a or was depicts potter metalworker holding examples of his wares, the 103. See Fors?n 1996, pp. 114-120; not exception, the rule. Several other possible dedications by Athenian Van Straten 1981, pp. 108-109. For a vase one in a potters and painters, made Kittos the 4th century, 4th-century votive relief representing including by have been either misidentified as such or reconstructed asmetal face from the Athenian Asklepieion, erroneously see/GIF 4372; Salta 2003. or stone vases. 422 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
REFERENCES
= Addenda2 T. H. CEG 2 = P. A. Carmina Carpenter, Beazley Hansen, epi Addenda: Additional to saeculi IV a. n. References graphica graeca, Chr. ABVARV2, andParalipomena, (CEG 2), Berlin 1989. 2nd ed., Oxford 1989. Chambers, M. H., R. Gallucci, and XXV =M. Ostraka Agora Lang, P. Spanos. 1990. "Athens'Alliance with in (AgoraXXV), Princeton 1990. Egesta the Year of Anti A. 2000. a Aloni, "Anacreonte Atene: phon," ZPE 83, pp. 38-63. e Datazione significato di alcune Clairmont, C. W. 1983. Patrios Nomos: iscrizioni tiranniche," ZPE 130, Public Burial inAthens during the 81-94. and b.c.: pp. Fifth Fourth Centuries P. 1976. d'Ath?nes: The Amandry, "Tr?pieds Archaeological, Epigraphic I. 15-93. and Dionysies," BCH100, pp. Literary, Historical Evidence Andreiomenou, A. K. 1999. "H e? (BAR-IS 161), Oxford. A. 1990. "Ancient AxpocKp.oc? ovrikq Mvocai?etou, Claridge, Techniques ?pyov OiXoopyou?To STctypau^ta," ofMaking Joins inMarble Stat ArchEph 1999, pp. 81-127. uary," inMarble: Art Historical and -. 2000. "Zur Werkstatt des on Ancient Scientific Perspectives Endoios und ed. M. True and Philourgos,"_^?M 115, Sculpture, J. Podany, pp. 83-113. Malibu, pp. 135-162. e Angiolillo, S. 1997. Arte cultura nelV Cook, R. M. 1997. Greek Painted Pot Atene di Pisistrato e dei Pisistratidi: tery, 3rd ed., London. = V ?ni Kp?vov ?ioc (BibAr 4), Bari. Corinth XIV C. Roebuck, TheAskle Beazley, J. D. 1943. "Panathenaica," pieion and Lerna (CorinthXIV), AJA 47, pp. 441-465. Princeton 1951. -. 1946. Potter and Painter in Coulson, W. D. E., et al., eds. 1994. Ancient London. The Athens and Attica Athens, Archaeology of M. 1998. Panathen?ische Preis under the Bentz, Democracy. Proceedings of Eine athenische Vasen an International amphoren: Conference Celebrat und ihre Funktion vom 6.-4. Years since gattung ing 2,500 the Birth of v. Chr. at Jahrhundert (AntK-BH18), Democracy in Greece, Held the Basel. American at School of Classical Studies Bl?k, J. H. 2000. "Phye's Procession: Athens, December 4-6,1992 (Oxbow Culture, Politics, and Peisistratid Monograph 37), Oxford. in Rule," Sancisi-Weerdenburg Cox, C. A. 1998. Household Interests: 17-48. and 2000, pp. Property, Marriage Strategies, 1972. Peisis in Boardman, J. "Herakles, Family Dynamics Ancient Athens, tratos, and Sons," RA1972, pp. 57 Princeton. = 72. DAA A. E. Raubitschek, Dedications -. 1974. Athenian Black the Athenian A Cata Figure from Akropolis: Vases, London. logue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth -. 1975. Athenian Red and Centuries Figure Fifth b.c., Cambridge, Vases: The Archaic Period. A Hand Mass., 1949. London. C. 1981. book, Dehl, "Eine Gruppe fr?her and K. A. eds. aus Boedeker, D., Raaflaub, Lutrophorenstelen dem Kera 1998. and the AM Democracy, Empire, meikos," 96, pp. 163-178. Arts in Cam E. 1964. Die Fifth-Century Athens, Diehl, Hydria: Formge Mass. schichte und im Kult des bridge, Verwendung Brenne, S. 2000. "Indices zu Kalos Altertums, Mainz. e Namen," Tyche 15, pp. 31-53. D'Onofrio, A. M. 1982. "Korai kouroi Broneer, 0.1938. "Excavations on funerari attici," AnnArchStorAnt 4, the North Slope of theAcropolis, pp. 135-170. 161-263. -. 1988. e 1937," Hesperia 7, pp. "Aspetti problemi CE G = P. A. Carmina monumento Hansen, epigra del funerario ?rtico saeculorum VIII? phica graeca arcaico,"AnnArchStorAnt 10, Va. Chr. n., Berlin 1983. pp. 83-96. PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 423
-. et K. T. 1998. the in at 1998. uOikoi, g?n?alogies, Glowacki, "The Acropolis Marketplace," Looking monuments: R?flexions sur le sys of Athens before 566 b.c.," in Greek Vases, ed. T. Rasmussen and t?me de dans Studies inHonor N. 203-232. d?dicaces l'Attique Er?cpavo? ofBru Spivey, Cambridge, pp. Ktema nilde Sismondo R. 1975. "Statuet archa?que," 23, pp. 103-123. Ridgway (Univer Kabus-Preisshofen, aus Dow, S. 1975. "Introduction: The Study sityMuseum Monograph 100), tengruppe dem Demeter of Lettering," inTracy 1975, ed. K.J. Hartswick and M. C. heiligtum bei Kyparissi auf Kos," xiii-xxiii. AntP 31-64. pp. Sturgeon, Philadelphia, pp. 79-88. 15, pp. Greek E. 1925-1933. N. "Die Kore der Eaverly, M. A. 1995. Archaic Graef, B., and Langlotz. Kaltsas, 2002. und Ann Arbor. Die antike Vasen von zu Kuros aus Equestrian Sculpture, derAkropolis Myrrhinous,"yteP28, 1998. Funerum 2 Berlin. 7-40. Engels, J. sepulcrorumque Athen, vols., pp. und Grab T. 1971. "Double P. 1886. ?v magnificencia: Begr?bnis- Hadzisteliou Price, Kawadias, "'Avocaxacpod in der and in luxusgesetze griechisch-r?mi Multiple Representations rfi 'Axpoizohzi," ArchEph 1886, schen mit Ausblicken cols. 73-82. Welt, einigen auf Greek Art and Religious Thought," und 1999. Einschr?nkungen desfuneralen JHS 91, pp. 48-69. Keesling, C. M. "Endoios's Luxus imMittelalter und E. 1997. from sepulkralen H?ger-Weigel, Griechische Painting the Themistoklean in der Neuzeit Einzel Akrolith-Statuen des 5. Wall: A (Hermes und4.Jhs. Reconstruction," Hesperia v. schriften 78), Stuttgart. Chr. (Wissenschaftliche Schrift 68, pp. 509-548. R. C. S. 1991. -. 2003. Votive Statues Felsch, "Tempel und enreihe Arch?ologie 4), Berlin. The of the im E. B. 1956. "Archaic Grave Athenian Alt?re Heiligtum derArtemis Harrison, Acropolis, Cambridge. von stones from E. Eixovo Elaphebolos Hyampolis bei the Athenian Agora," Kephalidou, 1996. Nixr\rf\?, in dans 25-45. too Kalapodi," L'espace sacrificiel Hesperia 25, pp. Ypacptxr} yteX?Tin apxodoo s??yj les civilisations m?diterran?ennes de Havelock, E. A. 1982. The Literate vlxo? aQXr\Tio\io6, Thessaloniki. Actes du tenu ? Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural K. 2000. Die attischen Statuen l'antiquit?. colloque Kissas, laMaison 4-5 und Stelenbasen d'Orient, Lyon, juin Consequences, Princeton. archaischer Zeit, 1988 (Publications de la Biblio Hedrick, C.W. 1988. "TheTemple and Bonn. th?que Salomon Reinach 5), ed. Cult of Patroos in Athens," U. 1969. "Zum Kuros vom Apollo Knigge, " R. Etienne and M.-T. Le Dinahet, AJA 92, pp. 185-210. Pir?ischen Tor AM 84, pp. 76-86. -. Paris, pp. 85-91. Hermary, A. 1998. "Les t?tes rappor 1991. The Athenian Kerameikos: B. 1996. Glieder t?es Fors?n, Griechische dans la sculpture grecque History, Monuments, Excavations, Eine zu 53-74. trans. Athens. Weihungen: Untersuchung archa?que," BCH122, pp. J. Binder, ihrer und ihrer H.-V. 1979. Die Kessel der G. 1984. Typologie religions Herrmann, Kokula, Marmorlutrophoren und orientalisierenden Zeit 2: sozialgeschichtlichen Bedeutung Kesselproto (AM-BH10), Berlin. men M. (Papers and Monographs of the und Stabdreif?sse (OlForschXI), Korres, 1997. "An Early Attic Ionic Finnish Institute atAthens 4), Berlin. Capital and the Kekropion on the Helsinki. R. R. 1992. in Greek Holloway, "Why Korai?" Athenian Acropolis," Foxhall, L. 1989. "Household, Gender, OJA11, pp. 267-274. Offerings:Essays onGreek Art in and in Classical M. 1999. The Athenian Honour Boardman Property Athens," Hurwit, J. ofJohn (Oxbow 22-44. and CQ 39, pp. Acropolis: History, Mythology, Monograph 89), ed. O. Palagia, 1973. Panathenaic Prize Era Frel,J. Ampho Archaeology from the Neolithic Oxford, pp. 95-107. ras to em (Kerameikos 2), Athens. the Present, Cambridge. Kreeb, M. 1986. "Avoc?ykj-octixt] Friis K. = et Johansen, 1951. The Attic Grave I.Eph. H. Wankel al., eds., Die In ypoccpy) ano tyjv Axp?TroXy)," Horos 4, Classical Period: An von Reliefs of the schriften Ephesos I-VIII (IGSK pp. 25-29. in Essay Interpretation, Copenhagen. 11-17), Bonn 1979-1984. Kr?n, U. 1996. "Priesthoods, Dedica R. 1989. "The Well-Ordered H. R. 1990. Attic Garland, Immerwahr, Script: tions, and Euergetism: What Part An into A on Corpse: Investigation the Survey (Oxford Monographs Did Religion Play in the Political Motives behind Greek Funerary Classical Archaeology), Oxford. and Social Status of Greek BICS 1-15. C. 1997. Die Statuenreihen Women?" in and Power in Legislation," 36, pp. Ioakimidou, Religion W. 1991. Die von Poleis und B?nde aus the Ancient Greek World. Gauer, Bronzegef?sse griechischer Proceedings mit Ausnahme der und Zeit Olympia, geome sp?tarchaischer klassischer of theUppsala Symposium 1993 (Acta trischen und der Kessel des und zur Dreif?sse (Quellen Forschungen Universitatis Upsaliensis, Boreas 24), orientalisierenden Stils 1: Kessel und antikenWelt 23), Munich. ed. P. Hellstr?m and B. Alroth, Becken mit Kra A. 1999. monu Unters?tzen, Teller, Jacquemin, Offrandes Uppsala, pp. 139-182. Situlen und ? -. tere, Hydrien, Eimer, mentales Delphes (BEFAR 304), 1998. "Sickles in Greek Sanc und verschei Athens. Cisten, Sch?pfhumpen tuaries: Votives and Cultic Instru denes Ger?t (OlForschXX), Berlin. Jeffery, L. H. 1962. "The Inscribed ments," in Ancient Greek Cult D. 1991. Greek Cult Tables Gravestones of Archaic Practice the Evi Gill, Attica," from Archaeological Dissertations in BSA 115-153. dence. the Fourth Inter (Harvard Classics), 57, pp. Proceedings of New York. Johnston, A. 1991. "Greek Vases in national Seminar on Ancient Greek 424 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
the Swedish R. Cult, Organized by Meiggs, 1966. "The Dating of Institute at 22?24 October Athens, Fifth-Century Attic Inscriptions," 1993 (SkrAth 15), ed. R. H?gg, JHS 86, pp. 86-98. Stockholm, pp. 187-215. Meritt, B. D. 1934. "The American M. 1982. Excavations in the Lang, "Writing and Spelling Athenian Agora, on Ostraka," in Studies inAttic Third Report: The Inscriptions," Epigraphy, History, and Topography Hesperia 3, pp. 1-128. Presented to B. M. L. Eugene Vanderpool Meritt, D., Lethen, and G Stamires. 1957. "Greek (Hesperia Suppl. 19), Princeton, Inscrip 75-87. pp. tions," Hesperia 26, pp. 24-97. E. 1939. "Die in Die E. A. 1993. and Langlotz, Koren," Meyer, "Epitaphs Citi archaischen Marmorbildwerke der zenship in Classical Athens,"///? ed. H. Frank Akropolis, Schrader, 113, pp. 99-121. 3-184. D. furt, pp. Mikalson, J. 1984. "Religion and the M. L. 1976. Le d?lie in Lazzarini, formule Plague Athens, 431-423 b.c.," in dediche votive nella Grecia arcaica Rigsby 1984, pp. 217-225. (MemLinc ser. 8, no. 19.2), Rome. Miller, S.G 1974. "TheAltar of the = LGPNll M. J.Osborne and S.G Six Goddesses in Thessalian Prie A Lexicon Greek Per Byrne, eds. of rai," CSC/7 7, pp. 231-256. sonalNames II: 1994. = D. Attica, Oxford ML R. Meiggs and M. Lewis, eds. A. 1997. "Der Perserschutt A Selection Greek Historical In Lindenlauf, of der Athener in Kult und to End Akropolis," scriptions the of theFifth Cen Kultbauten der Interna rev. auf Akropolis. tury b.c., ed., Oxford 1988. tionales von 7. bis 9. in I. Symposion Juli Morris, 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Berlin des Seminars f?r Structure in Classical (Schriften Antiquity (Key Freien in Klassische Arch?ologie der Themes Ancient History), Cam Universit?t W. Berlin), ed. Hoepf bridge. -. 1994. ner, Berlin, pp. 46-115. "Everyman's Grave," in R. 1979. in Athenian and Civic Littman, J. "Kinship Identity Ideology, AncSoc Athens," 10, pp. 5-31. ed. A. L. Boegehold and A. C. L?hr, C. 2000. Griechische Familien Scafuro, Baltimore, pp. 67-101. einer and K. eds. 1998. weihungen: Untersuchungen Morris, I., Raaflaub, von 2500? Repr?sentationsform ihren Democracy Questions and bis zum des and Anf?ngen Ende 4.Jhs. Challenges (Colloquia Confer v. ence Chr. (Internationale Arch?ologie Papers 2), Dubuque. 54), Rahden, Westphalia. Morris, S. 1992. Daidalos and the Ori A. 1890. ?va Greek Princeton. Lolling, "'Emypacpixocl gins of Art, xoivcoasL?," ArchDelt 6, pp. 37-42. Mylonas, K. D. 1891. "AvocOYjuaTixov B. 1997. Lundgreen, "The Athena av?yX?cpov ?? Attixyj?," ArchEph Medici Reconsidered," AnalRom 24, 1891, cols. 1-10.
pp. 7-52. Neer, R. T. 1997. "Beazley and the A. 1990. Rev. of M. of Martin, D?tienne, Language Connoisseurship," Les savoirs de V?criture en Gr?ce 7-30. ed., Hephaistos 15, pp. in AntCl -. and Politics ancienne, 59, pp. 457-458. 2002. Style inAthe A. 2001. 625 nian The Marx, P. "Acropolis (En Vase-Painting: Craft of ca. 530-460 b.c.e. doios Athena) and the Rediscovery Democracy, (Cam of Its Findspot," Hesperia 70, bridge Studies in Classical Art and pp. 221-254. Iconography), Cambridge. Mattusch, C. C. 1988. Greek Bronze Neils, J.,ed. 1992. Goddess and Polis: From the The Panathenaic Festival inAncient Statuary: Beginnings the Ithaca. Athens Hood through Fifth Century b.c., (Exhibition catalogue, -. of 1994. "The Eponymous Museum Art, Dartmouth Col Heroes: The Idea of Sculptural lege), Princeton. in et DerKuros vom Groups," Coulson al. 1994, Niemeier, W.-D. 2002. 73-81. Tor: Neu pp. Heiligen ?berraschende E. P. 1997. of archaischer im Kera McGowan, "The Origins funde Skulptur Hes the Athenian Ionic Capital," meikos inAthen (AntW Sonderheft), 209-233. Mainz. peria 66, pp. PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 425
P. E. in Gerhard Neumann K. 2000. "The Times Are Nulton, 2003. The Sanctuary of EiziTOyi?iov Stears, They and A in Apollo Hypoakraios Imperial (Moooe?o MTiev?xY], Suppl. 2), changing': Developments ed. D. 171 Athens (Archaeologia Transatl?ntica Damaskos, Athens, pp. Fifth-Century Funerary Sculpture," 21), Providence. 182. in The Epigraphy ofDeath: Studies in a 2000. the and Greece and Oakley, J.H. 1998. "Why Study Sancisi-Weerdenburg, H., ed. History Society of to and A ed. G. Greek Vase-Painter? A Response Peisistratos the Tyranny: Reap Rome, J. Oliver, Liverpool, as Evidence 25-58. Whitley's 'Beazley Theorist,'" praisal of the (Publications pp. Antiquity 72, pp. 209-213. of the Netherlands Institute at Stevens, G. P. 1951. "The Poros Tri R. 1996. Athenian Athens Amsterdam. of the of Parker, Religion: 3), pods Acropolis Athens," A Oxford. H. L. 1980. Greek in Studies Presented to David Moore History, Schanz, Sculptural and Classical Robinson onHis Seventieth Parsons, A. W. 1943. "Klepsydra and Groups, Archaic (Out Birthday in G. E. St. the Paved Court of the Pythion," standing Dissertations the Fine 1, ed. Mylonas, Louis, 191-267. New York. 331-335. Hesperia 12, pp. Arts), pp. 1990. on 1.1979. "Griechische K?nst R. 1994. "The Phillips, D. J. "Observations Scheibler, Stupperich, Iconography Some Ostraka from the Athenian lervotive der archaischen Zeit," of Athenian State Burials in the ZPE Classical in Coulson et al. Agora," 83, pp. 123-148. M?jb 30, pp. 7-30. Period," -. in 93-103. Podlecki, A. J. 1981. "Some Early 1988. "Dreifusstr?ger," 1994, pp. Ernst L. 1980. The Grammar Athenian Commemorations of Kanon: Festschrift Berger, Threatte, L. of zum 60. am 26. Februar Attic 1: Choral Victories," in Classical Geburtstag Inscriptions Phonology, Contributions: Studies inHonour 1988 Berlin. of gewidmet (AntK-BH 15), Malcolm Francis ed. G. S. ed. M. 310-316. -. 1996. The Grammar Attic McGregor, Schmidt, Basel, pp. of L. A. 1975. Zur sozialen 2: Berlin. Shrimpton and D. J.McCargar, Schneider, Inscriptions Morphology, Koren R. 1992. "Die Athe Locust Valley, N.Y., pp. 95-101. Bedeutung der archaischen T?lle-Kastenbein, 1970. statuen ner Prukakis-Christodulopulou, A. (HBA 2), Hamburg. Akropolis-Koren: Ort, Anl?sse, R. 1994. and Ritual: und Zeiten ihrer "Einige Marmorlekythen,"^M 85, Seaford, Reciprocity Aufstellung," Homer and in the 133-148. pp. 54-99. Tragedy Developing ;fe^23, pp. 1938. Oxford. E. 1991. Bronze Raubitschek, A. E. "Zur Technik City-State, Touloupa, "Early 1989. Art and Cult under und Form der altattischen Statuen Shapiro, H. A. Sheets with Figured Scenes from 132-181. the in Mainz. the inNew basen," BIABulg 12, pp. Tyrants Athens, Acropolis," Perspectives -. -. 1995. Art and Cult under the GreekArt in 1939-1940. "Early Attic Vo inEarly (Studies the in tive Monuments," BSA 40, pp. 17 Tyrants Athens, Supplement, History ofArt 32, Symposium 37. Mainz. Papers 16), ed. D. Buitr?n-Oliver, -. -. 1942. "Notes on Attic Proso 2001. "Zum Wandel der atti Hanover, N.H., pp. 236-244. 304 schen Gesellschaft nach den Perser S. V. 1975. The an pography," Hesperia 11, pp. Tracy, Lettering of 313. im Athenian Mason kriegen Spiegel der Akropolis (Hesperia Suppl. in Gab es das Princeton. Redman, C. L. 1977. "The Analytical Weihungen," griechische 15), Individual' and Prehistoric Style Wunder? Griechenland zwischen dem -. 1984. "Hands in Fifth-Cen des 6. und der Mitte des 5. b.c. in Variability," in The Individual in Ende Jahr tury Attic Inscriptions," v. Prehistory: Studies of Variability in hunderts Chr., ed. D. Papenfuss Rigsby 1984, pp. 277-282. in Prehistoric and V M. 91 -. 1990. Attic Letter-Cutters Style Technologies Strocka, Mainz, pp. of in to b.c. (Studies Archaeology Series), 100. 229 86 (Hellenistic Culture ed. J. N. Hill and J. Gunn, New Shear, J. L. 2001. "Polis and Panathe and Society 6), Berkeley. Pictorial York, pp. 41-53. naia: The History and Development Travlos, J. 1971. Dictionary of Richter, G. M. A. 1961. The Archaic of Athena's Festival" (diss. Univ. of Ancient Athens, New York. Gravestones 1.1998. To Mouosio ofAttica, 2nd ed., Pennsylvania). Trianti, Axpo London. -. 2003. "Prizes from Athens: Tco?sco?, Athens. xoci Ridgway, B. S. 1987. "Ancient Greek The List of Panathenaic Prizes and Valavanis, P. 1997. "Bdxxto?, K?tto? Women and Art: The Material the Sacred Oil," ZPE142, pp. 87 7iava6y]vaixoL ocpicpopei?: ?x?t^eic octtixwv Evidence," AJA 91, pp. 399-409. 108. yia TY] do[ir\ tcov epyacmr] 1984. Studies Presented S. R. 2000. "Literature in too 4oo ai. Ti. in Rigsby, K.J., ed. Slings, picov X.," Athenian on to SterlingDow His Eightieth Athens, 566-510 b.c.," in Sancisi Potters and Painters (Oxbow Mono 57-77. H. D. Birthday (GRBM10), Durham, Weerdenburg 2000, pp. graph 67), ed. J. Oakley,W. C. 1995. E. and O. N.C. Sourvinou-Inwood, "Reading" Coulson, Palagia, Oxford, M. 1992. Greek To End Classi 85-95. Robertson, TheArtofVase Death: the of the pp. in Classical Cam cal Oxford. E. 1969. "Three Prize Painting Athens, Period, Vanderpool, B. A. 1996. The Red and the 1-5. bridge. Sparkes, Vases," ArchDelt 24, A', pp. Black: Greek -. Salta, M. 2003. "'TTu?p rr?c yovaix?? Studies in Pottery, New 1970. "Some Attic Inscrip York. 40-46. zo%?y.evo? ITpa?ia? 'AaxXr?mcp,'" tions," Hesperia 39, pp. 426 CATHERINE M. KEESLING
-. 1984. for the D. 1992. sur les ate "Regulations Viviers, Recherches Bradeen and M. F. McGregor, Herakleian Games at liers de et la cit? d ? 161-169. Marathon," sculpteurs Ath?nes Locust Valley, N.Y., pp. in as Rigsby 1984, pp. 295-296. l'?poque archa?que: Endoios, Phil Whitley, J. 1997. "Beazley Theorist," Van F. T. 1981. "Gifts for the Aristokl?s de la 40-47. Straten, ergos, (M?moires Antiquity 71, pp. Gods" and Votive Of Classe des 3e A. 1909. zur "Appendix: Beaux-Arts, ser., 1), Wilhelm, Beitr?ge griechi Parts of the Brussels. schen ferings Representing Inschriftenkunde (Sonderschrif Human Greek C. 2000. "The Potters and ten des Body (the World)," Wagner, ?sterreichischen arch?ologi in and on Faith, Hope, Worship: Aspects Athena: Dedications the Athe schen Instituts inWien 7), Vienna. in theAncient nian in -. 1921. Neue zur ofReligious Mentality Acropolis," Periplous: Papers Beitr?ge grie World inGreek and Roman on Classical Art and 6 (Studies Archaeology chischenInschriftenkunde (SBWien to Religion 2), ed. H. S. Versnel, Lei Presented Sir John Boardman, 183.3), Vienna. den, pp. 65-151. ?d. G R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Woodhead, A. G 1981. The Study of -. 1995. Hiera Kala: and A. M. Lon Greek Images of Prag, Snodgrass, Inscriptions, 2nd ed., Cam Animal in Archaic and Clas 383-387. Sacrifice don, pp. bridge. sical Leiden. M. B. 1974. "Criteria for the M.-A. 1989. La Greece, Walbank, Zagdoun, sculpture and D. Gill. 1994. of archa?sante dans Fart et Vickers, M., Artful Dating Fifth-Century Attic hell?nistique Ancient Greek Silverware and in Phoros: Tribute to dans Fart romain du Crafts: Inscriptions," Haut-Empire Pottery, Oxford. Benjamin Dean Meritt, ?d. D. W. (B?FAR 269), Athens.
Catherine M. Keesling
Georgetown University
department of classics
319 HEALY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20057