Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens •

Edited by Seven D ietz © Copyright The Danish Institute at Athens, Athens 1995

The publication was sponsored by: Consul General Gosta Enborns Foundation. The Danish Research Council for the Humanities. Konsul George Jorck og Hustru Emma Jorck’s Fond.

Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens

General Editor: Seren Dietz Graphic design and Production by: Freddy Pedersen

Printed in Denmark on permanent paper

ISBN 87 7288 721 4

Distributed by AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS University of Aarhus DK-8000 Arhus C Fax (+45) 8619 8433

73 Lime Walk Headington, Oxford 0X3 7AD Fax (+44) 865 750 079

Box 511 Oakville, Conn. 06779 Fax (+1) 203 945 94 9468

The cover illustration depicts a Bronze Statuette of a Horse found at the Argive Heraion. NM 13943. Drawing by Niels Levinsen. See p. 55, Fig. 19. Acknowledgements: An earlier version of this article forms part of my Ph.D. thesis, Buried Virtues. Death Rituals in Kerameikos, Athens, 700-400 B.C., Copenhagen 1993. I would like to take this opportunity to thank warmly my supervisor Annette Rathje for constant support across all borders while I was writing my thesis. I also thank cor­ dially Henrik Jacobsen for the laborious undertaking of helping me to use SPSS PC+, Bengt Petterson for his patient redrawing of my figures and valuable suggestions. The present article also profited greatly from the criticism applied to my earlier manuscript by Lone Wriedt Sorensen, Berit Wells, Mogens Herman Hansen and Anthony Snod­ grass - but of course no one except myself should be held responsible for the result. I also heartily thank the Faculty of Classics in Cambridge for housing me as a visiting scholar for half a year and the Danish Research Academy for financing this stay. I owe a very special thanks to Novo Nordisk Fonden for having financed my participa­ tion in conferences and the re-drawing of my figures and also to the State Research Council for the Humanities for financing the English revision of this article. And I thank Peter Crabb for having revised my English. However, I am unable to describe the gratitude I feel towards Anders not only for his constant readiness to discuss, criticize and furnish ideas on this article, but also to take over so many of those roles which I often failed to fulfil. “Burial language” in Archaic and Classical Kerameikos

Sanne Helene Abstract for studying the relationship between mortuary practice and social structure. Houby-Nielsen In this article I attempt to present main tenden­ The theoretical basis has been formulated cies in the archaeological record o f Kerameikos in particular by Anglo-Saxon archaeolo­ 700-400 B.C. In Part I, I seek to clarify the gists. For many years, the underlying be­ general principles of family self-representation. lief was that social structure is mirrored in Changing conceptions o f age groups and the burial practice: the more complex the bu­ male and female sex in Athenian society will rial customs, the more complex was the be seen to play a dominant role and be respon­ burying society.2 sible fo r a general lack o f fam ily burial plots, In classical archaeology, interest in the but also fo r the difficulty o f deciding whether relation between burial customs and the Attic burial customs reflect the existence o f larg­ rise of the Greek city-state is linked to this NOTE 1 er kinship organizations. Main structuring debate.3 In other connections, ancient Unless stated otherwise, all principles in vase painting are seen as useful Greek burial practice has sometimes been dates in this article are B.C. analogies to the way gender roles were expressed used as a direct source for elucidating kin­

NOTE 2 in the actual burial contexts. ship relations and genealogies.4 Binford 1971; Saxe 1970; Recently, I. Morris has, among other for a history of archaeolog­ In Part II, I deal with the several large tumuli things, demonstrated how the ritual and ical thought, Trigger 1989, excavated in Kerameikos and in the Attic coun­ symbolic aspects of burial customs in 289-263. tryside. Contrary to current scholarly opinion, some cases impede a direct decoding of

NOTE 3 which regards these tumuli as some o f the fe w aspects of the burying society (e.g. de­ Snodgrass 1977. certain cases o f true fam ily burial plots, I inter­ mography, invasions, trade, health condi­ pret them as extreme examples of the will to tions).5 In this he follows recent criticism NOTE 4 express gender roles in burial practice. I thus of former “processual” archaeology put Ker. V I.1, 16 and V II.1, argue that some o f these tumuli rather com­ forward by “contextual” archaeologists .6 199-201; Bourriot 1976, 831-1039. memorate socio-political associations such as Still, Morris also sees a rather direct rela­ sympotic and priestly associations. tionship between mortuary practice in At­ NOTE 5 tica 1100-500 and social organization. Morris 1987, 57-71 and Finally, in Part III, I briefly comment upon the This is particularly apparent in his argu­ 1992, 70-102. relation between the archaeology o f Kerameikos mentation for “law-like” relations

NOTE 6 and the reforms o f Kleisthenes. between certain social groups (agathoi and Hodder 1985 and 1986, kakoi) and certain funerary practices.7 18-33. J. Whitley has lately presented a study on the relation between ceramic style, fu­ NOTE 7 nerary ritual and social organization in M orris 1987, 57-155, esp. Introduction 94-95. Greece 1100-700, in which he focuses es­ The main purpose of the present article is pecially on Athens.8 In this work, he em­ NOTE 8 to show some of the vast possibilities phasizes among other things how in Ath­ Whitley 1991b. which the study of Archaic and Classical ens differences in ceramic style and funer­ burials may afford for augmenting our ary practice are in several periods clearly NOTE 9 Whitley 1991b, 96, 105, knowledge of Athenian society.1 related to age and sex.9 On the other 110-111, 132-136, 156-158. There is a long archaeological tradition hand, he also correlates variations over

129 time in grave assemblages (e.g. wealth) to but large kinship groups (gene), w ho re­ NOTE 10 a development from a less institutionalized ferred to a common mythical ancestor, Whitley 1991b, 96-97, 136-137; see also Whitley hierarchical organization to a firmly estab­ possessed their own cults and based their 1991a, 357. lished one with a well-defined elite.10 power on hereditary, extensive landed

The present study focuses on Keramei- property. These powerful families were NOTE 1 1 kos 700-400. I hope to show that in this thought to bury their dead in private ce­ Hoffmann 1977; Sourvi- period the relation “burial customs - liv­ meteries, situated on their estates in order nou-Inwood 1987; Meyer ing society” is very indirect. I will argue to create a more profound sense of prop­ 1988. that a burial procedure was mainly per­ erty and attachment to the land. F. Bour- NOTE 12 ceived as an occasion to elaborate upon riot has delivered a 1421-page-long study Bourriot 1976. the reputation of the burying group, the of this conception.12 In a critical analysis close family. For this reason, burial prac­ of written sources and historiography he NOTE 1 3 tice was defined by the society’s changing argues that our notion of genos is anach­ Humphreys 1980, 123 warns against the concept m oral concepts pertaining to age and sex. ronistic, being coloured by the role genos of “squirearchy”; Morris The implications of my argumentation are plays in 4th cent, and later sources. To 1987, 90; Whitley 1991b, i.a. that not only do burials not mirror ge­ strengthen his argument, he devotes about 67; for some reservation nealogy, but they are also most difficult to 200 pages to a survey of funerary practice towards Bourriot’s study, use in reconstructing the size of family - including that of Kerameikos - in which see D ’Agostino/D’Onofrio 1993, 42. units and the strength of family ties. he attempts to prove a lack of evidence for

Moreover, ancient age concepts and gen­ kinship burial plots extending over more NOTE 1 4 der roles impede the reconstruction of so­ than one or two generations, exceptional­ Humphreys 1980. cial hierarchies and property classes. On ly four generations, before the 4th cent. the other hand, burials are found to offer Generally, scholars working within funer­ NOTE 1 5 Od xi 75-6; II. xxiii 245- valuable information on aspects and expres­ ary archaeology seem to accept Bourriot’s 248; xxiv 797-801 sions of family self-representation and of conclusions on Attic burial practice.13 elite status. Nevertheless, as pointed out by S. Hum­ NOTE 1 6 My argument that burial practice - in phreys14, even (nuclear) family burial Garland 1982. ways very similar to funerary art and epi­ groups are not easily identified before the NOTE 17 taphs - serves to express and formulate 4th cent, in Attica. Burials, especially in Humphreys 1980, 112- mental images pertaining to age and sex the Archaic period, tend to be individual­ 121. does not make material remains of funer­ ly marked by a tumulus or grave building. ary rituals stand apart from other aspects Such burials often lie in groups, within NOTE 18 of material culture in Athenian society - which it is most difficult to distinguish For non-periboloi burials, see AM 1966:1, 77 and on the contrary. For instance, several family units. And for reasons discussed in Garland 1982, n.s 37, 63, 68. scholars have emphasized a lack of con­ Part II, I do not think huge mounds cov­ crete actions or instantaneous situations in ering many burials necessarily are tradi­ Attic vase painting and instead pointed to tional family tombs. Homer never men­ their reference to superior notions relating tions family tombs. On the contrary, we to notions of womanliness, manliness, le­ hear o f sema, a mound heaped up over an gitimate marriage, and uncivilized and an­ individual or over friends.’3 Also the many imal-like behaviour.11 Archaic funerary inscriptions and the ico­ All in all, the result of my research has nography of grave monuments (kouroi, ko- been an insight into what I think can best rai and grave steles) never stress family ties be called a “burial language”. of the deceased, but rather commemorate the deceased in terms of public values Part I. (which I will discuss in more detail later Family self-representation on). Even in the 4th cent., when rows of in Archaic and Classical grave enclosures (periboloi)lb and the ico­ nography of grave monuments do stress Kerameikos family unity,17 we still find isolated burials For a long time, early Greek society was in between grave enclosures.18 thought to have been dominated by few, This impression of a recurring lack of

130 NOTE 19 interest in stressing kinship in burial cus­ jection of evidence for^me burial plots Littman 1978; Ober 1989, 56. toms certainly conflicts with a historic line lacks a consideration of the general princi­ of research that emphasizes the impor­ ples of family self-representation in Archa­ NOTE 20 tance o f oikos and inter-oikos co-operation ic and Classical burial practice. Littman 1978, 18; Just as a social and political factor in Archaic As immediately appears from a quick 1991(2), 55. and Classical Athens, and sees the oikos o f survey of various studies of Attic burial Periclean Athens as the foundation stone practice in the Archaic and Classical peri­ NOTE 21 o f the polis.V) If the oikoi died out, so ods, burial practice appears to be related Bourriot 1976, 831-1039. would the city-state.20 to age and sex. It has, for instance, been It is certainly not my intention to argue shown that Iron Age burial customs in the NOTE 22 Bourriot 1976, 984 against Bourriot’s general conclusions Kerameikos were often organized along about genos. On the other hand, I do hope lines of age and sex in terms of choice of n o t e 23 to show that a closer look at the structur­ grave gifts, grave form, vessel type used as Bourriot 1976, 933-934, ing principles of family self-representation container for the remains of the deceased 948, 978, 982 in Kerameikos can solve some of the and choice of grave marker.28

NOTE 24 problems outlined above and also to show In the earlier Iron Age the neck-han­ Bourriot 1976, 934, 944, that it is not appropriate to use burial cus­ dled amphora generally marked male buri­ 948-949 toms to argue against the existence of als and the belly- (or shoulder-) handled larger kinship organizations. amphora female burials.29 In the later part NOTE 25 of the Iron Age (Late Geometric) craters Bourriot 1976, 955-956, marked male burials and amphorae female n. 237 Age and gender: the main structuring principles burials. Stylistic features in the Geometric period apparently also played an increasing NOTE 26 Bourriot found, as mentioned above, no role in expressing differences in sex and Ker. V I.1, 16. evidence for kinship burial plots extend­ age.30 This strict sex-determined use of NOTE 27 ing over more than one or two, excep­ marker-vases characteristic of the Iron Age Ker. IX, 10. tionally four, generations before the 4th in fact persisted in Archaic and Classical cent.21 It appears from his study that in or­ times in the shape of the funerary ioutro- NOTE 28 der to speak of a genos burial plot, Bourri­ phoros-amphora (male) and the loutrophoros- See above n. .. ot required one or more of the following hydria (female).31 These vase shapes have conditions to be fulfilled. Firstly, all mem­ been connected with a remark made by NOTE 29 bers of the genos should be represented pseudo-Demosthenes (contra Leochrem Desborough 1952, 5-6; generation after generation. Secondly, a XLIV 18) and later lexicographers stating Krause 1975, 45-47. certain formal similarity between burials that a loutrophoros marked the grave of a

NOTE 30 of the family members should obtain with young man or woman who had died un­ Whitley 1991a, 356-357 respect to interment-forms and body-or- wed.32 W hether or not the archaeological and 1991b, 131, 160. ientation.22 Thirdly, the genealogy of the loutrophoros is the same as the literary genos should be commemorated in in­ one,33 these remarks correlate nicely with NOTE 31 scriptions.23 Fourthly, members should be the Phrasikleia-epitaph commemorating Boardman 1988. buried in the same tumulus or enclosure.24 an unwed girl of the 6th cent.34 and show In fact Bourriot is sceptical towards the that certain publicly defined age groups NOTE 32 idea that a family may have been repre­ and gender roles could define burial cus­ Kokula 1984, 13, 146-148. sented through a group of individually toms. marked graves25, as K. Kiibler had sugges­ I. Morris has pointed out the remark­ NOTE 33 ted.26 able fluctuation in Attica of burial plots Boardm an 1988, 178, has U. Knigge, the excavator of the and cemeteries, which sometimes exclude some doubts. Sudhugel in Kerameikos appears to share (Protogeometric to Middle Geometric),

NOTE 34 some of Bourriot s views. Thus, she be­ sometimes include children (Sub-Myce- Mastrokostas 1972. lieves that Grabhiigel G is possibly a family naean, Late Geometric and Early Red burial plot, since several of its burials are Figure).35 Certainly, this fluctuation must NOTE 35 formally very similar.27 be caused by differing attitudes to children Morris 1987, 57-71. In my opinion, however, Bourriot’s re­ in the society as a whole.

131 The extent to which sex, or rather Main tendencies in the NOTE 36 concepts of sex and age, determined buri­ archaeological record of In general, see Humphreys 1980, esp. 92; for 6th cent. al customs is especially striking in the Kerameikos 700-400 B.C. choice of grave monument and fun erary B.C. Attic funerary epi­ inscriptions in the Archaic and Classical A g e 43 grams containing the periods. Thus grave monuments were pri­ Certainly, social evaluation of age plays a quoted virtues: Peek 1960, marily erected to honour the young man significant role in burial customs in Kera­ 50; Richter 1961, no. 34, in the shape of kouroi and grave steles. In­ meikos. As becomes evident from Table 1, no. 36, Willemsen 1963, scriptions of the latter render the young the frequency of adult burials ranges no. 2, no. 4, no. 11, no. man anonymous (without patrinomikon), between 60.0 and 85.6% (exceptionally 12; Jeffery 1962, 118 no. and he is commemorated for public vir­ 50.0%) in the 7th and 6th cent. Around 3, 120 nos.8 and 9, 121 tues, not private (or family) ones: kalos, 500, the picture suddenly changes, and no. 12, 130 no. 23, 130 agathos, sophrosyne, pistos, euksunetos, eudo- child burials outnumber adult burials, be­ no. 25, 132 no. 31, 136 kos, promaxos, and notions of “beautiful ing slightly over 50%. This change accom­ no. 41, 137 no. 45, 140 death”.36 Probably, funerary inscriptions panies a drastic increase in the number of nos. 49 and 50, 141 no. were regarded as a public (here in the burials per annum (Table 2).44 Suddenly, 51, 143 no. 56, 147 nos. sense of “state”) medium, since this was adult burial activity doubles, while child 66-68. For the over-repre­ how writing on stone markers in general burial activity almost quadruples as part of sentation of funerary kou­ was conceived of ,37 As women had no a continuously rising curve culminating roi in relation to funerary place in politics, this circumstance could between 475 and 450. Morris has argued korai, see Ducat 1976. certainly help to explain why 6th cent. convincingly that when children are not Attic funerary epigrams almost exclusively represented (or heavily under-represented) n o t e 37 concern men, while representations of fe­ in formal, archaeologically manifested bu­ Thomas 1989, esp. 45-47, 55. male prothesis scenes are more common rial plots, this cannot be a matter of poor n o t e 38 than male ones on funerary plaques.38 preservation, but must be due to exclusion Shapiro 1991, 639 n. 55 Still, in the 4th cent, epitaphs still com­ of children on the basis of rank within age based on Brooklyn 1981, memorate men twice as often as women ,39 group.45 In other words, children were 162-219. while representations of women outnum­ buried elsewhere.46 Child necropoleis and ber those of men on contemporary steles ,40 child burials within settlements support NOTE 39 Already A. Brueckner drew attention to this view.47 Conversely, I think a sudden Hansen et al. 1990, 26, n. 11. this principle of commemorating men “over-representation” of children testifies through name inscriptions on fairly plain to a different notion of children in the n o t e 40 steles and women through iconography burying society. I will discuss this in more Shapiro 1991, 158 based on elaborate reliefs.41 detail below. on a rough tabulation of Finally, in an entertaining study on Even when children were buried in Conze 1890-1922; see also tragedies, N.Loraux has shown how in Kerameikos, they often seem to have been Garland 1985, 87. these, men died violent, bloody - and thus buried apart from adults: between 700 and heroic - deaths (usually by the sword), 560, child burials tend to cluster at the NOTE 41 while women died “private”, unbloody fringe of groups of tumuli and grave Brueckner1909,106 and thus un-heroic deaths (usually by buildings each marking a single adult bu­ hanging) inside the house. And when rial, or in separate areas towards the west NOTE 42 women died “virile” deaths and men “fe­ and north-west of the Ay. Triadha hill and Loraux 1991, 7-30, esp. 14. male” deaths, this had a special signifi- in a burial plot (“F”) situated north of the cance. 42 Eridanos (Figs. 1-3). They certainly may n o t e 43 For convenience I use the In the following description of main be mixed with some adult burials, but term “adults”, although in tendencies in the archaeological record of interestingly enough in several cases such reality I deal with non­ Kerameikos 700-400, I hope to show in not marked by a tumulus or a grave build­ children. For definitions of more detail the extent to which society’s ing, just as child burials were never age groups, I refer to Ap­ concepts regarding age and sex deter­ marked by such monuments. In other pendix 2. mined burial customs. words, child burials seem to be grouped NOTE 44 with adult burials o f a certain (low?) status Compare Morris 1987, 73, making status a major organizing principle fig. 22.

132 No, of burials

( j Adult burials

700 675 650 625 600 575 560 535 510 500 475 450 425 400 YEARS B.C. YEARS B.C.

Table 1 The frequency of child and adult, burials in Kerameikos Table 2 The number of child and adult burials per annum in Kerameikos 710/700-400 B.C. 710/700-400 B.C.

NOTE 45 even within family groupings. This ten­ With some exceptions - treated below Morris 1987, 57-109, esp. 93. dency to separate adults and children (or - it is therefore a somewhat fruitless task

NOTE 46 perhaps to group children with adults of a to attempt to trace “true” family plots. For “invisible” burials, see similar - possibly lower - status as that of The general pattern is characterized by Morris 1987, 62, 93, 94, 105. children) also characterizes Kerameikos in burials grouped together on principles of the remaining part of the 6th cent, and in common age groups and status, that is to NOTE 47 the 5th cent. For apart from area “D ” - to say according to public - not family - con­ Young 1942 and 1951; Morris 1987, 62-71. be discussed below - child burials are cepts. Perhaps we have a parallel case in grouped with rather simple adult burials Olynthus. Here 26 persons (25 adults and NOTE 48 in the period 560-500 (Figs. 4-6). Again, 1 child) were buried together in a shallow Olynthus XI, no. 364. like the child burials, these adult burials pit.48 They lay next to one another, facing were almost never marked individually by in the same direction. Near some of the a tumulus or grave building and their persons a few grave gifts were deposited, grave contexts were rarely gender-specific. which were very similar from person to Turning to the 5th cent., we now see a person. Judging from these grave gifts, clear tendency to keep child burials away most of the persons were male and only from groups or series of tumuli and grave one female (grave gifts consisted mostly of buildings. Instead they tend to be grouped strigils, skyphoi, bowls and in one case a with “poor” adult burials or sub-adults pyxis). Certainly a general (low?) social (many of these skeletons were not fully value must be responsible for this collec­ preserved nor the length of the appurten­ tive burial. ant grave), and they are buried at some The community’s notions of age also distance from the road. Moreover, Kera­ structures means of interment and grave meikos develops a true child necropolis sit­ furnishings. In the 7th and 6th cent., uated in Grabhugel G and Sudhugel (Fig.7). child-graves were never marked by a tu-

133 Fig. 1 Kerameikos 7 1 0 /7 0 0 - 600 B .C . (drawn by B. Petterson).

Fig. 2 Kerameikos 600-575 B.C. (drawn by B. Petterson).

134 Fig-3 Kerameikos 575-560 B.C. (draum by B. Petterson).

Fig. 4 Kerameikos 560-535 B.C. (drawn by B. Petterson).

135 Fig.5 Kerameikos 535-510 B.C. (drawn by B. Petterson).

Fig. 6 Kerameikos 510-500 B.C. (drawn by B. Petterson).

136 Fig.7 Kerameikos 500-400 B.C. (drawn by B. Petterson).

n o t e 49 mulus or grave building, unless the child happened through the introduction of 80- Schlorb-Vierneisel 1964. was buried together with an adult. In the 100 cm long terracotta basins used as cof­ 5th cent., we have evidence for only two NOTE 50 fins.52 The length of these basins and the See Catalogue 1 and Ap­ (older) children who were commemorated few cases of preserved skeletons indicate pendix 2 for age-group above ground (through grave steles).49 that the basins were used for the 1 to 3 or definitions. Adults, however, were frequently individ­ 4 year old children. ually marked by a tumulus or grave build­ Regarding grave gifts there is one ma­ NOTE 51 For exceptions to this rule, ing in the 7th and early 6th cent. Here­ jor difference between adult and child bu­ see n. 348 after this custom declines (Table 3). rials in the 7th and early 6th cent. Adults Between 700 and 560, adults were pri­ primarily receive gifts placed in separate NOTE 52 marily cremated, while inhumation was offering-trenches or offering-places and Ker. IX, 29-30. preferred throughout the rest of the 6th rarely grave gifts (Table 5) while children and in the 5th cent. (Table 4). In the 7th, receive only gifts placed inside the grave.53 NOTE 53 I have discussed this in 6th and 5th cent., infants and small chil­ However, two Classical child burials may more detail in a previous dren were generally inhumed in vases and be connected with offering-places.54 This article, Houby-Nielsen thus form a distinct age group in terms of difference persists even after 560, when 1992. burial customs (age group l).50 Older chil­ the ritual of the offering-trenches (and - dren, aged 3/4-12/14 (age group 3), seem places) declines. Until 560, both adults NOTE 54 AM 1966:1, 65/hS 175 to have been treated rather like adults, and children mainly receive vases for and 91/hS 97. since they were buried directly in the drinking and eating. Hereafter drinking- ground or in wooden coffins in the man­ and eating-vases disappear abruptly as gifts NOTE 55 ner of adults. The main difference to adults in favour of lekythoi placed inside Houby-Nielsen 1992, table 8. between adults and children seems to be the grave.33 Children, however, continue that children were only very rarely cre­ to receive many drinking- and eating-vas- m a te d /1 es until around 500 (Table 6 x-line). In From around 500, the older baby and the 5th cent., when the number of child up to 3 or 4 year old child (age group 2) burials, and accordingly the number of also became formally expressed through grave gifts, are much higher, it is possible standardized forms of interment. This to obtain a clearer idea of the relation

137 Cremation

Unknown

700 675 650 625 600 575 560 535 510 500 475 450 425 400

YEARS B.C.

Table 3 The frequency of tumuli and grave buildings in relation to the total Table 4 The frequency of adult inhumation and cremation burials number of adult burials 710/700-400 B.C.

between categories of grave gifts and age been analysed osteologically are often n o t e 56 groups. As is shown in Table 7, the num­ identified as male or female through the See recently Stromberg 1993, whose identification ber o f le k y th o i clearly increases with age, presence of such apparently sex-specific of burials as either male or while the number of drinking-, eating- features.36 However, burial contexts are al­ female rests on an attempt and pouring-vases declines. Even within ways the product of the social values of to isolate grave goods as the large category called “other gifts”, a the burying group. These contexts (choice male or female. pattern is detectable, as demonstrated in of interment, of grave gifts, of modes of n o t e 57 Table 8. The older the person, the fewer depositing grave gifts) therefore cannot For the importance of dis­ the special child vases, toys and small express the biological sex, but rather con­ tinguishing between sex bowls with lid, while p y x id e s (with cylin­ ception s of the biological sex, that is the and gender in archaeology, drical body) and terracottas and “various” cultural gender.57 Since gender categories see recently Gero Sc C on- increase with age. And in the latter cate­ sometimes overlap, similar burial contexts, key (eds.) 1991; Sorensen 1992. gory we find many objects which are es­ and even so-called “sex-specific” objects, pecially connected with gender roles are sometimes found in connection with NOTE 58 (soap, make-up, lebes, strigit) (see Appendi­ both male and female burials. This lack of See recently Whitley ces 4-5), as are p y x id e s . a sharp distinction between grave contexts 1991b, 96, 105, 110, 158. of osteologically male and female burials Gender and the structural has therefore often puzzled archaeologists, principles of the burial and it is common in such cases to assume context that it was unimportant to distinguish between males and females.38 This is also It is common in grave archaeology to the conclusion which A. Stromberg consider certain objects or features as spe­ reaches in her recent study on sex-iden- cific for either the male or the female sex. tification in Iron Age burials in Athens For this reason, burials which have not between 1100 and 700, since the majority

138 x Categories of grave gifts in child graves 600-500 B.C. Gifts from offerfng-trenches (or -places) (55 objects) • Categories of grave gifts Gifts from adult graves in child graves 510-500 B.C. 'K r* '' (69 objects) VVA Increase caused by a few extremely rich •'>v< offering-pleces | Categories of grave gifts in child graves 500-400 B.C. (1360 objects)

It HI IV V VI V II V III IX

CATEGORIES OF GRAVE GIFTS

I :lekythoi II : Drinking-, eating-, pouring-vases III : Special child vases IV : Terracottas V : Pyxides VI : Various 700 675 650 625 600 575 560 535 510 500 475 450 425 400 V II : Toys (43) (22) (76) (7) (22) (0) (140) <25)<77)(396)(340) (567) (125) V lil: perfume vases IX : Personal objects X : Jew ellery

Table 5 The frequency of gifts from respectively offering-trenches (and - Table 6 A comparison between the frequency of categories of grave gifts in places) and adult graves. child graves 600-510, 510-500 and 500-400 B.C.

X— X Drinking-, eating-, and pouring-vases % ioo Lekythoi 90 Q □ Other gifts 80 -

70 -

60 -

50 -

40 -

30 “ New-born Small children children

2 0 - AGE GROUPS 10 Special child-voses | Perfume vases 0 New-born Small Older Pyxides children children Smell bowls with lid (580) (482) (305) (1027)

Toys □ Table 1 The relationship between categories of gifts and age groups in the Table 8 The relationship between categories of grave gifts and age groups in the 5th cent. B.C. (The actual number of gifts is shown in brackets.) 5th cent, (lekythoi and vases for drinking, eating and pouring are excluded).

139 of the burials could not be sex-determined in front of her columns with part of the n o t e 59 according to her own methodology d9 It is, architrave visible”, altogether signalling Stromberg 1993, 108-109. Stromberg’s catalogue C however, interesting to note that around “Frauengemach”. W ith this formula, var­ registering burials that did 23.4% of the burials which did not con­ ying elements may be associated, thereby not contain sex-specific tain sex-specific objects are infant or child giving the scene its specific meaning. In grave gifts comprises sever­ burials, as against 0.5% of the sex-deter­ our example, it can be a man holding a al (around 25) grave con­ minable burials.60 In the Iron Age, chil­ purse towards the woman, thereby placing texts that express gender: cremations in neck-han­ dren often belong to a low-status group in her in the category of hetairai - or simply dled or belly-handled am­ burial contexts61 and are therefore seldom emphasizing the role of women as desir­ phorae, one of which (no. given grave equipment, which again able sexual objects.67 These formulas may 400) is a neck-handled am­ makes sex or gender identification diffi­ be extended or reduced, the latter recall­ phora with a sword cult. And in the Classical period, as we ing the former, and different elements wrapped around its shoul­ der (nos. 336, 410, 411, shall see below, gender appears to be less may be added, which changes the mean­ 413, 417, 440, 442, 443, expressed in graves of infants and small ing of the formula. If, for instance, a 448, 459, 460, 462, 474, children than in graves of older children young woman holds a baby towards a sit­ 483, 490, 494, 504, 508 and adults. Such a concept of small chil­ ting woman, the woman’s role as mother possibly more); cremations dren as “gender-less” - which is well- or rather the mental image of “chastity” is in bronze urns (that is Ho­ m eric “heroic” style) one known from other cultures62 - is certainly stressed. The interdependency of imagery of which was marked by a also an expression of gender attitude. causes scenes of daily life to overlap with crater with an ekphora- A clear example of the importance of mythological scenes with respect to formal motif (nos. 217, 351, 363); working with gender rather than sex in similarity as well as to meaning.68 And, as double burials consisting of studies on burial customs is a 4th cent, noted in the introduction, vase painting an adult and an infant, where the infant may signal burial in the Eckterrasse in Kerameikos.63 with genre scenes seems less concerned to a “mother role” or of the The skeleton is that of a young man, but depict concrete actions or instantaneous adult (nos. 344, 346). among the numerous grave gifts several situations, but rather refers to superior no­ objects are represented that are normally tions of gender roles.69 n o t e 60 considered to be unambigous indicators of My approach to the problem of gender Stromberg 1993, catalogue G. a female grave (pyxides, mirror, make-up). identification has therefore been to regard

This touch of feminism has convincingly burial contexts as structured according to NOTE 61 been interpreted as an indication that the principles similar to those which apply to Morris 1987, 57-69. deceased was an actor. Perhaps it is the ac­ vase paintings. I thus seek to define mate­ tor Makareus, who is commemorated in a rialized expressions of gender roles. In At­ NOTE 62 Whelan 1991. funerary inscription found nearby.64 The tic funerary epigrams the range of virtues burial is certainly an unusual one, but it is is rather narrow and intimately connected NOTE 63 a nice example of how grave contexts ex­ with social values of respectively the male Ker. XIV, no. 24/Eck 64. press gender roles (here “actor”), which and female sex. For this reason we may sometimes cannot be categorized as strict­ expect a similar restricted repertoire of NOTE 64 Ker. XIV, 31-33. ly female or male - though in this case the materialized conceptions in burial cus­ presence of an ivory object decorated with toms, and funerary objects and rituals NOTE 65 aggressive scenes of antithetical pairs of linked to these conceptions may therefore Ker. XIV, 37 fig. 26. male animals (lions, panthers, bulls) and appear to be “sex-specific”. We ought, griffins65 may conform with a more tradi­ however, to be aware that conceptions of NOTE 66 Berard et al. 1989, 23-37, tional male gender role. the female and male sex change over time with further references. Interestingly enough, we find a similar and according to context. For instance a complex of problems attending Attic vase so-called “sex-specific” object may be NOTE 67 painting. Here, only the total composition connected with materialized expressions Compare Meyer 1988. of elements indicates what gender roles of the male sex in a certain period and in n o t e 68 (or settings, buildings,) are meant.66 Often, a certain situation (here funerary), while Lissaraque & Schnapp imagery consists of recurring composi­ in other periods and/or situations (for in­ 1981. tions of elements, formulas: for instance stance domestic) it may form part of ex­ “woman sitting on a stool holding a mir­ pressions of the female sex. But as long as NOTE 69 ror, behind her an alabastron on the wall, we keep this problem in mind, it is very See n. 11

140 NOTE 70 often possible to identify the sex of the Beazley 1927/28, 196. deceased by recognizing the expressed gender role of the burial context, as I n o t e 71 Gericke 1970, 75-77; hope to show below. Koch-Harnach 1983, 155; On analogy with vase painting, I con­ Schreibler 1983, 22-23. sider burial contexts to consist of different elements, each of which is meaningful NOTE 72 only when viewed in relation to the total Metr. Mus. 11. 185 (Rich­ ter 1961, no. 37); Metr. grave context. Recurring combinations of Mus. 23.160.38.; ADelt 29, elements I call formulas. As I have shown 1973/74 B, pin. 52d. in Excursus 1-3, a formula can be either completely or partly “quoted”. A “re­ NOTE 73 duced” formula recalls an “extended” for­ Gol. Czart. 83 Warschau 142313; CVAPolen 1, mula. However, the formula obtains a spe­ Goluchow, Mus. Czartory- cific meaning only through the addition ski, pi. 36, figs. a-d. G e- of extra elements, be they objects or ritu­ ricke 1970, 75. als, w hich may indicate to us the sex o f the deceased. These may also form for­ n o t e 74 Kreuzer 1992, no. 125. mulas which can be extended or reduced. It is, I hope, needless to say that I regard n o t e 75 this burial practice to have worked at an Ker. V II.1, no. 5 (p. 17), unconscious level. nos. 234, 478. It was outside the limit of this work to

NOTE 76 identify gender roles systematically in all Fig. 8 Lekythos found as a stray find in the Kerameikos. Wehgartner 1983, 112 burials. Instead, I have attempted to look (Neg. no. Ker. 6730, courtesy The German Institute in with references (do not in­ more closely for the principles of express­ Athens.) clude the examples from ing gender roles by selecting burials con­ Kerameikos). taining aryballos a n d /o r alabastron a n d /o r cent., but little is known of their context ,76

NOTE 77 lekythos. The reason for this choice was The Attic terracotta alabastron did not ap­ Agora P 12628; ABV 155, 64. that these vases were the commonest ones pear until the last quarter of the 6th cent, in burials. They are also known to change (with the exception of the one by the NOTE 78 “sex” according to context, as the follow­ Amasis-painter from around 55077). At this Berlin, Antikenmus. ing summary may serve to illustrate, and 31390; Koch-Harnack time it could be connected with men, 1983, 110-112, f ig . 48. which makes it especially interesting to since it could carry motifs alluding to the analyse the grave contexts in which they erastes-eromenos relationship mentioned NOTE 79 are found. above.78 And one carries a scene of men Fogg Art Museum 1925. T he aryballos first appeared in Attic vase offering money to a woman.79 But Classi­ 30.50: CVA Cam bridge (1) painting about 55070 and was mostly asso­ H oppin Collection pi. 19.2. cal alabastra are commonly regarded as ciated with men, being a conventional pa- typical female vases, owing to their fre­ NOTE 80 laestra-attribute and an erotic gift, given by quent presence in female scenes in vase Gericke 1970, 72-75; the mature man (erastes) to his younger painting.80 Schreibler 1983, 24; Keuls lover (eromenos) .71 The same associations A lekythos of the early type - a stray 1985, 120; Meyer 1988, are implied when it appears in funerary find in Kerameikos - carries the earliest esp. 90; Reilly 1989, 414, 420. iconography.72 However, on an Early known representation of an erastes-eromenos NOTE 81 Classical bowl it was used by bathing scene81 (Fig. 8), and therefore an original Athen, Kerameikos M u­ w om en.73 A nd on a skyphos-sherd, like­ association with a male context is highly seum, without number; wise Early Classical, women in a proces­ possible. However, in the 5th cent., Koch-Harnach 1983, fig. 1. sion carry arybalhi, alabastra and bowls “B a u ch lek yth m ” and shoulder lekythoi, es­

NOTE 82 with eggs.74 pecially those with white ground, are of­ Gericke 1970, 77-82; Alabastra made of glass and alabaster - ten thought of as exclusively female vases, Wehgartner 1983, 102. as are the earliest ones in Kerameikos75- since they mostly carry female scenes and were made since the middle of the 6th often appear in scenes of “Frauengemach”.82

141 Apart from burials containing these both “feminine” and “masculine” grave NOTE 83 vase shapes, I have also looked at burials contexts, which are therefore anything but See n. 53. containing soap, mirror or strigil. uniform. The same is true of these two n o t e 84 areas in the latter part of the 6th cent, and Below follows a summary of the gener­ Compare Appendix 4, es­ al conclusions I have reached, while I refer in the 5th cent. (Figs. 4-7). Thus, the pecially for Ker. VII. 1, no. 9. to Excursus 1-3 for a detailed argumenta­ earthen building “c” to the south-west of tion. Grabhugel G appears to mark a male burial n o t e 85 88 (Fig. 4), while “d” rather marks a fe­ Ker. V II.1, nos. 2-12. male burial89 (Fig. 7). The big tumulus Gender NOTE 86 “K” was erected over a well-appointed fe­ Ker. VII. 1, 63. From 700 to 575/60, adult burial contexts male burial.90 Tumulus “L” marked a cre­ are primarily cremations sometimes con­ mation burial, and a secondary female bu­ NOTE 87 In Part II, I will discuss nected with offering-trenches (or -places) rial.91 Tumulus “N ” marked a female bu­ Grabhugel G and Sudhiigel rial,92 while its secondary burial is male.93 containing a reference to an elaborate separately banquet set, and often marked by a tumu­ The tumulus “O ” marked an extremely lus or grave building. The combination fine bronze cauldron which contained the NOTE 88 and nature of these features appear to re­ cremation ashes wrapped in a fine purple Ker. VII. 1, no. 243 call Homeric heroic values.83 For this rea­ cloth in a Homeric heroic way.94 NOTE 89 In area D, grave buildings “s” and “u” son, the adult burial population seems to Ker. V II.1, no. 256 be dominated by men in this period. And marked a female burial 95(Fig. 4). In the an analysis of those burials which con­ last decade of the 6th cent., two tumuli NOTE 90 tained an aryballos even indicates the ex­ were erected, “Q ” and “R ”, which ap­ Ker. V II.1, no. 242 pression of different social values of the pear to have marked female burials96(Fig. NOTE 91 6), and likewise the grave building “o” of male sex, one of which appears heroic, the Ker. VII. 1, no. 247 other non-heroic (see Excursus 1). the 5th cent.97(Fig. 7). The burials of the Between 560 and 535, a most interest­ remaining tumuli and grave buildings NOTE 92 ing situation arises. The enormous mound were too badly disturbed to give informa­ Ker. VII. 1, no. 261 Grabhugel G, with a diameter of 36 m, was tion about gender. NOTE 93 As appears from this survey, feminine raised above a monumental shaft grave. Ker. V II.1, no. 262 W ithin the next 10-20 years, 11 burials, qualities begin to be highly stressed in bu­ all adults,84 were dug into the mound, rial practice after about 560. NOTE 94 forming a circle (Fig. 4).83 From now on, The many burials which lay outside Ker. V II.1, no. 264 I shall refer to these burials as “circle-buri­ clusters of tumuli and grave buildings ap­ NOTE 95 peared to be “neutral” in terms of gender als”. These 12 burials were separated in Ker. VII.1, nos. 478, 613 the south-west from the tumuli J and H expressions. However, as stated earlier, we and their successors (Fig. 4) by a huge should be aware that even a lack of inter­ NOTE 96 earth fill, the so-called “peisistratische est in expressing specific gender roles may Ker. VII.l, nos. 465, 475 Auffullung”.86 The interesting thing about be connected with certain gender roles NOTE 97 the circle-burials is that their grave con­ that are not found worthy of expression in Ker. VII.l, no. 443 texts on the whole appear very similar. a burial context. W ith one exception, all burial contexts NOTE 98 Ker. V I.1, 16; Hum phreys appear to express a certain male gender Family groups role related to the luxurious Lydian life­ 1980, 106-108. style known to the Greeks as truphe. T he K. Kiibler and S. Humphreys have sug­ Stidhtigel, erected around 540 and measur­ gested that some of the very closely situat­ ing 40 m in diameter, covered a shaft ed or superimposed tumuli and grave grave with a male inhumation whose buildings formed family groups.98 This grave context expressed a notion similar to may be so, but in general there seem to that of the circle-burials87 (see Excursus 2). me to be no immediately clear groupings In contrast, the series of tumuli border­ with the exception of the tumuli and ing on Grabhugel G in the south-west and grave buildings in my Figs. 1 -2 area A. grave buildings situated in area D mark Humphreys also regarded the burials

142 NOTE 99 form ing a circle in Grabhiigel G as a pos­ 7). This remarkable series of 6th and 5th Humphreys 1980, 106. sible family plot." She thus acknowledges cent, tumuli and grave buildings (starting two very different burial principles as w ith “J ” and “H ”) is situated on top o f NOTE 100 Ker. VIF.l, nos. 465 (with means of family self-representation. On the so-called “peisistratische Auffullung” no.466), 475 (with no.457). the one hand is a series of adult burials and not on the actual “Grabhiigel G ” ,102 m arked individually by a smallish tumulus since the western edge of the latter makes or grave building, near which child burials an awkward eastward digression in this n o t e 101 may be found. All of these grave contexts area.103 It is therefore due to the “peisistra­ Ker. VII. 1, nos. 450, 451, 486. are dissimilar, owing to different gender tische Auffullung” that “Grabhiigel G ” ap­ and age groups. On the other hand, we pears circular. For this reason the burials NOTE 102 have a huge tumulus serving as a common of the actual “Grabhiigel G” should per­ Ker. V II.1, 63 grave marker for several burials belonging haps be understood as in some way seper- more or less to a single age group and al­ ate from the series of tumuli and grave NOTE 103 Ker. VII. 1, 7-9 most expressing the same gender role, for buildings just mentioned. And the latter which reason grave contexts are rather should rather be associated with the 7th NOTE 104 similar. For reasons discussed in Part II, I cent, and early 6th cent, tumuli and grave Davies 1971, 16. do not believe the latter tradition mani­ buildings below the “peisistatische fests a true family burial plot, while the Auffullung” and to the east of this. A fu­ former certainly does. Such “true” family nerary inscription was found in connec­ plots are distinguishable in three areas in tion with the latest grave building. It car­ Kerameikos. ries an inscription mentioning a certain The first one is formed by area A (Figs. H ipparete (ii (2) 7400), w ho can be iden­ 1-2). Here grave buildings and tumuli are tified as the daughter of Alkibiades IV.104 closely united in the northern part while - The late Classical grave building has as pointed out earlier - child burials and therefore been interpreted as part of an adults not marked by a grave building or a Alkmaionid burial plot, an interpretation I tumulus are kept to the south. Perhaps will discuss in Part II. men are in the majority among the adults, The analysis above of the role of age as argued in Excursus 1. and gender in burial practice and the three The second plot is in area D (Figs. 4- fairly secure cases of family plots leave us 6). As mentioned above, tumuli and grave with the possibility of drawing the follow­ buildings here mark both adult male and ing conclusions as to how a family dis­ female burials. And child burials form part posed of its deceased members: of this burial plot. In fact two child burials I: The family primarily buries important belonged to two of the adult burials.100 We members in a formal necropolis (between even find evidence for tomb cult in the 700 and 560, certain men seem to be pre­ form of three offering-areas.101 ferred). These burials are marked individ­ A third family plot, this time partly ually by a tumulus or grave building and confirmed by the find of funerary inscrip­ may form intimate groups. Grave contexts tions, is constituted by the series of 6th may be somewhat similar. However, this is and 5th cent, tumuli and grave buildings solely due to the circumstance that the and grave enclosures bordering on the buried persons share a social status in southwest edge of Grabhiigel G (Fig. 7). terms of age, gender and rank - not a Again - as described above - the tumuli family status. Since the spatial distribution and grave buildings mark single adult bu­ of burials tends to be structured by princi­ rials representing both sexes, perhaps with ples of social values related to age and one or two secondary burials. Towards the gender, groups of tumuli or grave build­ end of the 5th cent., a huge grave build­ ings may not always belong to one kinship ing o f m udbrick (“e”) w ith an eathern fill group. Instead we may be faced with dif­ (“o”) was built which neatly covered all ferent kinship groups who bury selected the previous tumuli, and which was later family members in the same area, since replaced by a slightly larger one (“f”) (Fig. they share a social value.

143 II: The family buries its adult members, Homeric epics afford no evidence of well- NOTE 105 now of both sexes, together with several defined social classes, as is sometimes Donlan 1980, 18-25, esp. of its deceased child members. These thought.105 Instead, the Odyssey gives us 25; Halverson 1985. grave contexts are not similar, since the the impression of a two-tiered society: a n o t e 106 society’s concepts of age and gender de­ status-elite and the people who served it. Halverson 1985. fine their appearance. These family burials Clearly, the oikos (household) was the fun­ are not united by a common grave marker damental unit in Homeric society. The n o t e 107 (before the end of the 5th cent.) Instead, extent of its property and its reputation Donlan 1980, 1-34, esp. 23; Murray 1983b. adult burials tend to be individually defined the status of its male leader, the marked by a tumulus or grave building. basileus.m Conversely, an oikos depended NOTE 108 Ill: The family buries (some of?) its adult on the behaviour of its male leader. In or­ Schulz 1981, 68-81. members with few grave goods and no tu­ der to maintain or enlarge the wealth and mulus or grave building. These adults power of his oikos, a basileus would engage NOTE 109 Od. 15,324; Schulz 1981, 73. seem to be buried with adults of a similar in a number of competitive activities with

(low?) status belonging to other families other basileis, activities such as holding lav­ NOTE 110 (compare Fig. 7 for the huge number of ish banquets, exchanging splendid gifts Schulz 1981, 72. simple burials between the two plots with and participating in war raids.107 Common series of tumuli). adjectives applied to a successful basileus NOTE 1 1 1 For ritualized friendships IV: The family buries (some of?) its child were agathos, esthlos and aristos, all o f which (xenia), see Herman 1987. members in a child necropolis together mainly referred to bellicose exploits.108 with children of other families (Fig. 7: These adjectives seem to undergo a devel­ n o t e 1 1 2 Grabhugel G, Sudhugel). opment from being narrowly connected Donlan 1980, 16-17. It follows from this summary that one with actual actions (“Leistungsbegriffe”) - n o t e 113 family may bury its members according to describing a man who is engaged in a bel­ Ober 1989, 58-60. different principles and combine for in­ licose action or has just performed one - stance I or II with III-IV. to becoming superior concepts (“Wesens- In other words, all members of a kin­ begriffe”) detached from the action itself. ship group are only occasionally buried Thus, in the Odyssey, agathos is for the formally in a necropolis and only occa­ first time used in the plural to express so­ sionally united in a plot, and there is no cial contrasts in a peaceful context (that is such thing as a family tradition in burial distinguish between social groups, namely practice. One could argue that this sup­ those who are agathoi and those who are ports the theory of a lack of interest in not).109 And a son may command respect kinship relations which some scholars have merely by referring to his father as an aga- advanced. On the other hand, we saw that thos.u0 A basileus thus had to have a good there is strong evidence for a family burial reputation, if his household was to marry plot in use for over three hundred years. into and establish ritualized friendships111 In the following section, I hope to explain with other powerful families. Noble birth this apparent contradiction. was at no time sufficient to maintain membership of the elite. Public recogni­ Family self-representation: tion of a man’s abilities and virtues was the Archaic period equally, if not more im portant.112 Perhaps partly for this reason the kakoi (the rich, At this juncture I find it worth attempting but not noble-born) came to constitute a to summarize the impression gained from serious threat to the eupatridae (those born written and various archaeological sources of noble fathers) in the 7th cent.113 about the self-representation of the family In 6th cent. Athens, written as well as in early Athens. For as we shall see, this archaeological sources are much more var­ impression appears to be structurally relat­ ied. As before, the power and influence of ed to Archaic burial customs in Keramei­ the oikoi are still dependent on the social kos. reputation of male family members. It has recently been (re-)argued that the W hen earlier the basileus struggled to ob-

144 NOTE 1 1 4 tain individual kleos to maintain his oikos, duties.121 O n analogy with these monu­ Schmitt Pantel 1990a-b. the Athenian citizen fought anonymously ments and in view of the general heroic in the phalanx to protect his city. But he character of adult burial contexts in Kera­ NOTE 1 1 5 also struggled to demonstrate good social meikos, we may be faced with a translation Ober 1989, 249. behaviour in times of peace by participat­ into funerary “object language” of social NOTE 116 ing in various social practices: hunting, qualities such as agathos, arete or esthlos. Ober 1989, 249-250. ephebe and hoplite life, symposia and Contrary to prevailing scholarly opin­ banquets.114 ion, burial customs are far from con­ NOTE 1 17 W ith this background, it is hardly sur­ cerned with expressing genealogies, but Ober 1989, 249-250. prising that much later Aristotle clearly they are certainly deeply concerned to

NOTE 118 conflates two very different categories maintain and elaborate upon the reputation Ober 1989, 251. when he defines eugeneis (the well-born), of the burying oikos, and that is som ething namely a genetic and a moral category ,115 quite different. In S. Humphreys’ words: NOTE 1 19 According to Aristotle (Pol. 130lb-4), the “Paying visits to the tomb of famous an­ See recently Thomas 1989, 95-123, esp. 99, 111. well-born are on the one hand those of cestors was not a pious duty, but a way of good birth, and on the other hand those reminding contemporaries of the glory of NOTE 120 who possess arete.ne InJ. Ober’s words, the one’s own family”.122 For this reason, bu­ Thomas 1989, 104-112. implication is “that high birth often leads rial customs constitute a complex symbol­ n o t e 121 to moral excellence but also that the two ic language, which clearly expresses cer­ See n. 36 attributes were distinct. An individual tain social qualities of some family mem­ with good blood might not be regarded as bers, while it neglects those of other NOTE 122 truly well born if his behaviour was in­ members (e.g. women and children). It is Humphreys 1980, 126 compatible with his ancestry. The Greek a “lanquage” which pays greater attention aristocrat must have the right bloodlines, to social than family qualities, since the but he must also act the part”.117 Thus former were believed to be heritable. Due there existed a widespread belief in the to this burial “language”, burials are an heritability of moral qualities.118 In accor­ inadequate source for reconstructing buri­ dance with this belief, speakers in courts al generations. One male burial commem­ in the late 5th and 4th cent., who wished orated the remaining family, the size of to assert family patriotism, referred to civ­ which it is impossible to estimate. Groups ic duties fulfilled by male ancestors.119 of tumuli or grave buildings may represent These civic duties were never meant as bi­ certain members of one nuclear family, ographical references, but simply to extoll but they may also represent selected mem­ the general virtue of the ancestors and bers of several nuclear families belonging thus of the present oikos of the speaker. to a larger kinship organization. Or they These virtues mainly consisted of military may represent several unrelated nuclear achievements, death in battle, liturgical families who buried certain family mem­ generosity, and victories in games .'20 bers together, because the latter shared a To summarize, at no time is the oikos social status. Moreover, social hierarchies politically unimportant, but it manifests it­ are difficult to reconstruct, since “poor” self in society through the social qualities burial does not necessarily represent a of its male members. Burial customs in low-status person in daily life, but a per­ Archaic Kerameikos fit very well into this son of a certain age and gender role which picture. Here too, the burying family is it was not thought important to manifest concerned with expressing a socially de­ in a burial context. fined status or quality of a deceased male So much for the 7th and earlier 6th family member. Women and children cent. In three cases it was possible to iden­ have little place in this ideology. And for tify “true” family plots. Between 560 and this reason, Attic Archaic grave monu­ 535, women appear to have played a ments and funerary inscriptions almost ex­ bigger role in these family plots. And clusively commemorate male family around 500, the number of child burials members who have fulfilled certain civic increased explosively. Do these circum-

145 tances imply that the oikoi no longer rep­ adult burials in the early city-state of Ath­ n o t e 123 resented themselves through male qual­ ens is much too low in relation to the esti­ Garland 1985, 78-80 and ities? mated size of the resident population to 1990, 108-111. In the following sections, I hope to represent a demographic reality, while in n o t e 124 show that a detailed discussion of the child Classical Athens the number of tombs may Muller 1990, 47-54. burials in 5th cent. Kerameikos can throw be proportional to the estimated popula­ some light on this question. tion.127 The fact that only a maximum of n o t e 125 around 14 burials per annum (including Golden 1988; Morris 1989. The role of children in child burials) took place in the Keramei­ kos in the Classical period raises specula­ 5th cent. Kerameikos n o t e 126 tions about who was allowed to be buried Sellevold et al. 1984, 210- It is a widely held opinion that interest in there,128 which again impedes demograph­ 211; Morns 1987, 93-96, the child’s earliest development was lack­ ic speculations (Table 2). To this could be 99-104; Morris 1992, 70- 91; Arcini 1992. ing in Greek culture until Hellenistic added that the number of child and adult times, and that this attitude may have been burials per annum actually falls in the ear­ NOTE 127 due to the infant’s poor chances of survi­ ly 420s when a plague caused the death of M orris 1987, 57-71, esp. val.123 And recently, in a chapter dealing thousands of Athenians (T h u k. II, XLVII- 62, 100-101. with the representation of children in LIII.), and apparently continued to fall NOTE 128 Greek art and literature, C. Muller con­ during the years of the Peloponnesian War M orris 1987, 93-96, esp. cluded that children were not understood as already noted by Kiibler.129 94, concludes in a rather as children until very late in the 5th cent.124 The high frequency of child burials is general way that in periods Here I will not enter into the discus­ also unconnected with the practice of ex­ with large burial-plots and sion of whether or not demography gov­ posing unwanted babies. As C. Patterson cemeteries and a high number of total burials, re­ has pointed out, the terminology of acts, erns emotional responses, such as caring strictions on access to for­ and love for babies and small children,125 which cause the death of a baby or child, mal, archaeologically vis­ but instead show that infant and child bu­ is closely linked to concepts of status in ible burial were lifted, and rials in Kerameikos from the years around ancient Greece. Exposure of babies was a “commoner” households 500 and throughout the 5th cent, speak common and accepted practice as long as were allowed to bury with “higher-status” houses strongly against the afore-mentioned com­ it involved new-born babies, which were within their descent line. monly held opinion. Firstly, my argumen­ not yet formally recognized and named tation is based on a discussion of the in­ members of a household. However, it ap­ NOTE 129 crease in the number of infant and child pears to have been seen as morally abhor­ Ker. V II.1, 199. burials and secondly, on the complexity of rent to kill a child which was already an NOTE 130 their grave contexts. accepted family member.130 Kerameikos Patterson 1985, 104-105. was regarded as the most prominent ce­ Child burials and metery of Athens already in antiquity, demography since famous politicians and citizens who had fallen in war became buried here. It is The most striking change in mortuary therefore hard to believe that the Atheni­ practice in the years around 500 was the ans would place a cemetery for unwanted sudden increase in the number of infant babies here, and the many urn burials in and smaller child burials (age groups 1 and Kerameikos represent the largest cemetery 2 in Appendix 3) which now outnum­ for small children excavated so far in Ath­ bered adult burials. In order to interpret ens. Moreover, as I shall argue below, the this change, it is necessary to know its re­ frequency and character of grave gifts of lationship to demography. these urn burials also rule out such an as­ It has recently been stressed in archaeo­ sumption. Ancient literary sources, in par­ logical and anthropological studies that ticular Plato (Theaetetus 160C-161E), variations within burial populations may Aristophanes (Clouds 530-532) and Aris­ not necessarily be demographical in ori­ totle (Politics 7.16), leave us in no doubt gin, but rather social manifestations.126 that exposure of unwanted babies was a And certainly, the number of child and general phenomenon of Greek society.

I46 NOTE 131 However, with the (rather unlikely) ex­ meikos is high, if we compare it with fre­ Young 1951, 68, 110-130; ception of 4th cent, infant cremations in quencies in burial populations of other Garland 1985, 82. the southwest quarter of the Athenian cultures. In Denmark, the frequency of all

NOTE 132 agora,131 there is no archaeological evi­ child burials (0-13 years old) from prehis­ Based on Olynthus XI, dence for this practice in Athens. Nor can toric times to the 18th cent. A.D. never 146. an unusually high infant mortality be held rises above 30% .137 The same is true of responsible for the increase in infant buri­ pre-Roman to Iron Age cemeteries in NOTE 133 als. First o f all, the high frequency o f in­ general in Europe - with the exception of Based on the burials pub­ lished in Corinth XIII; fant burials persists until the last quarter of Poland.138 In the Medieval city of Lund compare also the 5th cent, the 5th cent., and there is no reason to (Sweden), when religious belief required child cemetery excavated believe that the flourishing Classical peri­ that all baptized persons be formally bur­ in Eretria, Vlavianou-Tsa- od should have experienced an unusually ied, the frequency of child burials (0-6 liki 1981. high mortality among infants. Secondly, years) in various churchyards seldom rises n o t e 1 34 an increase in infant burials around 500 above 35%. It often hovers around 10-20%. Bennike 1985, 44; Gejwall seems to be a time phenomenon, since it Only in the Medieval countryside do 1960, 35-43. also characterized other Greek city-states. new-born babies alone constitute 50.3%.139 In Olynthus, the frequency of child buri­ The conclusion must be that no matter n o t e 135 als betw een late 6th cent, and 338 is whether the population of Kerameikos is Hofsten & Lundstrom 1976, 45-55. 54.2%, if burials of unknown age are ex­ demographically representative or not, the cluded, and 49.8%, if burials of unknown explosive increase in infant burials must n o t e 136 age are counted as adults.132 In Corinth, reflect a changed attitude towards the bur­ In undeveloped countries, the frequency of child burials (all ages) is ying of children in Kerameikos. This mortality rates among 43.6% between 510 and 475 (though we change is likely to be linked with the fol­ new-born babies and in­ fants of 50%, sometimes should note that of these burials most lowing concern. even 70-80%, are not un­ were dated after 500) and 46.4% between usual. 510 and 450, while in the 6th cent, it was Burial customs and the 39.1%.133 Thirdly, frequencies of infant n o t e 137 concern to express age burials around 50% and even above are Benm ke 1985, 44-45 figs. groups of children 13-14. not unnatural in terms of demography. On the contrary, this is the kind of fre­ 5th cent, mortuary practice with respect n o t e 138 quency we should expect if the burial to babies and small children was unusually Sellevold et al. 1984, 210, population in Kerameikos mirrored a complex, in spite of the high infant mor­ table 9-2-1. demographically representative popula­ tality, which no doubt prevailed, not only n o t e 139 tion.134 And even though my argumenta­ compared to earlier practice in Athens, Gejwall 1960, 35; Arcini tion so far exemplifies the difficulties of but also in comparison with other cul­ 1992, 57. this theory, it is interesting that on the tures. Roman funerary inscriptions and doorstep to democratic Athens, we are laws tell us that mourning was not n o t e 140 suddenly faced with frequencies of infant, thought appropriate for the new-born Hopkins 1983, 217-226. child, and adult burials which closely cor­ baby and small child up to the age of n o t e 141 respond to early modern mortality rates of three.140 In Iron Age Denmark, the age of Sellevold et al. 1984, 21. similar age groups.135 Furthermore, it is the deceased child determined the num­ interesting that the only standardized ber of gifts, so that gifts were never given NOTE 142 forms of interment for children were am­ to new-born babies and a maximum of For this discussion and ref­ erences, see Golden 1988,155. phorae and basins fitting respectively the two gifts were given to children up to the new-born to approximately 1 year old age of three.141 And regarding early mod­ baby and the 1-3 or 4 year old child, and ern England, it has been maintained that these are the age groups which in demo­ there was a certain indifference towards graphically representative populations have infants until the age of two.142 the highest mortality rates.136 In Kerameikos, however, children in I will, however, be content to state that the 6th and 5th cent, were not “mour­ from the point of view of social behaviour, ned” decidedly less than many adults, if the frequency of infant burials in Kera­ we use the word “mourning” in a rational

147 Table 9 The frequency of grave gifts per (intact) burial in relation to age groups 600-500 B.C.

way and relate it to “unrepresentative” rit­ and eating, the older the child. A closer n o t e 1 43 uals such as grave gifts which are invisible analysis of the grave gifts can give us fur­ All vase shapes have been categorized according to for passers by. Thus, the number of grave ther information of the “message” which the function in daily life to gifts per burial did not vary significantly was expressed. which they refer and between age groups 1 and 4, the main dif­ Vases for drinking and eating were in which they symbolize, re­ ference being that the will to deposit the majority in burials of age group 1 (Ta­ gardless o f size (if full size, more than 5 gifts and certainly more than ble 7). The repertoire of vases within this small or miniature). 10 gifts increased with the age of the de­ category was already around 500 very ex­ ceased, though cases of more than 10 gifts tensive, and in the rest of the 5th cent, it were on the whole very rare (Tables 9- corresponded narrowly to that of adults 10). Since funerary vases in general were (Appendices 4-5).143 It cannot suffice sim­ not high quality products, but mainly rep­ ply to consider this category as represent­ resented a symbolic value, the question of ing provisions of food and drink in the difference in quality between vases for afterlife, i.a. for the obvious reason that adults and children need not be taken into babies younger than one year cannot use consideration. any of the shapes in this group. It is much The overall impression of grave gifts for more likely that the vases for drinking and children around 500 and in the 5th cent, eating referred to aspects of adult life is that they constituted a complex symbol­ which the infant never experienced. ic expression of the growing child from its With the appearance of “special child- earliest years and onwards. For, as shown vases” around 510 (compare Appendix 4), in Tables 7-8, the more lekythoi and terra­ infancy and childhood up to the age of cottas and “various objects” in relation to around 3 or 4, perhaps 5 or 6 years (age small bowls with lid and vases for drinking groups 1 and 2), was clearly expressed. By

I48 FREQUENCY OF (INTACT) BURIALS

NO. OF G IFTS PER (INTACT) BURIAL

j | Adult burials (392)

0 Older-child burials (56)

•------• Small-child burials (109)

X X Burials of new-born (195)

Table 10 The frequency of grape gifts per (intact) burial in relation to age groups 500-400 B.C.

n o t e 144 “special child-vases”144 I mean vase shapes took part in drinking contests using the K iibler’s child jug (“K inder- specially shaped for the feeding of small little juglet. At the same time they were kannschen”) may be the children, or shapes known to be connect­ introduced to the phratry, the family asso­ same as chous, and his “Schnabeltasse” may be the ed w ith children, such as the chous. T he ciation, for which reason the ceremony same as "Saugtasse”. Such small olpe - thus named by Kiibler, but not perhaps was regarded as the end of infancy overlapping is, however, o f yet published - has also been placed in this and certainly marked the child’s first ap­ no major importance for category, since it is probably identical with pearance in public as a civic person op­ the present study. the chous. “Special child-vases” are almost posed to merely an intrafamilial person.146 only found in burials for infants and small NOTE 145 The iconography of the choes represents (Hoorn 1951. children (age groups 1-2). For instance, 63 children, mainly boys, from toddlers to small jugs (choes, olpai and child jugs) were adolescents. Most numerous are toddlers NOTE 146 found in infant burials (age group 1), 9 in and small children, that is children a little Burkert 1985, 237-242; small-child burials (age group 2), only younger than 1 year up to the age of 4-5 Garland 1985, 82 and 1990, 121. three in burials of older children (age years, hereby corresponding to age groups group 3), and none in adult burials (age 1 and 2 in Kerameikos. This is worth re­ group 4). These small jugs seem therefore membering, when we turn to the catego­ to have been produced specially for infants ry of the terracottas and toys (compare and small children. It was G. van Hoorn Appendices 4-5). The former category who originally connected the group of was shown to be most frequent in burials small oinochoai decorated with child of age groups 2-3, the latter in age group themes with the ceremony known as the 1 and hereafter 2-3 (Table 8). And in choes. This ceremony was held on the sec­ these categories are represented the same ond day of Ant.hesteria.U5 At this ceremo­ animals and playthings which frequently ny, children aged between three and four occur in scenes of playing children -

149 mostly boys - on the choes, namely dogs, connected with notions of the female sex. NOTE 1 47 monkeys, pigeons, cocks, balls and astra­ In particular, they pertain to important For the scenes on chocs, see gals.147 Among the terracottas, we also occasions in the life of the respectable van Hoorn 1951. find the egg, which also occurs on the woman, such as her wedding and maternal NOTE 148 chous.148 This was in antiquity often a sym­ role.155 The presence of exaleiptron solely van Hoorn 1951, 21. bol of fertility, and again fertility was a in a (few) child graves in the 5th cent. main theme in the Anthesteria festival.149 (and in only one adult grave in the 6th n o t e 149 It therefore seems that the categories cent.) should be noted, since this rare use Hoorn 1951, 21; Burkert 1985, 237-242. “special child-vases”, “terracottas” and of the vase as a grave gift is incompatible

“toys” especially focused on the age group with the interpretation given to its com­ NOTE 1 50 o f the choes. mon representation in scenes of “mistress Recently treated by Lissar- Furthermore, we must allow for the and maid” and “visits to the grave” on raque 1990. possibility that these subjects, together (funerary) white-ground lekythoi. It has NOTE 151 with the remaining types of statuettes been customary to regard exaleiptra in Bremmer 1990. from child graves, not mentioned so far, these scenes as gifts to the dead. But it has possessed a multitude of associations. For recently been pointed out that scenes of NOTE 1 52 Hampe 1951; Koch-Har- instance, they are likely to have referred to “mistress and maid” are much better nack 1983, 63, 97-105, everyday gender roles as well as to rituals understood as wedding scenes, used as a 155. and religious feasts which prepared the fitting image for a young woman who child for its later role as a citizen or died unwed, or more generally for some­ NOTE 1 53 citizen’s wife. Thus, it is possible that si- one who - like the bride - was leaving a For the use of piglets in in­ itiation rites in Eleusis and lene150 and kline terracottas referred to known world for one unknown.156 The at the Thesmophoria festi­ participation in symposia; that boar terra­ rare use of exaleiptra as grave gifts supports val: Burkert 1985, 242- cottas referred to initiation rites;151 astra­ this interpretation. 246, 286. gals and dog, hare, and cock terracottas to The picture which emerges of burial paederastic relationships;152 horse and rider customs for children around 500 and in NOTE 154 For katachysmata, see re­ terracottas to the cavalry; pig (piglet?) and the 5th cent, shows a differentiated con­ cently Reilly 1989, 417. pigeon terracottas to participation in vari­ cept of the stages of childhood. It is a pic­ ous religious feasts,153 and that the terra­ ture which strongly contradicts current NOTE 155 cotta basket referred to the ritual of the opinion of a lack of interest in the small Schreibler 1964; Meyer katachysmata, the pouring of dried fruits child until late in the 5th cent. The stages 1988, 109 n. 92; Reilly and nuts over the bride, as well as to nu­ of childhood which are expressed corre­ 1989, esp. 420. merous religious feasts.154 W ith respect to spond to the well-known inscription list­ NOTE 1 56 “perfume vases”, pyxides (with cylindrical ing the milestones of life in antiquity: Reilly 1989; Kurtz 1988 body) and objects called “various objects”, “Birth, choes, ephebeia and marriage”.157 also sees a link betw een we should note that both categories in­ They also correspond to our knowledge “mistress and maid” and creased with age (Table 7). This is note­ in general of the ancient Greek concept of wedding scenes. worthy, since we are now primarily deal­ stages in childhood, since rituals and relig­ NOTE 157 ing with objects which directly signal gen­ ious festivals in which children participat­ IG 11/111(2) 1368, 130. der roles characteristic of the adolescent ed centred on the birth of a child, on chil­ and adult world, and not, as the terracot­ dren aged 3-4 years and on children aged NOTE 1 58 tas, just referring to this world in a rather 7-14 years.158 Moreover, the analysis Garland 1990, 59-199. abstract way. Thus, the strigil and soap showed that children were represented as NOTE 1 59 have been placed in the category “various potential future citizens/wives of such (or Pomeroy 1975, 62-65. objects”. And in Excursus 3 (Table 16), I as Athenians behaving as citizens). will show how strigil and soap are con­ NOTE 1 60 nected with a separate range of objects Family self-representation: Sutton 1981, 217. which signal gender roles of respectively the Classical period NOTE 1 61 the adult man and woman. Sutton 1981, 235, table W.2. Mirror, make-up, lebes, exaleiptron and Various written and archaeological sources kalathos are also included in the category from the 5th and 4th cent, directly or in­ NOTE 162 “various” - all objects which are closely directly show us that the prime virtue of a Arist. Ath.Pol. 26.4.

150 NOTE 163 married woman was to bear legitimate deceased woman herself completely disap­ Just 1989, 44-51, esp. 45. children.159 A certain genre within Attic pears in the inscription in favour of a long vase painting often depicts women togeth­ and detailed description of the children n o t e 164 Just 1989, 50-51. er with small children, almost always in­ she leaves behind.169 fants. Such scenes are most likely to be The ideology just summarized certainly NOTE 165 family scenes.160 Family scenes and wed­ belongs for the most part to the 4th cent, Loraux 1981; Vedder 1988. ding scenes enjoyed their greatest popular­ and later. Nevertheless, I think, we have ity between 475 and 425.161 Perhaps there evidence for something like a forerunner n o t e 166 Eur. Medea V, 248-251 is a connection between this interest and to this ideology in the Archaic period. the growing concern of the city-state to Thus, the motive “death in childbirth” n o t e 167 define oikos and limit the conditions for occurs already on an Archaic grave relief North 1966, 76 n. 105; obtaining citizenship. As is well-known, from Chalkedon in Asia Minor showing a Pircher 1979, 22; for soph- Pericles issued a law in 451-450 ordaining woman in labour.170 Moreover, the earliest rosune in Greek funerary inscriptions, see Peek that only children born of two citizen par­ known true praise on a funerary stele for a 1960. ents could become citizens themselves 62 woman (Lampito) was aidoien. A nd this Later on, in Demosthenes (43, 46), laws praise seems to denote a moral qualifica­ n o t e 168 are quoted which clearly define which tion close to the later sophrosune471 Inter­ Anth.Pal., VII, 331; Peek children are legitimate and which are not. estingly, this stele was found in Athens and 1955, no. 1404; Charneux 1956, 614-615; Verilhac Only women who were married by a spe­ is dated to 510/500, that is contempora­ 1985, 90-91. cial form of contract, engue, and daughters neous with the sudden increase in child (epikleroi) married to their father’s closest burials in Kerameikos. n o t e 169 kin could produce legitimate children ,163 For this reason, I suggest that the sud­ Peek 1955, no. 1158; Illegitimate children could not belong to den changed attitude towards children in Verilhac 1985, 90. the nearest kin (anchisteia), who stood to Kerameikos was the result of a new ideol­ n o t e 170 inherit a man’s property if there were no ogy that emphasized the married woman’s Pfuhl-Mobius 1977, I, 8 direct descendants.164 Thus legitimate will and capacity to bear children and thus no.I pi.I; for further refer­ children secured the maintainance of an secure the maintainance of the oikos .172 ences, see Vedder 1988, oikos’ property, and possibly only legiti­ Furthermore, we ought to bear this ideol­ 177 n. 73. mate children could obtain citizenship. ogy in mind when faced with multiple or

NOTE 171 It is therefore not surprising that the closely united burials of women and chil­ North 1966, 76 n. 105; most respectable death a married woman dren, as was the case in area “D ”.173 In Pircher 1979, 15; Carson could experience was death in childbirth, fact, area “D ” is situated opposite the 1990, 142. a death which was thought to match the group of warrior burials on the north side

NOTE 172 most respectable death for a citizen, death o f the Heilige Strasse, mentioned above Naturally, Kleisthenes’ re­ in war.165 In a well-known Medea passage (Fig. 5 cross-hatched area), a position forms from 507 immedi­ 166 we meet the opposition “birth of chil­ which offers a striking parallel to the ately spring to mind, but I dren - warrior in action”. Medea here “childbirth-war” ideology just discussed. have chosen to deal with contrasts war with childbirth, not warrior- Does all of this mean that the principle this correlation separately in Part III. death with death in childbirth. So, what of “referring to a male value” has been she compares is the will to fight for one’s abandoned? On the contrary, at least from NOTE 173 city with the will and capacity to bear the point of view of late Classical ideology. See n. 95-97, 332. children. Since preferably legitimate children could 4th cent. Greek funerary epigrams obtain citizenship, the maintainance of the NOTE 174 Just 1989, 55. stress again and again a woman’s sexual polis depended on the oikoi’s capability to self-control, her chastity, through the procreate them .174 The system of unilineal NOTE 175 praise sophrosune,167 In later Greek funerary descent groups was a very vulnerable one. Littman 1978, 17. epigrams, this praise seems to refer more A n oikos often lost its sons in wars before specifically to the reproductive role of the they had entered marriage and produced married woman, and some inscriptions legitimate offspring.175 And Pericles di­ even present children as proofs of a rectly exhorted married women to bear w om an’s sophrosune and arete.168 Sometimes more children, in his funeral oration de­ this aspect reaches extremes, as when the livered in the first year of the Peloponne-

151 sian War.176 Therefore it was regarded as a point on it, children and women were not n o t e 176 citizen’s duty toward the polis not only to buried formally for their own sake, but Thuc. 2.44.3-4. secure the maintenance of his own oikos - primarily to serve the image of the man in NOTE 177 charge of their oikos. Perhaps this view is if necessary through the system of epikleroi Daube 1977; Just 1989, - but also to marry off all girls for which worth keeping in mind even when dealing 40-41. he had responsibility in order to promote with the extremely rich female graves of the reproduction of other oikoi .177 Just as Iron Age Athens which have often puz­ NOTE 1 78 Hum phreys 1983, 5. the oikos head was held responsible for the zled archaeologists.183 Burial customs of general “correct” conduct of household late Archaic and Classical Kerameikos may n o t e 179 members,178 the onus was on the citizen be said to anticipate the spirit of 4th cent, North 1966, 76 n. 105; to ensure the legitimacy of his children, and Hellenistic grave monuments. For as Carson 1990, 142. since he was held responsible for his wife’s mentioned above, funerary inscriptions NOTE 180 chastity. Thus, Aristotle considered a man and iconography here combine to portray Dover 1973, 65; 1978, 88. to possess a special male sophrosune, nam e­ the chastity of the deceased woman, but at ly a quality characterized by rational self- the same time hasten to mention the NOTE 1 81 control and resistance to excess. Women, name of the man in charge of her. Just 1989, 53. on the other hand, possessed no natural NOTE 1 82 sophrosune. They had to be taught this PART II. Carson 1990, 144 n. 23. quality by the men in charge of them. Tumuli and Social Therefore female sophrosune implied duti­ Associations n o t e 183 fulness and obedience, the result of which See recently Whitley was chastity.179 If a man failed to control The date of the beginning of “state buri­ 1991b, 112, 131, 156-57. his wife, the animal in the woman would als” in Athens has been the subject of NOTE 184 much scholarly dispute.184 According to break loose and she would let herself go in See Stupperich 1977; eros, and the man in charge of her was Thucydides (2.34), patrios nomos required Clairmont 1983; Loraux thought a disgrace.180 that war-dead be transferred to Athens 1986, 28-30 for references. O f course, one must again be cautious and buried there collectively on a certain about projecting back this situation into day each year and that the city-state pro­ n o t e 1 85 Loraux 1986, 4, 98-118. the years around 500. However, the avail­ vide for their burials and hold a funeral able sources do leave the impression that speach in their honour. Apart from the n o t e 1 86 the marked distinction between legitimate families of the dead (including women), Stupperich 1977, 200-224; and illegitimate children in the late 5th other citizens and rnetics could attend the Loraux 1986, 30. and 4th cent, was in part the result of funeral. In the funeral speeches, the warri­ n o t e 1 87 Athens growing democratization from the ors are repeatedly celebrated as andres aga- Clairmont 1983, 7-15. time of Solon onwards.181 Moreover, we thoi, solely because they gave their lives for have plenty of evidence from Homer and the city-state. During the 5th cent., funer­ n o t e 1 88 Archaic and Early Classical poets (Arkhi- al orations became one of the most im­ Stupperich 1977, 206-214; lokhos, Semonides, Pindar) that the con­ portant means of stimulating and cultivat­ C lairm ont 1983, 9. ception of women as wild animals in need ing patriotism, while this genre died out n o t e 189 of taming went back a long way.182 at the end of the 4th cent.185 The begin­ Stupperich 1977, 207 no. 3. In conclusion, it cannot surprise us that ning of national funerals as described by children and apparently women came to Thucidides has been linked with the rise play an important role in the family’s self­ of Athenian democracy, either in connec­ representation at death and burial. The tion with Kleisthenes’ reforms in 507 186 burial plot in area “D ” was the first sign of or with Kimon’s policy in the 470s .187 this new ideology, and the explosive in­ Thus the earliest reference to a collective crease of child burials around 500 indi­ burial of Athenian soldiers, polyandrion, cates its sudden strengthening. Each burial outside Athens stems from around 510.188 of a child or a woman signalled the re­ And the earliest epigraphical evidence for spectability of the oikos and thereby pre­ polyandria inside Athens dates to around sented the male person in charge of it as a 500.189 However, from an archaeological good polis-man. Not to put too fine a point of view, it is of interest that a group

152 NOTE 190 of four warrior burials - at least - and dat­ seven graves coeval with or a little later Vierneisel 1964, 445. ing to shortly after 540 have been excavat­ than the “circle-burials” of Grabhiigel G. ed in Kerameikos.190 Mound V also marked several burials dat­ n o t e 1 91 Morris 1987, 90. It is not my intention to enter into a ing from 550-450. In the vicinity of Vari, discussion of the earliest evidence for the yet another tumulus of approximately the n o t e 192 whole set of customs implied by patrios no- size of the Rundbau (17 m) has been not­ Ker. V I.1, 96; Ker. VII, 15; mos. I will, however, argue that one of its ed. It was very badly disturbed, and no Ker. IX, 10; Kiibler dates main principles, viz. the practice of bury­ graves are reported. However, in front of the sequence of graves in Velanideza and Vourva ac­ ing collectively men who were not blood this tumulus shallow pits containing cording to their similarity relations, but shared an equal social value, burned remains were found ,195 an ar­ to Grabhiigel G. was based on an Early Archaic (if not old­ rangement which recalls the “Terrassenan- er) firmly established elite practice in Atti­ lage” in front of the R undbau 196 and the n o t e 193 ca, one which produces extreme examples enclosure in front of the tumulus at Velan­ AA 1936, cols. 123-125; AA 1937, cols. 121-124; of the inclination of families not to bury ideza (see below). AA 1940 cols. 177-178; all their members in a family plot, as Two large tumuli are known from Ana- B C H 1937, 450-451; Stais argued in Part I. I thus oppose a current vyssos and one from Petreza, but detailed 1891, 28-32. conception that kinship was more or less information is lacking.197 One of the Ana- the sole organizing principle behind the vyssos mounds marked more than 25 bu­ NOTE 194 AA 1936, cols. 123-125. majority of burial groups in Attica until rials, some of which were Late Geomet­ Hellenistic and Rom an times.191 ric. NOTE 195 The tumuli in Velanideza and Vourva Lauter 1985b, 64-65, fig. 9. Huge tumuli: are more fully described,198 and it is inter­ esting to note that they form close par­ NOTE 196 exceptions to the rule Ker. XII, 57-84. allels to Grabhiigel G and Siidhugel. A n In Part I, tumuli and grave buildings were enormous tumulus was erected at the site NOTE 197 seen to be very common in Kerameikos of earlier grave buildings on the occasion Prakt 1911, 110-131; Stais 700-575/560 (Table 3). They exclusively of one burial. Some time later, more adult 1890a, 29, 49, 100. marked adult burials, and the diameter of burials in large shaft graves followed,

NOTE 1 98 the tumuli never exceeded 10 m. Howev­ forming a circle or semicircle around the Stais 1890a, 16-28, 105-112. er, three outstanding exceptions to this primary burial (Fig. 9). Moreover, child rule exist, clearly visible in Fig. 1 and Fig. burials do not appear until Late Archaic or NOTE 199 4. T h e earliest exception is Rundbau (7th Classical times, as was the case in Kera­ Ker. XII, 57-84. cent.) followed by Grabhiigel G, erected meikos. between 560 and 550, and Siidhugel, O f all these tumuli, the ones in the which was raised around 540. Common Kerameikos are best known archaeologi- to all three tumuli is the extreme diame­ cally. A short sum m ary o f their archaeo­ ter, ranging from 18-20 to 40 m. More­ logical history is therefore warranted. over, Rundbau and Grabhiigel G m ark sev­ To the north-east of the Ay. Triadha eral more or less contemporary adult buri­ hill, a group of 22 burials was excavated als form ing a circle and - as I will argue by U. Knigge.199 At least five of these later on - Siidhiigel was probably intended could be dated to between the end of the to commemorate several adult burials as 8th and the middle of the 6th cent. Sever­ well. As already pointed out by Kubler al burials were clearly arranged in a circle and Knigge, these tumuli have close par­ and covered by red soil. For this reason allels in the Attic countryside.192 At Vari, Knigge suggested that a large mound, several huge tumuli have been excavated, with a diameter of 18-20 m, had covered but thorough descriptions are lacking.193 these burials, the Rundbau. To the east of One mound measuring approximately 20 this mound, several burials lay parallel to m in diameter apparently covered only each other, perhaps on a sort of terrace. one burial dating to 620,194 but another By the third quarter of the 6th cent., the mound (no. Ill) appears to be of the same mound was no longer visible. The theory size as Grabhiigel G and Siidhugel and held of a large tumulus in the 7th cent, is

153 Fig. 9

n

H 1- T 01 10m

VOURVA "SUDHUGEL"

"GRABHUGEL G"

i— ' k J Funerary structures pre-dating the large tumulus

BM Primary burial of large tumulus

S3 Secondary adult burial; Geometric or Archaic

CHI • Secondary adult and child burial; Classical or later

ESI o Secondary adult and child burial; Late Archaic (location within Sudhugel unknown)

(Until around 500 B.C. in Sudhugel and Grabhugel G)

154 ,s|y f 560-535 B.C. .* ^..Adulpc ^ mhuiBation

Huge tumuli 1 17 O th er burials - , 2 (3?) , 7

Table 11

560-535 B.C. of giftsTrdmBffering -4- No. of grave gifts i^tpmdhesKofr-places)-?. ? » * ?- t

Huge tumuli 3 (3.5%) 82 (96.5%) Other burials 7 (12.8%) 48 (87.3%)

Table 12

greatly supported by the site’s later history. time as the youngest “circle-burials”. It Thus another circle of burials could be measured app. 40 m in diameter and cov­ identified among the 22 burials, which ered a huge shaft grave similar to the pri­ dated to soon after a regulation of the Eri- mary burial in Grabhugel G, that is with danos river in 479. This circle was sur­ walls covered by wooden boards. A secon­ rounded by remains of a foundation wall, dary burial in a huge shaft grave was exca­ which no doubt had supported a large vated close to this grave, but was unfortu­ earth m ound.200 nately disturbed and emptied in later times. Grabhugel G was erected at some time In view of the obvious special character NOTE 2 0 0 Ker. XII, 60-71. between 560 and 550. It largely covered of the huge tumuli, it is interesting to the old 7th cent, adult grave plot (Figs. note that Grabhugel G and Sudhugel seem NOTE 201 1,4). Grabhugel G was app. 4m high and to initiate certain burial customs. Thus, Ker. VII.l, 7-9, Beil.l. measured 36 m in diameter.201 It was cremation was the preferred practice for raised above an extremely monumental adults until 575/560, after which inhuma­ NOTE 2 0 2 Kiibler 1973 and Ker. shaft grave (3.80 x 2.40 m) with walls tion took over (Table 4). This reversed sit­ VII.l, 5-16 and 207-218. covered by gaily painted wooden boards uation seems to be intimately connected Against a connection (only small pieces of an abstract design with the huge tumuli, which is indicated between base and shaft were preserved). An (empty) offering- by a comparison of the number of inhu­ grave no. I, see Freytag trench was also connected with the grave. mations and cremations in the huge tu­ 1975, 49-52. Kiibler regarded the earliest known fig­ muli and outside them, respectively (Table

NOTE 2 03 ured grave stele, found at some distance to 11). Furthermore, one of the characteris­ Ker. VII.l, nos. 2-12. the west, as having belonged to this shaft tic features of 7th and early 6th cent, buri­ grave. This may still be true, even though al customs was the preference for deposit­ NOTE 2 0 4 this stele does not belong to the base that ing gifts in offering-trenches and/or - Houby-Nielsen 1992, table 8. was found on the western part of places instead of inside the graves. But af­ Grabhugel G, and even though this base ter 560, almost all gifts were placed inside does not belong to the primary shaft grave the grave (Table 5). Most gifts consist of o f Grabhugel G, as Kiibler argued.202 W ith­ lekythoi and not - as in the trenches - of in the next 10-20 years, after the erection drinking- and eating- vessels. From then o f Grabhugel G, 11 burials were dug into on, and throughout most of the 5th cent., the tumulus, forming a circle ,203 As men­ grave gifts are by far the most common tioned above, I refer to these burials as types of gifts to the dead and mostly con­ “circle-burials”. sist o f lekythoi.204 Perhaps the change-over T he Sudhugel was erected at the same to grave gifts was also initiated by the bur-

155 ying groups of the huge tumuli,203 since Earlier interpretations of NOTE 205 the frequency of grave gifts was somewhat Grabhiigel G and Siidhiigel The earliest lekythos in a higher here than among the other con­ burial context was, how­ ever, found in a burial temporary burials (Table 12). Last, but Before I continue my discourse, I should dated to 575-560: Ker. certainly not least, the sex and status of like briefly to comment upon earlier VI. 1, L/50. the deceased in the huge mounds deserves interpretations of Grabhugel G and special attention. The sex or gender of the Sudhtigel. NOTE 206 Rundbau burials is not possible to discern. In an article from 1973, K. Kubler until the last part o f the 5th cent. Due to the lack of detailed information interpreted Grabhiigel G and the figured

regarding the huge tumuli in the Attic stele found in its western part as together NOTE 20 7 countryside, it is not possible to speculate forming the grave of Solon. As a kind of Kubler 1973. in terms of sex and gender of the buried culminating treat, he quoted a passage by population here either. Turning to Aelian (V.H. VIII, 16),207 since the loca­ NOTE 20 8 Kubler 1973, 189 and 192. Grabhiigel G and Sudhtigel we have, how­ tion of Solon’s grave given in this passage

ever, much more to go by. could be shown to fit Grabhugel G. Kubler NOTE 209 As I have argued in Excursus 2, the cir- furthermore regarded Grabhugel G as a Kubler 1973, 189, 193. cle-burials and the Sudhtigel burial are very state burial, owing to its lack of respect for uniform in terms of means of interment earlier burials, which is otherwise a com­ NOTE 21 0 Stupperich 1977, 85 n. 1. and burial context as a whole. And the lat­ mon feature on the Ay. Triadha hill.208

ter as well as (the few) available osteologi- And Kubler interpreted the “Ieron Trito- n o t e 211 cal analyses combine to show us that of 13 patreion” enclosure, situated just east of according to Plutarch, the burials 7 were possibly male, 1 possibly fe­ Grabhiigel G, as a “K ultstatte” for the corpse was burned and the male and 5 undeterminable. In fact the “Schopfer und Wahrer der attischen Grab- ash strewn over the sea (Plut., Solon 32; see also grave contexts express a specific concept gesetze”.209 R. Stupperich was not con­ Stupperich 1977, 85 n. 1.) related to the Lydian luxury lifestyle truphe. vinced by this theory and rightly ques­

To sum up, the burial pattern of the tioned i.a. the monumentality of n o t e 212 huge tumuli strongly contrasts with that of Grabhiigel G in the 3rd cent. A.D. and thus Ker. VII.l, 14-15; Ker. IX, “true” family plots such as the one in area Aelian’s chance of recognizing it as a state 10. “D ” and the one south-west of Grabhugel burial for Solon, the more so since the NOTE 213 G, discussed in Part I. “True” family plots grave stele allegedly representing Solon Davies 1971, 324. were characterized by different age groups had according to Kiibler been buried in representing both sexes, for which reason Grabhugel G for centuries.210 Apart from n o t e 21 4 grave contexts were very dissimilar. And contradictory information regarding the Stahl 1987, 230-231. the burials were not united by a common fate of Solon’s body,211 a correlation of the grave marker.206 By contrast, the huge tu­ date of the tumulus and the patchwork re­ muli constitute a common grave marker in construction of Solon’s life story seems to which the burying group belongs to the fit neatly. The erection of Grabhiigel G is same age group, and - in Grabhugel G - to dated archaeologically to the early 550s a high degree to the same sex and has a ,212 and most historians now date Solon’s common social status, so grave contexts ap­ death to 560/559.213 pear rather uniform. Nevertheless, in his eagerness to make True enough, the organizing principle historically narrated events fit with the ar­ of sex and age group also applied to family chaeological evidence, Kubler disregarded burials. And as we have seen, this may major historical and archaeological prob­ have caused members of the same family lems, which I think have to be considered: to be buried with members of other fami­ 1) can we expect a commemorative burial lies of the same age or status. There is of Solon in the middle of the 6th cent?, nevertheless an important difference in and 2) w hat does a state burial imply at that here tumuli and grave buildings were this time? used only to mark individual burials, per­ 1). It was characteristic of Solon that he haps followed by one or two secondary used the power of the word instead of the burials. sword to express his political ideas.214 His

156 NOTE 2 15 poems are known to us from many differ­ democracy of the late 5th and especially For references, see Oliva ent later authors.215 We find most of them 4th cent. For instance, it has recently been 1988, 71-78, 86-91. in Plutarch’s life of Solon, some in the pointed out that no constitutional change works of Diogenes Laertios and others in followed in the wake of the expulsion of NOTE 21 6 M. Stahl, Solon F 3D: The the anthologies of the early Christian au­ the tyrants, but rather changed conditions Birth of Democratic Ideas thor, Clemens of Alexandria. Especially in for the realization of Solon’s reforms, and (a lecture held at the sym- Solon fr. 3D, we notice for the first tim e moreover, that isonomia was not originally posion on “Culture et Cite. an incipient state-consciousness in which a Kleisthenic slogan, but referred to equal­ L’avenement d’Athenes a the state is viewed as a whole. The well­ l’epoque archai'que”, Brux­ ity among already selected citizens (aristo­ elles Avril 25-27, 1991. being of the state (eunomia) is dependent crats) in pre-Kleisthenic Athens and was on the well-being of all its members, and therefore opposed to tyranny.221 In his re­ n o t e 217 these must serve the state rather than cent book on Peisistratid Athens, Shapiro Stroud 1978, 3-6; Plut. themselves )216. As an elected archon, Solon also concludes that it was the Peisistratids’ Solon 25.1 was commissioned to pen regulations for cultural and religious policy which laid n o t e 2 1 8 public display.217 However, the extreme the foundation for early 5th cent, policy. Hansen 1990, 77-78. worship of Solon as the founder of de­ Into this picture fits recent study on the mocracy was a late 5th to 4th cent, phe­ Agora, which shows the monumentaliza- NOTE 2 19 nomenon brought about by the growing tion of the Athenian Agora to be a Peisis­ Ruschenbusch 1966, 53-58. interest in and consciousness of political tratid achievement and not due to Kleis­ n o t e 220 theory.218 A by product of this worship thenes.222 A decidedly democratic ideolo­ Shapiro 1991, 645. was, for example, the almost customary gy does not seem to appear until the sec­ ascription of laws to Solon.219 O n this ba­ ond half of the 5th cent. 223 As a matter of n o t e 221 sis, the idea o f a grandiose 6th cent, burial fact, Stahl’s recent thorough analysis of the Rosivach 1988, 43-61. and “Kultstatte” commemorating Solon as Archaic Athenian “state” shows it to be n o t e 222 the founder of democracy and creator of very much dependent on earlier chieftain- Steuben 1989. laws prohibiting funerary luxury does not society.224 Thus, without doubt, the estab­ seem very convincing. And A. Shapiro lishment in Athens of various archons in n o t e 22 3 suggested that the description of Solon’s the 7th cent, was an important step in the Brock 1991. grave in Aelian could be an invention of development of state-consciousness. But n o t e 2 2 4 the 5th to 4th cent, projecting back to in fact, the offices were nothing but the Stahl 1987, 56-104; 138-197. Solon’s time the Classical practice of pub­ institutionalization of the functions that lic burials in Kerameikos.220 each of the chieftains (basileis) had pos­ “State burials” following the scheme sessed during the Dark Age. Furthermore, described by Thucydides (2.34) and com­ the way the offices were conducted and mented upon above were exclusively for the way the archons defined their tasks those who died in battle and need thus show that the archons were still behaving not be discussed here. Instead it is neces­ according to the Homeric amft’e-ideal. sary to examine more closely the nature o f They followed an aristocratic individualis­ “state” in Archaic Athens in order to dis­ tic competitive ethic. Consequently, the cuss Kiibler’s theory of Grabhiigel G. R e ­ offices were used mainly to promote the garding this problem, the latest research in archons own reputation and prestige, on the social and political history of Archaic the pretext of solving problems for the Athens tends to emphasize the lack of a community. This concern for prestige was fully developed state-consciousness until rooted in the aristocrats’ dependence on the tyrannies of Peisistratos, covering most their own ability to form stasis (bodies of of the second half of the 6th cent. And followers) when striving for power. In this there is a tendency to tone down tense competition to win followers, first Kleisthenes’ importance for the develop­ one group of aristocrats and then another ment of democracy and rather see politics appeared the strongest before the demos, in the first half of the 5th cent, as highly and owing - among other things - to this dependent on Peisistratid policy and sep­ circumstance, the stasis were never homo­ arated from the fully developed Athenian geneous, but constantly changed character

157 and structure.225 This again caused “state” tion against Kiibler’s theory is formed by NOTE 225 decisions to be casual and unpredictable, Grabhugel G itself. If Grabhugel G did In Homer’s time, demos seems to have referred to since they were issued at the sweet will of commemorate Solon, it is most surprising all free m em bers o f a com ­ the ever changing body of archons. Appar­ that the tumulus was neglected as a monu­ munity, including those ently, Solon realized that the stasis were ment (turned into a children’s cemetery) powerful men who for the the main hindrance for a true state-con- in those centuries, that - as we saw above time being or in a particu­ duct to emerge. At least his reforms were - were most likely to have revived his lar situation were not in command, while powerful designed to vitiate concern with stasis, memory, namely the 5th and 4th. We men who were in com­ claiming that they promoted dysnomia and should also note that Kubler does not mand in a particular situa­ prevented eunomia. But his attack had little identify the persons buried in the secon­ tion were not part of the success. On the contrary, Peisistratos came dary burials forming a circle and resem­ demos. This definition, at into power as a tyrant mainly owing to his bling “Solon’s grave”, as also pointed out least, can be inferred from Donlan 1970, 385; such strong ability to form stasis. In fact his tyr­ by R. Stupperich.229 Finally, his theory antion-determined con­ anny can be seen as the result of a still ex­ does not take into account the formal cept of status seems to isting Homeric aristie-ideal. Nevertheless, similarities between the circle-burials of characterize the Athenian it seems to have been during Peisistratos’ Grabhugel G and the primary burial of social system even much tyrannies that the Solonian reforms were Sudhtigel. later and be partly respon­ sible for the fact that most first applied. N ot due to a demos-friendly U. Knigge has advanced another theory social group designations or anti-aristocratic conviction, but because concerning Grabhiigel G. In her publica­ (including stasis) seldom they were a convenient tool for strength­ tion o f Stidhtigel, she suggests, cautiously refer to homogeneous ening the power of Peisistratos and his in a footnote, that the 7th cent, “core” classes. Com pare Austin & sons. area (Fig. 1), Grabhugel G, and the huge Vidal-Naquet 1986, 21- 22; Vernant 1982, 1-18. In this context, a “state-burial” can im­ Late Classical grave building south-west of ply only an activity serving one ambitious Grabhiigel G (Fig. 7) all form part of an n o t e 226 citizen’s struggle to promote his own im­ Alkmaionid kinship burial plot, and re­ Kolb 1977 age and not an institution in the later, peats this interpretation in a later work.230 Classical sense of the term. The main argument rests on a funerary NOTE 227 Kolb 1977, 136. This (historical) line of thought in fact trapeza which was found in the just men­ echoes an archaeologically based argumenta­ tioned grave building. It carries an in­ NOTE 228 tion. Already in 1977 F. Kolb226 sought to scription mentioning a certain Hipparete, Shapiro 1989. rebut current attempts to see Archaic (ii (2) 7400) who can be identified as the building, religious and cultural activities in daughter of Alkibiades IV. Alkibiades NOTE 229 Stupperich 1977, 85 n. 1. Athens as part of a determined social and again was related to the Alkmaionid fami­ political programme developed by Peisis­ ly on his mother’s side.231 The history (and NOTE 2 3 0 tratos and his sons. He concluded that genealogy) of this family, which is com­ Ker. IX, 10, n. 26; 1988, none of the activities ascribable to the ty­ paratively well documented in the Archaic 105, 109-110. rant and his sons embodied an anti-aristo­ period as opposed to later periods,232 is NOTE 231 cratic policy, but were on the contrary narrowly connected with the social and Davies 1971, 16. Two “eine Variante der Adelsherschaft”.227 Sha­ political history of Athens. Thus, the fam­ other gravestone inscrip­ piro, in his aforementioned study, has re­ ily counts among its members famous per­ tions belonging to the examined all the evidence for Peisistradd sonalities such as Megakles II (who alter­ Alkmaionid family have internal and external political activities nately opposed Peisistratos politically and been found in Kerameikos. One was built into the and shown the enormous growth and ex­ sided with him), Kleisthenes (the reform­ Dipylon-tower, the other pansion which Athenian cult underwent er), and Perikles (the famous politician).233 is said to have been found during the time of the tyrannies. Howev­ Kubler disagreed with this interpretation, in the Griiberstrasse, which er, the extent to which Peisistratos and his since in his opinion some of the graves the Hipparete grave build­ descendants encouraged this increased cul- date to the period in which the Alkmaio- ing faces, Ker. IX, 10, n. 26. tic activity remains uncertain, since much nids, according to written sources, were NOTE 2 32 of the Peistratid cult activity had begun cursed and then expelled from Attica.234 It Davies 1971, 381. before Peisistratos and continued after his has, however, recently been argued that death.228 the details about the Alkmaionid curse NOTE 2 33 Another mainly archaeological objec­ and exile are heavily coloured by the Alk- Davies 1971, 368-381.

158 NOTE 2 3 4 maionid family tradition’s struggle to ap­ Huge tumuli: Ker. V I.1, 197; Kiibler pear with an unblemished past in Classi­ power-political monuments 1973, 189 n. 38. cal, democratic Athens. This meant i.a. that the family did not wish to be con­ commemorating elite n o t e 2 35 socio-political associations Thomas 1989, 144-154. nected with the tyrant Peisistratos.235 Ac­ cordingly, the coincidence of Peisistratos’ n o t e 2 3 6 tyrannies and the alleged Alkmaionid exile There appear to be several indications that Davies 1971, 15. and curious return to Athens just in time Grabhiigel G and Siidhugel possessed an un­ to throw out the tyrant and thus be re­ usual power-political dimension and that NOTE 237 Ker. IX, 10. sponsible for the introduction of democra­ the original use and intention of Siidhiigel cy should perhaps not be taken as a histor­ came to an abrupt end. NOTE 238 ical fact. As shown in Table 2, burial activity in the Stupperich 1977, 82 has a Nevertheless, the identification of the periods 575-560 and 535-510 was unusu­ similar view. huge Classical grave building as an Alk­ ally low. And as appears from my Cata­ maionid burial plot is problematic for oth­ logue of Burials, the dates of several of the er reasons, as has been pointed out to me burials placed in these periods are insecure by M.H. Hansen. It presupposes that the (underlined dates). If these insecurely dat­ normal patrilinear principle has been ed burials in reality belong to other peri­ broken, since Alkibiades IV’s daughter ods, burial activity becomes even lower. should then have been buried together No matter what is correct, we are faced with the family on Alkibiades’ mother’s with an unusually low burial activity, per­ side. If anything, the burial plot ought to haps even next to no burial activity, in the have belonged to Alkibiades’ family on his period preceding Grabhiigel G and father’s side or the family into which Hip- Siidhugel. This circumstance may indicate parete was married. And on Hipparete’s conflicts concerning the erection of the gravestone Phanoukles Andromachou huge tumuli. Similarly, one gets the im­ Leukonoieus is commemorated, who was pression of conflicts regarding further probably Hipparete’s husband.236 maintenance of the tumuli, if one com­ For reasons stated in Part I, I find the bines the following three facts: 1) the low idea of ascribing the 7th cent, “core” area (or lack of) burial activity in the period and the succeeding 6th and 5th cent, se­ 535-510, 2) the sudden replacement of ries of tumuli and grave buildings to the the elaborate, gender-specific inhumation same family highly convincing. Due, burials of the mounds with rather simple however, to the striking difference in bu­ burials that did not signal a specific gender rial pattern between the circle-burials in (discussed in Part I and more fully in Ex­ Grabhiigel G and the just mentioned series cursus 1-3), and 3) the sudden admittance of tumuli marking individual burials, and of child burials238(compare Figs. 1-4 with due to the irregular western side of the 5-7). If we moreover take into account actual Grabhiigel G, which apparently the hugeness of the tumuli causing a spa­ avoids the area of the later huge Classical tial and visual dominance of the Keramei­ grave building, I do not think Grabhiigel G kos, and the fact that the circle-burials and forms part of this family plot. Moreover, the primary burial of Siidhugel perhaps set the similarity between the circle-burials a fashion when introducing the lekythos as and the primary burial of Siidhugel speaks a grave gift, Grabhiigel G and Siidhiigel ac­ against such a connection. Regarding quire quite a power-political dimension. Siidhugel, Knigge interprets this mound as The development indicated is then: erected over a “Gesandtgrab” with the ap­ proval of Peisistratos.237 Burial ground used by one or more fami­ lies - conflicts - erection of power-politi­ cal grave monuments - conflicts - tumuli used by different families.

159 Such a chain of events indicates that quets, and originally part of Lydian truphe. n o t e 2 39 Siidhiigel is “unfinished” . T hat is, Siidhugel Clearly, the huge tumulus, the klinai, the Schmitt Pantel 1990a-b, was originally meant to mark deceased lekythoi, lydia, and wooden boards on the 1992, 53-113. persons in some way or another related walls of the shaft graves recalled Lydian NOTE 2 4 0 with the person for whom the mound was burial practice expressing truphe in a much Richter 1961, no. 23, nos. erected, if conflicts had not prevented this more grandiose way than contemporary 25-27, no. 31, no. 33, no. intention from being realized. family burials outside the huge mounds. 37, nos. 45-47, no. 51, This view is supported by a com pari­ And the presence of klinai stresses the nos. 64-67, no. 76; Alex- andris 1969, 89; Kallipo- son o f Siidhiigel with other huge, early tu­ symposium aspect of truphe. litis 1969, 394; ADelt 29, muli (Fig. 9), since the latter were erected In Archaic Athens, the symposium 1973/74, B, pin. 52d;Jant- for one burial, which, however, was formed part of a whole series of civic (that zen 1963, 433; compare shortly after followed by other burials (the is male) rituals of conviviality, such as re­ also the head (with a hel­ same appears to be the case at Petreza, for clining banquets, collective hunting, met?) from a statue, Knigge 1983; D ’Onofrio which no drawing is available). Only on ephebe and hoplite life and participation 1982 regards the Attic Siidhiigel did larger shaft graves stop in assemblies. All activities which com­ kouroi as representing con­ abruptly. bined to define the participants as true cit­ servative epic virtues and Such an explanation would also ac­ izens, and activities which constituted the the Attic figured grave count for the similarity between the pri­ self-definition of the leisured class.239 steles as referring to civic virtues. mary burial of Siidhiigel and the circle-bu­ In this context, it is significant that rials, since both mounds would then so to contemporaneous with the circle of buri­ NOTE 241 speak be of the same “genre”. als in Grabhiigel G and the Siidhiigel p ri­ Both Day 1989 and It is now time to attempt to identify mary burial, a new type of grave monu­ Steuernagel 1991 point the relations between the persons buried ment appears in Athens and Attica, the out the parallelism of the iconographical and written Attic figured graverelief, and the wish to in the huge mounds. Between 560 and messages of Attic grave 535 a certain recurring combination of supplement the pictorial message through m onum ents. elements is characteristic of most adult funerary epigrams. These grave monu­ burials in Kerameikos, both family burials ments clearly recall the new self-definition n o t e 2 42 and those in the huge mounds. These ele­ o f the leisured class by referring to hoplite North 1966, 14-16; M. Stahl believes that sophro- ments consist of lekythos, lydion and inhu­ and athlete activities (the deceased person sune is proclaimed by mation in a large shaft grave the walls of may wear a helmet, armour or greaves or Solon in fr. 3D (see this which may be covered with wooden hold artefacts such as a shield, a lanse, a paper n. 216. boards. W hen attempting to trace the as­ sword, or a strigil, an aryballos, a diskos or a sociations of these elements - as I have boxing glove).240 But even more general n o t e 2 43 North 1966, 15-16. done in Excursus 2 - they proved to refer and likewise new ideological values are to the Lydian luxurious body culture expressed in words and pictures.241 One of n o t e 2 4 4 called truphe by ancient writers. This life­ these is sophrosyne, a virtue which was to 6th cent. Attic funerary style comprised not only exotic perfumes become the most powerful of all Athenian epigrams, in which sophros but also sumptuous drinking and eating virtues, perhaps initially due to Solon.242 It or sophrosyne is mentioned: Jeffery 1962, 120 no. 9, habits. Moreover, truphe is com m only al­ was totally unrelated to war achievements, 130 no. 23, 140 no. 49; luded to in Lydian grave iconography and but instead stood for a certain restrained W illemsen 1963, no. 11. in Lydian grave contexts that are similar to conduct (in times of peace) and intellectu­ the Kerameikos burials: lekythoi associated al insight. O f special interest to the present NOTE 245 w ith lydia, burial chambers of timber con­ argumentation is its intimate relation to Adkins 1960, chapters 8, 9, 11. North 1966, 13. Com­ struction in huge tumuli. symposia, since wine was obviously pare also the new m eaning The interesting thing here is the way in thought to promote sophrosyne.243 In some of agathos and arete, when w hich the truphe concept has been em­ funerary epigrams it appears together with these virtues become asso­ phasized in the burials of the two neigh­ agathos and arete, constituting a phrase244 ciated with kalos in the 5th bouring mounds in Kerameikos. Only indicating that these Homeric adjectives cent., Donlan 1973, 365- 374. here (in two of the circle-burials and in have now acquired a new meaning.245 the primary burial of Sudhugel) do we also Since the earliest known Attic figured gra­ NOTE 2 46 find fragments of ivory and amber klinai, verelief was found on the western part of Ker. VII.l, 5-16. the prime furniture of symposia and ban­ Grabhiigel G,246 perhaps to be connected

160 NOTE 24 7 with the primary shaft grave of this Therefore, I propose that the circle- Schmitt Pantel 1990b, 14-33. mound, it is tempting to interpret the ap­ burials of Grabhiigel G primarily consisted pearance of Attic figured grave-reliefs and of members of a symposiac association n o t e 24 8 the funerary rituals introduced by the Murray 1983a, 257-272 which functioned as a political supporter and 1983b. Grabhugel G and Sudhtigel as the result of a group. In this way the new prevalence of need for new means to express a new civic syn- to emphazise the cohesion of the n o t e 2 4 9 ideology. small, male, and non-family group in Ar­ Murray 1990, 149-161. We may however go further than that. chaic poetry (synodos, symmachos)252 has Recently, P. Schmitt Pantel has pointed found its material equivalent in the circle o f NOTE 2 5 0 Rhodes 1986, 132-144. out that we ought not to speak in terms of burials. Some of the buried symposium the banquet, or the symposium.247 A sym­ members may be accompanied by family NOTE 251 posium may be arranged after several dif­ members, as indeed the presence of a fe­ See references in Schmitt ferent kinds of banquets or meals occur­ male burial suggests - but it is the politi­ Pantel 1990b, 20 n. 41. ring in a public or private sphere (i.e. cul- cal, public role which is emphasized. n o t e 2 5 2 tic festivals, prytaneion, private house as How does this theory fit in with Murray 1983a, 266 who proof of hospitality) thereby taking very Stidhtigel, Rundbau and their parallels in relies Snell 1965, 64-79, different shapes. Common, however, to the Attic countryside? Beginning with esp. 71 n. 22. these rituals of conviviality is that they Stidhtigel, U. Knigge interpreted its pri­ formed part of a whole series of activities mary burial as a “Gesandtgrab”, due to n o t e 2 53 Ker. IX, 10. exercised by groups of men not primarily the Eastern origin of the burial gifts.253 In united by family ties, but by similar age view of the formal similarity between this NOTE 2 54 and social status. But apart from being a burial and the circle-burials of Grabhiigel H erm an 1987, 12. general civic institution, rituals of com- G, I would elaborate on this theory and mensality could also acquire power-politi­ suggest a xemd-relationship between the n o t e 25 5 Herman 1987, 150. cal dimensions. Thus, O. Murray has “circle-burials” in Grabhiigel G and the demonstrated the potential role of the Ar­ primary burial of Stidhtigel. Partners in­ NOTE 25 6 chaic symposium as an organ of social volved in ritualized friendship of the xenia Herman 1987, 26-27; control in the hands of the aristocracy of kind belonged to the upper class of differ­ compare funerary monu­ the city originating perhaps in the Ho­ ent societies. In the Greek world, this ments set up by hetairoi: Pfohl 1966 no. 75, no. 78. meric banquet248 and with offshoots in meant that xenia never existed between Classical aristocratic hetaireia that oppose men of the same city-state.254 Typically n o t e 2 57 the demos.249 The latter groups, the hetai­ such coalitions consisted of a leader sur­ Herman 1987, 130-142. reia, may also have fulfilled the role of sup­ rounded by a narrow circle of kinsmen porter for various Classical politicians.250 and friends and of xenoi attached to the Earlier in the present paper, the attention leader, also surrounded by kinsmen and was drawn to how necessary it was for the friends.253 Apart from duties such as fos­ Archaic citizen to pursue political power ter-parenthood and mutual protection and to form stasis. Considering the various help, a xenos would also provide for the roles that rituals o f conviviality could play, burial of a dead partner and celebrate his symposiac associations may well have memory.256 The upper class, aristocratic formed an important part in such a for­ nature o f xenia contrasted deeply with the mation. Recent interpretations of Archaic ideology of the city-state, since networks poetry as being primarily composed for of such ritualized friendships were set singing in particular symposia consisting above the common interest of the city- of homogeneous citizens of similar opin­ state. This opposition between xenia and ions (i.e. the poems of Solon) point in the the city-state would certainly fit my inter­ same direction.251 This political dimension pretation of Grabhugel G and Stidhtigel as of symposiac associations is extremely im­ being subjected to conflicts at the end of portant, since Grabhiigel G (and huge tu­ the 6th cent., shortly before Kleithenes’ muli in general) was interpreted above as reforms. Perhaps the civic institution prox- an atypical family burial plot and since it enia is developed from xenia.257 If so, it is manifests a power-political dimension. interesting that the city-state of Athens

161 buried Pythagoras of Selymbria at public senting a priest, perhaps a priest of Diony­ n o t e 258 expense immediately to the north of Sud­ sos, since Lyseas holds a kantharos, a bo u ­ Herman 1987, 136; Knigge hugel, because Pythagoras and his ancestors quet (corn?, laurel?) and is dressed in a red 1972; Knigge 1988, 97-101. were excellent proxenoi, as the inscription chiton.265 K. Friis Johansen has argued at n o t e 25 9 informs us.258 length against this interpretation. He rath­ Stuppericb 1977, esp. 200-29; At this juncture it should not be for­ er considers the just mentioned attributes Clairmont 1983, 7-26. gotten that in the Late Archaic and Early to be heroizing, depicting Lyseas as dead. Classical period the principle of the com­ His m ain a rg um ent is based on a com pari­ NOTE 2 6 0 Ker.XII, 75-76. mon grave marker was used to mark war- son with Boiotian and Laconian reliefs de­ dead, that is to say m en w ho were not re­ picting a procession of people (shown on n o t e 261 lated by blood, but by their common ful­ a small scale) who approach enthroned Bourriot 1976. filment of a certain civic virtue.239 It is also persons (shown on a larger scale). The lat­ important to recall that there was a tradi­ ter hold attributes similar to the ones held NOTE 2 62 Clinton 1974, 47. tion later on for public non-family grave by Lyseas. Normally, the enthroned per­ monuments opposite Grabhugel G. As sons are interpreted as deceased persons NOTE 26 3 mentioned earlier, a group of warriors who through death became heroized and Stars 1890a, 16-28, 105-112. were buried on the north side of the thus worshipped as heroes. “Heilige Strasse” shortly after 540. The argument, though, is not convinc­ NOTE 26 4 Conze 1890, pi. 1; Richter Turning to Rundbau, Knigge has inter­ ing. As I mentioned earlier, Attic Archaic 1961, 48 no. 70. preted this structure - in use for several grave-reliefs generally depict the deceased centuries - as the burial plot of a priestly with attributes which refer to a civic life­ NOTE 2 65 kinship group, the Kerykes. Her interpre­ style: first and foremost war and athletics, Loeschcke 1879, 37 and 44; tation is based on a description by Pausan- just as funerary epigrams solely commem­ see also Friis Johansen 1951, 112-113, for references to this ias (1.36,3),260 in which Pausanias on his orate virtues and deeds of the person discussion. way to Piraeus mentions a burial for An- when alive. In this way the Archaic grave- themokritos on the right side of the road reliefs anticipate Attic, Classical grave re­ NOTE 26 6 shortly after he has left the Sacred Gate. liefs on which the deceased is always de­ Clairmont 1970, 64-71, argues And this Anthemokritos can be connected picted as a human being and is often convincingly against current interpretations o f Classical with the Kerykes family. It is an attractive shown in a domestic scene.266 Friis Johan­ grave-reliefs as the result of in­ theory, not least because genos in the sense sen attempts to explain away the impres­ tended heroization. Referring of kinship group was found by E Bourriot sion of human apparition on the Archaic to a sentence by Aristotle (quo­ to have been used only about the Kerykes funerary reliefs by referring to the “broth- ted by Plutarch, consol, ad. before the 5th cent, and in the 5th cent, er-and-sister-stele” in N.Y.267 O n this Apollonium 27), Clairmont concludes that the deceased mainly about royal or priestly families.261 grave stele the young athlete, in addition rather was conceived of as eth­ Now, the reason why the Kerykes are re­ to an aryballos, also holds a pomegranate, ically speaking “better and ferred to as a priestly family is that all the and the young girl next to him a flower, mightier” than living people. Eleusinian sacred officials called daduchs (a and Friis Johansen refers to current inter­ male office) were drawn from them.262 pretation of especially the pomegranate as n o t e 26 7 R ichter 1961, no. 37, figs. The choice of a grave marker common to a death-symbol.268 It is, however, impor­ 73-74. several graves would then according to my tant to remember that the pomegranate line of thought be a natural consequence, also had many non-funerary functions, NOTE 26 8 since it would express yet another mutual which were hardly completely separate Friis Johansen 1951, 117. public status of great political importance from its funerary symbolism. For instance, NOTE 26 9 (a priestly office). pomegranates were popular love gifts for Koch-Harnack 1983, 158; Regarding the tumuli at Velanideza and both women and young men ,269 On the ADelt 18, 1963, pin. 33a. Vourva, these contained only few finds “brother-and-sister-stele” the pomegran­ and are thus difficult to draw any conclu­ ate may therefore simply underline the n o t e 27 0 sions from.263 However, a figured grave beauty of the young man and hereby em­ Conze 1890, no. 13; Richter 1961, no. 59; Richter 1968, stele commemorating a certain Lyseas and phasize the tradegy of his early death. Friis no. 141; Willemsen 1970, 39, dated to about the middle of the 6th cent, Johansen’s comparison with the Boiotian Taf. 15.2, perhaps nos.9-11 was found close to the mound at Velani­ and Laconian reliefs also seems unsatisfac­ (statues); Karousos 1961, no. deza.264 It has been interpreted as repre­ tory. W hen making this comparison Friis A4 (statue).

162 and that a priestly function is the most likely interpretation. Consequently, it is possible to argue that the Velanideza % 100 mound, like R undbau, connnemorated

90 members of a priestly family. 5th cent. B.C. To sum up, I have argued that contrary 80 to current beliefs, groups of burials with very similar grave contexts and marked by 70 X- ‘X 510-500 B.C. a common grave marker are not rare ex­ amples of “true” family plots. The persons 60 were buried together as a result of their

50 social relations rather than of family ties. This principle of commemorating a com­ 40 mon social value in burial practice also characterizes family self-representation 30 and - I believe - elite burial practice else­ where. In Corinth a platform consisting of 20 re-used orthostats marked four carefully aligned sarcophagus-burials, all adults, and 10 all with very similar grave equipment. The 0 burials dated to 575-550.273 Only one AGE GROUPS (CHILDREN) skeleton has been sex-determined and this was male.274 Like the huge tumuli in Kera­ meikos, the platform burials differ from the general burial practice in the North Cemetery. Here, as in Kerameikos, family Table 13 The frequency of Johansen compares similar attributes groups are difficult to identify, and chil­ children’s age groups between which, however, occur in two totally dif­ dren tend to be buried separately.275 Nev­ 510-500 and 500-400 B.C. ferent types of representations. It is the ertheless, the platform burials are still (The total number of burials combination of several elements (especial­ are respectively 20 and 505.) interpreted as “the only certain evidence ly procession of people on a small scale to­ for a family burial plot”.276 wards enthroned persons on a large scale) This burial plot and the burials of the which makes it likely that the kantharos huge mounds in Kerameikos and in the and bouquet signal a heroic status on the Attic countryside to my mind form close Boiotian and Laconian reliefs. “Enthrone­ structural forerunners to state burials of NOTE 271 Conze 1890, no. 13. ment” is one of the commonest ways to war-dead in the Classical period. The col­ signal divinity, whether above or below. lective burial of the Lacedaemonians in n o t e 2 72 But, on the Attic Archaic grave reliefs, the Kerameikos, the grave equipment of Papapostolou 1966. depicted persons are only very rarely which is very similar,277 and the Marathon shown seated or enthroned.270 In fact, one and Plataea tumuli naturally come to n o t e 27 3 Corinth XIII, 66-68, nos. of the few exceptions is a fragmentary late m ind. 191, 192, 219, 220. 6th cent, relief found near Velanideza de­ picting a seated man who raises his right Part III. NOTE 2 7 4 arm (his hand is not preserved).271 Howev­ Corinth XIII, no. 219. The relation between er, as pointed out by I.A. Papapostolou, history and archaeology in this relief must be viewed as a predecessor n o t e 2 75 6th cent. Kerameikos Corinth XIII, 68. for the many Attic Classical grave reliefs showing the deceased as seated, rather n o t e 2 7 6 than as influenced by the Laconian “hero” My object so far has been to draw atten­ Corinth XIII, 68. reliefs.272 tion to certain “anonymous” aspects of

NOTE 2 77 For these reasons, I believe that Lyseas, Athenian social and political history main­ Willemsen 1977. is shown in one of the functions of life, ly based on the archaeologically detectable

163 tendencies and patterns of Kerameikos. At events of Greek history and archaeology NOTE 2 78 this juncture I would like very briefly to has not proved very successful.281 For in­ Eckstein 1958. comment upon an observance which may stance, kouroi were still produced around n o t e 2 79 even widen our understanding of a major 480, as the fine marble head found in the Stupperich 1977, 82. episode of Greek documented history. vicinity of the Sacred Gate shows.282 Nor

One of the more revolutionary changes does the erection of tumuli or grave n o t e 2 8 0 in the archaeology of Kerameikos was the buildings cease abruptly around 500, but Richter 1961, 38-39; explosive increase in the number of child their erection declines gradually during Boardman 1955; Kurtz- Boardman 1971, 89-90. burials around 500. Interestingly enough, the 6th cent. (Table 3). Some tumuli are the burial practice relating to children quite large in the 5th cent, (see Fig. 7), n o t e 281 around 500 appears to anticipate closely and a rather large and very well-built For this problem in gen­ the general burial practice regarding chil­ grave grave building in the area of the Sa­ eral, see Snodgrass 1987, dren in the 5th cent. cred Gate was crowned by a red-figured 36-66. In Table 13 the frequency of different crater dating from around 480 in the man­ n o t e 2 82 age groups of children in 510-500 is com­ ner of the crater-crowned 7th cent, grave Knigge 1983. pared to the frequency generally prevalent buildings.283 in the 5th cent. It is apparent that the two What we know of Kleisthenes’ reforms n o t e 2 83 patterns are almost identical. is that they seem mainly to be concerned Knigge 1983. The range of categories of grave gifts with the definition of citizenship, with n o t e 2 84 for children broadens considerably around decision-making procedures and with se­ Ober 1989, 68-75; Brook 500 in comparison to 600-510. This is curing equality among citizens in these Manville 1990, 157-209; due to the addition of the categories “spe­ processes, all of which greatly furthered Hansen 1991, 34-36, 46-49. cial child-vases”, “terracottas”, “perfume the identity between the city-state and n o t e 285 vases” (excl. lekythoi) and “personal ob­ every one of its members.284 Kleisthenes’ Borbein 1989. jects”. Also, already existing categories of extensive reorganizations of Athens’ polit­ grave gifts become differently valued. For ical structure are themselves conceivable around 500, lekythoi are suddenly much only as a result of all-embracing changes more popular than vases for drinking and in intellectual, moral and political life, fol­ eating (Table 6: dotted line in relation to lowing in the wake of the political con­ x-line). This extended range of categories flicts during Peisistratos’ tyranny. Changes of grave gifts and their internal frequency in burial practice must be the result of the almost exactly anticipates the general pat­ same intellectual upheavals, rather than tern of the 5th cent. (Table 6: bars). caused by Kleisthenes, just as the inven­ All in all then, main characteristics of tion of the contra-post in sculpture burial practice for children in the 5th between 510 and 490 has been regarded as cent, can be seen to begin abruptly in the mirroring current intellectual debates and last decade of the 6th cent. For this reason thought.285 Altogether, these changes form it is very tempting to connect this burial part of the democratization process in practice with the reforms of Kleisthenes Athens. Already in the period 560-535 508/7. And indeed scholars have earlier children began to play an important role held Kleisthenes responsible for a law pro­ in family self-representation in Keramei­ hibiting funerary luxury, which according kos, and already in the years 535-510 chil­ to Cicero, was issued some time after Sol­ dren were buried in the huge tumuli on (de Leg. ii 64).278 The appearance of which had otherwise for a long time sole­ child burials in Grabhugel G and Sudhtigel ly been used for adults (compare Fig. 5). It has been connected indirectly with this is therefore more in agreement with the law and with Kleisthenes.279 The date of archaeological record to conclude that the this funerary law has been the subject of deposition of Hippias in 510 made pos­ much discussion and has been correlated sible the realization and further develop­ with various changes in the funerary ar­ ment of a multitude of existing ideas. chaeological record.280 But so far, this kind of correlation between documented

164 Table 14 Graves or offering- trenches (or -places) which contain aryballoi.

CO m "d* CNJ n CO kO H H > H H as H H X* • H co • X H > X X X 5 X H J XI HX X ' OS H pH .. H rH • •• H . • H H H H H H H > > > X > > > . , .. u u U u CL) X x x j X

Aryballos • • • • Cremation • • Tumulus Drinking*-, eating-, and/or pouring-vases (in off.-trench or -place) Drinking-, eating-, and/or pouring-vases (inside the grave) Inhumation Grave building Formula 1 2 3

NOTE 2 8 6 Excursus 1-3: rials represented the deceased as heroic in Houby-Nielsen 1992 Gender identification of a Homeric sense, for which reason it fol­ burial contexts lows that I regard them as male. Thus, I argued that their most characteristic fea­ 1. tures (cremation, offering-trench (or - In Table 14 I have made a survey of the place) with drinking-, eating- and pour­ contexts which contained an aryballos. ing-vases and tumulus) recalled Homeric They date to the 7th and early 6th cent. I heroic values. Cremation and tumulus are regard Ker. VI. 1, XIX. 18 as representing a characteristic of Homeric heroic burials, “complete” formula (1), while Ker. VI.1, and one of the cremations in Table 14 IV.4, and LXII.62 and Ker. XII, Rb8 (LXII/62) was contained in a bronze caul­ manifest formula 1 partially. Formula 2 dron in the Homeric fashion. OfFering- manifests 1, while formula 3 introduces SO trenches with elaborate drinking-, eating-, many new features that it seems to stand and pouring-vases probably referred to apart. banquets, one of the most important po­ In an earlier article286 1 have argued that litical institutions in Homeric chieftain so­ the characteristic features of 7th cent, bu­ ciety. Furthermore, the ofFering-trench it-

165 self is likely to recall tremendous destruc­ Formula 4 is especially interesting, note 287 tive mnema, like those at Patroklos’ burial. since a digression into the origin of the ADelt 1964, pin. 37; Board­ man 1988. The presence of a loutrophoros-amphora in Attic shoulder lekythos - as the majority of

an early 6th cent, offering-trench supports the lekythoi under discussion are 289 - can n o t e 2 88 my interpretation. This vase-type is nar­ give us a better idea of the symbolism of Ker. V I.1, L/50. rowly connected with male death and bu­ the whole formula. rial in Archaic and Classical times.287 Since It has been suggested that the Attic NOTE 2 89 The lekythoi have not been the aryballos occurs together with these shoulder lekythos was directly inspired by published, but since Kiibler dis­ features in formulas 1 and 2, I regard the the so-called “Samian” lekythos. A nd the tinguishes between “bauchige latter as expressing a Homeric heroic gen­ history of the latter is connected with lyd­ Lekythos” and “Lekythos”, the der role. The main difference between 1 ia.290 Thus, the production of “Samian” latter must be of the “shoulder and 2 is the form of interment. In formula lekythoi and lydia can probably be localized lekythos” type. 3, however, dating from the first quarter to the territory of Sardis,291 and since they NOTE 2 90 of the 6th cent., all the Homeric heroic are found together in many contexts in Geniere 1984, 95. elements have been omitted. This circum­ Asia Minor, they appear to have contained stance does not make the formula 3 burial two different kinds of perfume.292 Both NOTE 291 “female”. I merely wish to point out that types of perfume container formed part of Geniere 1982. the aryballos occurs in three different for­ the Lydian luxurious body culture often NOTE 2 92 mulas, two of which encompass heroic as­ commented upon by ancient writers and Geniere 1984, 94. sociations and one which does not. called truphe.293 This truphe was a lifestyle W hether the latter expresses yet another which apart from the use of exotic per­ n o t e 293 male gender role or a female one we can­ fumes also comprised lavish drinking and For references to ancient au­ thors, see Nenci 1983. not decide. eating habits. At least, the word truphe is

etymologically connected with eating n o t e 2 94 2 . habits.294 It is therefore not surprising that Nenci 1983, 1019-20. T he lekythos first appears in a cremation the use of perfume and participation in burial marked by a tumulus and without Mine banquets coalesce in Lydian (and n o t e 295 Karaburun: Mellink 1974, 355- any other grave gifts.288 The grave dates to Etruscan) grave iconography,295 which ob­ 359, pis. 67-70, with refer­ the first quarter of the 6th cent. Since, the viously tried to show the high status of ences. lekythos functionally speaking seems to re­ the deceased by referring to truphe. place the aryballos, one could argue that In real life the two vase types were n o t e 2 96 the “/efeyi/ios-cremation-tumulus” formula probably also connected, since “Samian” Vries, 1977, 544-548; Hannes- tad 1988, 226; Hannestad is a reduced version of formula 1. I will, lekythoi and lydia are often found in habi­ 1992, 159. though, leave this open. tation quarters in the East - like Attic leky­ Between 550 and 535, the alabastron thoi in Athens and Corinth.296 “Samian” NOTE 297 and especially the lekythos suddenly appear lekythoi and lydia are also linked to the Ly­ Especially the Bin Tepe, but in great numbers, both in the burials of dian elite in other respects, since they also “Alyattes’ tomb”, Hanf- mann 1983, 53. the huge tumuli (the primary burial of were found in some of the huge tumuli at

Sudhugel contained “Sam ian” lekythoi) and the “royal” necropolis of Sardis. These tu­ NOTE 2 98 in the burials situated outside these. As I muli not only date roughly to the same Ker. VII.l, 21 (no references); have shown in Table 15, the appearance of period as Grabhugel G, but they also in Young 1981, esp. 263-264. the lekythos is narrowly connected with some cases attain the same diameter (10- n o t e 2 99 the appearance of lydion and with a 40 nr).297 Finally, chambers built of timber The identification of the ivory change-over to inhumation practice in and then covered with a tumulus have a and amber remains in the simple shaft graves as well as inhumation long tradition in the Lydian and Phrygian Grabhugel G burials remains in a shaft grave the walls of which were regions. insecure due to the lack of pub­ covered by wooden boards (“Holzverscha- Consequently, all the elem ents o f for­ lication. In Ker. IX U. Knigge refers to these remains as furni­ lung”). I call this recurrent combination mula 4, namely the lydia, “Samian” leky­ ture, and in Knigge 1988, 105, of objects and rituals formula 4. To this thoi - and their Attic imitations - and the she refers to the remains in Ker. formula may be added other objects gaily painted wooden boards of the shaft VII.l, no. I as a parallel to the which also form formulas and which are graves may be associated with Lydian ivory and amber remains found “qouted”. I will return to these later. truphe. But also the huge tumulus and the in the Sudhugel shaft grave

166 r- iH 0 r* ps} Tf vO H 0 ) £ . * . 4 \ • 0 u 0 0 0 0 c W C C H c > r- > > vo > ON . • • (—1 • E, El C El o El 0 01 £|

(F) (U) (M)

Table 15 Grave contexts in Kerameikos dated to 560-535 which contain lekythos and/or alabastron.

which definitely derive kline formed part of the funerary symbol­ sion, since all lekythoi in these burials are from a kline. No matter ism of Lydian t.ruphe.299 This is especially Attic shoulder-/ekythoi. It is interesting to what kind of object the interesting, since formula 4 is above all observe that this “translation” appeared at Grabhugel G remains rep­ connected with the circle of burials in the same time as a snobbery for Ionian resent, their material alone identifies them as luxury Grabhugel G and with the primary burial lifestyle became visible in various fields of objects without later par­ o f Sudhtigel. And it is only in these burials elite Athenian culture. Around 550 the allels in Kerameikos. that we find klinai 300(Table 15). Since the m o tif “kline banquet” suddenly becomes primary grave of Stidhtigel, apart from very popular in Attic vase painting. Prob­ NOTE 3 0 0 contained only Eastern vases ably, the kline banquet was introduced to Ker. V II.1 nos. I, 2, 5; kline, (lydia, Ker. IX, no. 3/HW 87. “Sam ian” lekythoi), it must have expressed the lonians from Lydia and from the Ioni- a notion very close to, if not identical ans to the Greeks on the mainland.301 And NOTE 301 w ith, t.ruphe. The “circle-burials”, howev­ as stated by Athenaeus, the introduction of Fehr 1971, 3, 54, 129. er, translated formula 4 into an Attic ver­ the couch to the Greeks meant the intro-

167 duction of Lydian truphe?02 Sculpture be­ “warrior”-graves and in a Classical grave NOTE 3 0 2 longing to the third part of the 6th cent, containing a strigil?00 Regarding the lou- Deipnosophistae I 18B also clearly reveals a flirtation with Ionian trophoros, it is unfortunate that the exact n o t e 3 03 elite ideals. This is especially evident in shape is not described, whether of the am­ Schneider 1975; Sinn the case of the sophisticated korai from the phora- or hydria-type, nor its figural repre­ 1983, 43. Acropolis.303 Finally, it is a well-known sentation, which could otherwise have fact that Peisistratos cultivated political given a valuable hint towards gender-de- n o t e 304 connections with Ionian cities and i.a. in­ tennination. I will merely state that a male Shapiro 1981 and 1989. troduced a taste for Ionian lyrics to his association with a loutrophoros is far from n o t e 305 court.304 And the people who were buried unthinkable at this time - on the contrary ,309 Recently treated by Berg- in Grabhiigel G had no doubt lived a com­ On this basis, I will argue that the ob­ quist 1990. fortable life in Peisistratos’ Athens. jects just discussed gave the “neutral” ob­ In subsequent Attic vase painting and jects, among which we find the lekythos n o t e 3 06 Boardman 1990. in architecture the kline is closely connect­ (part of formula 4) and the alabastron a

ed with the male world, being inseparable male character. n o t e 3 07 from the men’s room, the andron ,305 and These perspectives greatly affect the See n. 74. being the principal item of furniture for a interpretation of the primary grave in banquet and a symposium.306 Grabhiigel G, the circle of burials around n o t e 3 08 Vierneisel 1964, 445; Ker. This argumentation has far-reaching it, and the primary burial in Siidhiigel, V II.1, 96 no. 225. consequences for our understanding of the since the latter and two of the former bu­

primary grave in Grabhiigel G, the circle of rials are hereby considered to express male n o t e 3 09 burials around it, and Siidhiigel. Due to the truphe. But other circle-burials can be Kokula 1984, 146-148; for the frequency of male origin of the lekythos just summarized, I maintained to be male due either to the prothesis scenes on BF and presence of klinai or to the lengths of the find it justified to argue a) that formula 4 early RF loutrophoroi, see first appeared with Grabhiigel G and b) skeletons. One burial, though, as I will Boardman 1988, 178; ad­ that formula 4 alone, without any addi­ argue below, must be female. A summary ditionally, one of the BF tions, expresses a notion relating to truphe is probably needed: loutrophoroi found as a in a general way. And for reasons I will stray find in Kerameikos likewise carries a male discuss now, I will further argue c) that by Grabhiigel G prothesis; a loutrophoros- adding objects of certain types to formula The primary burial and the amphora was found in an 4 it comes to express a specific male or fe­ “circle-burials”: early 6th cent, offering- male version of truphe and d) that trench south of the Heilige Strasse (AD elt 1964, pin. Grabhiigel G and Siidhiigel first and fore­ 2= male burials according to their context310 37). most express male truphe.

In Table 15 1 summarized all the buri­ 2= probable male burials according to the NOTE 310 als containing lekythos an d /o r alabastron presence of a kline combined with a Ker. VII. 1, nos. 4 and 5; dating to about 550-535. The burials can reduced version of formula 4 that ex­ see Table 15. be divided into three groups: group M clude lekythoi?n The length of the NOTE 311 (male), group F (female), and group U skeleton in the latter burial was 1.90 m Ker. V II.1, I and no. 2. (unspecific). Group M is characterized by which also points towards a male per­ objects which have been added to formula son (see Appendix 2). NOTE 31 2 4 and other “neutral” objects and which Ker. VII. 1, nos. 3 and 8. do not occur in groups F and U. More­ 2= male burials according to the length of n o t e 3 13 over, some of these added objects are per­ the skeleton (1.90 and 1.80 m).312 Ker. VII.1, nos. 6, 7, 9, 11 fectly understandable as alluding to a male Their burial contexts expressed truphe and 12. world. (see Table 15). T he kline, as I discussed above, had strong connections with the male world. 5= undeterminable, since they were solely The terracotta egg can be connected with characterized by a reduced version of women, as the above mentioned skyphos formula 4 that exclude lekythoi?n All sherd shows,307 but terracotta eggs have burials were inhum ations and all, also been found in slightly later so-called except one, were contained in shaft

168 I. Lekythos 2. Amphoriskos 3. Alebastron 4. Kantharos 5. Cup 6. Buttons 7. Bowl 8. Kotyle 9. Terracotta balls 10. Oinochoe I I. Monkey 12. Needle 13. Astragals 14. Unidentified object 15. Skyphos 16. Terracotta egg: 17. Bird statuette 18. Hare statuette 19. Sandals 20. Bronze object 21. Goblet 22. One- handler 23. Chytra 24: Lekanis 25. Iron Object 26. Statuettes (?) 27. Terracotta arms (of a doll?) 28. Female statuette 29. Pyxis 30. Make-up 31. Conical bbject (loom w eight?) 32. Rings 33. Statuette of a sittin g person 34. Arm -ring 35. Terracotta basket 36. Omphalos bowl 37. Nail, rosette, wooden object (chest?) 38. Bottle 39. Feeding cup 40. Mirror 41. Kothon 42. Shells 43. Jug 44. Kyiix

Table 16 Types of objects found in burials which contained either strigil or soap and which are dated 500-350 B.C.

graves with “Holzverschalung” and two of the unspecific burials in terms of contained lydia. gender are biologically speaking likely to be male. 1= female burial according to its context ,314 3. Sudhugel: The primary burial is male, both accord­ 560-535 B.C.: Table 15 shows the com­ ing to osteological analysis and according position of burial contexts containing le­ to its context (see Table 15). kythos or alabastron between 560 and 535, This summary shows that when it is The objects connected with group F are: thought important to specify gender in soap, female statuettes, pyxis and terracotta NOTE 3 1 4 Ker. VII.l, no. 10; see Ta­ the burials of the huge mounds, then it is basket. A comparison with burials dated ble 15. male with only one exception. Moreover, to 500-350 can show us that these objects

169 may lend formula 4 and the other “neu­ form part of scenes, which recall “whor- tral” objects of group F a female character. ish” aspects of women.320 In Table 16313 I have contrasted the types Common, however, to both strigil- and of objects which are found in burials con­ soap-containing burials are i.a. the alabas­ taining strigil(s) with those found in burials tron and the lekythos. In other words, in containing soap. As appears from this the high Classical period the alabastron and comparison, the alabastron and lekythos oc­ the lekythos attain a female or male charac­ cur in both groups of grave contexts, ter only through the addition of other while the type of objects that are specific types of grave gifts. And some of these to group F are found only in the “soap”- types were present already in the period containing burials. This is significant, 560-535, as specific to group F. since soap and strigil in 5th and early 4th No doubt, the objects specific to group cent, burials appear to be (rare) examples F made formula 4 and the other “neutral” of respectively a female and a male gen­ objects connected with group F express der-specific object316 for the following certain notions of the female sex. With reasons. First of all, strigil and soap never one exception, these female burials were occur together in the same grave. Second­ either connected with the burial group on ly, the strigil is combined with different the south-west edge of Grabhugel G,321 or types of grave gifts than soap. This distinc­ they lay outside the huge tumuli.322 The tion is without doubt caused by the wish exception 323 formed part of the “circle- to express different gender. Thus, among burials” in Grabhugel G. the objects which occurred in the strigil- In two cases,324 lekythoi were placed in containing burials, we find monkey-, cremation graves with no lydia (Table 15). bird-, egg- and hare-terracottas, and nee­ These burial contexts have therefore very dle/pin317 and astragals. In Part I, I little in common with the burials treated showed that these objects are understand­ so far, and seem to express a notion which able as referring to notions of the male sex. Moreover, some of these objects have been found in connection with a juvenile, NOTE 31 5 NOTE 31 7 male skeleton (monkey-terracotta, needle, Table 16 is based on: Ker. VII.l, nos. Unfortunately, the description “Nadle” astragals).318 78, 147, 218, 235, 262, 282, 362, 431, in Kiiblers publication does not tell us Turning to the soap-containing burials, 482, 521, 610, 630; Ker. IX, nos. 100, whether a needle or a pin is meant. we are mostly faced with terracottas of sit­ 128, 212; AM 1964, hS 202; AM n o t e 31 8 ting women, and in one case a terracotta 1966, nos. 56, 81, 111, 123, 210; AA 1972, 602 Abb. 26, GS 2; AM 1976, Schlorb-Vierneisel 1964. basket. Jewellery also occurs and a wealth 41 nos. 2, 44 nos. 3; 52 no.10. of objects and vase shapes that are associat­ NOTE 31 9 ed with highly different concepts of wom­ NOTE 3 1 6 Compare Plutarch, Coniug. praec. en in iconography and in literature: make­ However, the symbolic use of soap and 142A and Mul.virt. 257E; for mirror, see recently Hoffmann 1988, 77-78. up, conical objects (loom weights?), nails strigil appears to change in the late 4th and 3rd cent., when the strigil may be occurring together with a bronze rosette associated with female burials, and soap n o t e 320 and wooden remains (a chest?), mirror, may occur in men’s burials. This situa­ Sutton 1981, 334, and 347-349 for a kothon, pyxis, and omphalos bowls. For in­ tion is already present in the early 4th summary of the historiography of stance, cleanliness (equivalent of soap in cent, in the Eckterrasse. I discuss this “spinning hetairai”; for a house for burial contexts) and the act of spinning problem in greater detail in a forth­ prostitutes and with weaving activities, coming article. The mirror is almost see Lind 1988 with further references. (equivalent of loom weight in burial con­ certainly indicative of a female burial texts) are often associated with the virtu­ in the 5th cent., but only few 5th cent, NOTE 321 ous and thrifty woman in literature, as is burials contained one (Ker. VII.l, nos. Ker. VII.l, no. 234, Beil.7 the mirror in funerary iconography, while 242, 247, 541; Ker. IX, no. 188; AM the use of make-up and perfume may be 1966, no. 49). In the 4th cent, the mir­ n o t e 322 ror can change symbolic value, since a Ker. VII.l nos. 478, 613; AM 1966:2, associated with a less dutiful woman.319 In mirror was found next to a male skele­ 210/hS 227; AM 1976 2/VECK 4 vase painting, bathing and spinning wom­ ton (Ker. XIV no. 24/Eck 64). en, and women holding a mirror, may

170 Table 17 “Rich" 5th cent, burials to the south-west of Grabhiigel G and in area "D ” which contain lekythos rsi in n CN in r- and/or alabastron. (N SO CM CM • u u u M G c G C C C

«—l i rH rH • r • , H H H H H H H H H H > > > > > U S u L L

is not immediately recognizable as either male. But as appears from Table 15, their male or female. context is not gender-specific. How are Moreover, the comparison with Classi­ we to explain this phenomenon? Are un­ cal burial contexts shows us that the bury­ specific burial contexts, in terms of gen­ ing group which was active between c. der, typical of a certain age group, a cer­ 550 and 535 was the first to express a gen- tain status group or even certain gender NOTE 32 3 der-ideology which came to be funda­ roles? It is also interesting that four out of Ker. V II.1, no. 10. mental for Classical Athens. And the six graves in the U group lay outside the

NOTE 3 2 4 prime initiating group must be that re­ huge tumuli.323 ker. VIL1.no. 458, 461. sponsible for the erection of Grabhiigel G and Siidhugel. 535-400 B.C. NOTE 32 5 Finally, group U deserves some com­ Burials with gender-specific contexts ap­ Ker. VII.1 nos. 230, 270; AM 1976 1/VECK 2; AM ment. One of the burials has been osteo- pear to be concentrated in area “D ” and 1966:1 28/hS 104. logically determined as female, one as the series of mounds south-west of

171 Grabhugel G, as I have tried to summarize Adult burials which were situated out­ NOTE 3 26 in Table 17. side the groups of tumuli and grave build­ Ker. VII. 1 no. 247 Apart from these burials, a secondary ings in area D and south-west of Grabhugel n o t e 3 27 cremation burial in mound L contained a G were generally “neutral” in regard to Ker. V II.1, nos. 242, 541; burnt mirror.326 The likelihood that the gender, since they mostly contained only Ker. IX, no. 188; AM cremated person was a woman is high, few lekythoi or no grave gifts at all, and 1966, no. 126. since the mirror in general in 5th cent, were not marked by a tumulus or grave burials seems to be associated with wom­ building. True enough, one inhumation NOTE 3 28 Compare Conze 1890- en. Thus it may be found together with burial which was not marked by a grave 1922, nos. 310, 360, 813; soap, pyxis, omphalos bowl, and jewel­ monument,334 contained lekythoi, lydia, Hoffmann 1988. lery,327 and it sometimes forms an attribute pyxis and some drinking-, and eating-vas- of women in funerary iconography.328 But es. It was situated outside, but near area D n o t e 3 29 since a mirror is found in an (osteological­ (Fig. 6). In 5th cent, burials, the pyxis is Ker. XIV, no. 24/Eck 64. ly speaking) male burial in 4th cent. Kera­ often combined with gifts which give a NOTE 3 30 meikos,329 we cannot be absolutely cer­ female impression (lebes, mirror, jewellery, Ker. V II.1, no. 264 tain. In connection with mound “o” and female statuettes, soap, make-up and spin­ grave building “e”, an unusually fine dles). However, in one 5th cent, burial, a NOTE 331 bronze cauldron was found containing pyxis is combined i.a. with a terracotta Knigge 1988, 109. cremation ashes wrapped in fine silk.330 kline and a large number of astragals as n o t e 3 3 2 Homeric heroic associations are certainly grave gifts to a young man, whose name, Ker. VII.1, no. 465, no. striking, and the cauldron has been inter­ Lissos, was inscribed on a grave stele.335 In 466 preted as belonging to the famous Alkibi­ the 4th cent., an adult man was likewise ades.331 Finally, mound Q marked both an buried with - i.a. - a p yxis.336 T he pyxis in n o t e 3 33 Houby-Nielsen 1992 and adult burial and an amphora-burial,332 for itself is therefore not sex- or gender-spe­ in print. which reason it is highly likely that the cific, and the combination lekythoi and adult was a woman. It is here important to lydia was seen in Table 15 to be “neutral”. n o t e 3 3 4 note that an offering-trench was associated Ker. VII. 1, no. 520 therefore does not ex­ Ker. VII. 1 no. 520 with these two burials, a ritual which I press an immediately recognizable gender. NOTE 3 35 have argued was earlier connected with Schlorb-Vierneisel 1964. male burials.333

n o t e 3 3 6 Ker. XIV, no. 24/Eck 64.

172 Catalogue of burials ”

(For a definition o f age groups, see A ppendix 2.)

n o t e 33 7 Inhumation: Inhumation: I generally follow the datings of the exca­ Ker. V.l: G60 (710-680 B.C.), G61 (710- AM 1966:1: 13:20 (600 B.C.). vators and the corrections made by Knigge 680 B.C.); Ker. VI.1: LXXIV.74 (700-675 and W alter-Karydi 1974. In a few cases, B.C.); Ker. XII: 77: 6/Rb5 (700-675 B.C.), 700-580 B.C. the dates of burials were very broad. I have, adult?: 77: 5/R b 13B (700-675 B.C.). however, found it worthwhile to incorpo­ Primary cremation: rate these burials in the established periods Grave type not determinable: Ker. VI.1: LXX.70, LXXI.71, LXXII.72, on the grounds of average dating of highest Ker. VI.1: adult?: 1.1 (700-675 B.C.); Ker. LXXIII.73; Ker. XII: 78:9/Rb 15. and lowest date. These problematic burials XII: adult?: 77: 3/R b 16. are underlined in the catalogue. 6th cent. B.C. child graves, age 675-650 B.C.: groups 1-3

7th cent. B.C. Primary cremation: 600-575 B.C.: infant and child graves Ker. VI.1: VII.7 (660 B.C.), VIII.8 (670- 650 B.C.), X II.12 (660-650 B.C.); Ker. AGE GROUP 1: Inhumations: XII: 78:7/Rb 8; AA 1964: 441-442 (Abb. 28) (700-650 B.C.), 447-448 (Abb. 32) Urn-burials: 710/700-675 B.C: 1700-650 B.C.l. Ker. VI. 1: LIV/54 (600-575 B.C.); LX/60 Ker. V.l: G64, G65, G66, G68, G99, (580 B.C.) AM 1966:1: 21/hS 179 (600- G100; AA 1964, 441-442 (Abb. 29) (700- Inhumation: 575 B.C.); 22/hS 178 1600-550 B.C.l: 690 B.C.); 444 (Abb. 30) (700-675 B.C.). Ker. VI.1: IX.9 (665-660 B.C.); Ker. XII: 26/hS 126 (600-575 B.C.). adult?: 78:8/Rb9 (675-650 B.C.). 675-650 B.C: AGE G R O U P 2: Ker. VI.1: X.10 (660-650 B.C.); AM 650-625 B.C.: 1966:1: 12:17 1700-650 B.C.l. 13:18 1700- Inhumations: 650 B.C.l: AM 1975, 77: LZB1 (670-660 Primary cremation: Ker. VI. 1: XXXI/30 (simple) (600-590 B.C.); AA 1984, 32 no.6 (Abb. 11) (700- Ker. VI.1: XI. 11 (650-630 B.C.), XIV. 13 B.C.); XLIX/49 (wooden coffin)(590-580 650 B .C .l. (650-630 B.C.), XV. 14 (650-640 B.C.), B.C.); LXIX/69 (simple) (580 B.C.). XIX. 18 (630-625 B.C.), XXI.20 (650-630 650-625 B.C: B.C.), XXII.21 (630 B.C.), XXIV23 (650- AGE G R O U P 3?: Ker. VI.1: XVI.15 (630-620 B.C.), 630 B.C.), XLVI.46 (630-620 B.C.), XVII.16 (650-625 B.C.), XXIII.22 1650- LVI.56 (640-620 B.C.); AA 1964: 445-446 Ker. VI.1: LII/ 52 (simple) (590 B.C.), age 600 B .C .l. (Abb. 31) (650-625 B.C.); AM 1975, group uncertain. 160:169 (640-630 B.C.). 625-600 B.C: 575-560 B.C.: Ker. VI.1: XVIII.17 (600 B.C.); AM Grave type not determinable: 1966:1: 13:19 (625-600 B.C.). Ker. VI.1: adult?: XIII.13 (650 B.C.). AGE GROUP 1:

Cremation: AM 1966:1: 16:27 (625-575 B.C.). Finds presumably from an offering-trench: Urn-burials: AM 1975, 60-70, 1-1.7 (640-630 B.C.). Ker. VII.l: 363 (575-550 B.C.). Ker. IX: 7th cent, adult graves 1/SW 70 (575-560 B.C.). 625-600 B.C.: AGE G R O U P 2: 710/700-675 B.C: Primary cremation: Simple inhumations: VII.l: 329 (575-550 B.C.) Primary cremation: Ker. VI.1: XX.19 (610 B.C.), XXV.24 (600 K er. a g e u n c e r­ B.C.), XXIX.28 (610-600 B.C.), X L I I .4 2 tain; AM 1966:1: 24/hS 157 (575-550 Ker. VI.1: II.2 (710 B.C.), III.3 (710 B.C.), (600 B.C.). B.C.). IV.4 (690-680 B.C.), V.5 (680 B.C.), LXII.62 (690-680 B.C.). Crem ation: AM 1966:1: 23/hS 181 (575-550 B.C.)

173 AGE G R O U P 3: AGE GROUP 3: Various means of inhumation: Ker. VII. 1: remains of a kline?: p. 5-16, I* 0 Inhumations: (560-550 B.C.); p. 16, 2* (550 B.C.); p. 17, 560-535 B.C. Ker. VII.1: 472 (wooden coffin) (500 5 (550 B.C.); definite remains of a kline: B.C.); Ker. IX: 6/SW 68 (simple)(500 Ker. IX: 3/HW 87 (550-525 B.C.); remains AGE GROUP 1: B.C.) of a bier: Ker. VII.1: p.19, 10* (540-530 B.C.); wooden coffin: AM 1966:2: 210/hS Urn-burials: 227 (550-525 B.C.) Ker. VII. 1: 227 (550- Ker. VII. 1: 446 (550 B.C.); 449 (550 B.C.); TYPE OF BURIAL NOT KNOWN, 525 B.C.); 234 (540 B.C.); 243 (540 B.C.); AM 1966:1: 25/bS 171 (600-500 B.C.). PRESUMABLY CHILD GRAVE: 270 (540-530 B.C.); 478 (540 B.C.); Sim­ ple inhumations: Ker. VII.1: p. 16, 3* (540 AGE G R O U P 2: Ker. IX: E l5 (510-490 B.C.L B.C.);p. 17, 4* (540 B.C.); p. 18, 6* (540 B.C.); p. 18, 7* (540 B.C.); p. 18, 8* (540 Inhumation in wooden coffin: 6th cent. B.C. non-child graves, B.C.); p. 19, 9* (540 B.C.) (For the placing Ker. VII.1: 477 (550-540 B.C.). age group 4 of this burial among adults, see Appendix 2.) p. 20, 11 (540 B.C.); p. 20, 12 (540 AGE GROUP 3?: 600-575 B.C.: B.C.); 230* (540 B.C.); 613 (550 B.C.); AM 1966:1: 28/hS 104 (540-530 B.C.); Simple inhumation: Primary cremation burials: 29/hS 105 (540-530 B.C.); AM 1976: AM 1966:2: 211/229 (550-525 B.C.). Ker. VI.1: XXVI/25 (590 B.C.); 1/VECK 2 (550 B.C.); 2/VECK 4 (540- XXVII/26 (590 B.C.); XXVIII/27 (590- 530 B.C.); (For the placing of this burial 580 B.C.); XXX/29 (600-590 B.C.); among adults, see Appendix 2.) 17/VECK 535-510 B.C.: XXXII/31 (580 B.C.); XXXIII/32 (580 29 1600-500 B.C.L B.C.); XXXVII/36 (580-70 B.C.); * The burial in question was contained in a AGE GROUP 1: XXXVIII/37 (580-570 B.C); XXXIX/38 shaft grave, the walls of which were cov­ (590-580 B.C.); XL/40 (580-570 B.C.); ered with wooden boards. Urn-burials: XLIII/ 43 (590-580 B.C.); XLV/45 (580 Ker. VII.1: 21 (525-500 B.C.); 28 (550- B.C.); L/50 (580-570 B.C.); LI/51 (on a Means of interment not described: 500 B.C.); 47 (525-500 B.C.); Ker. IX: E2 bier) (580-570 B.C.); LIII/53 (580 B.C.); AA 1964: p. 443: Grave building B with an (525-500 B.C.); Prl (525-500 B.C.). LV/55 (590-580 B.C.); LVII/57 (580 offering-trench (540 B.C.). B.C.); LIX/59 (580 B.C.); LXIII/63 (580 AGE G R O U P 2: B.C.); LXIV/64 (580 B.C.); LXV/65 (580 Offering-place, the belonging grave not B.C.); LXVI/66 (580 B.C.); LXVII/67 known: 0 (580 B.C.); LXVIII/68 (580 B.C.). Ker. VII.1: 486 (550 B.C.); AA 1964, p. 462, Abb. 52 (550 B.C.). AGE G R O U P 3: Inhumations: Ker. VI.1: XXXIV/33 (bier)(580 B.C.); 535-510 B.C.: 0 XLVII/47 (wooden coffin) (600-590 B.C.); XLVIII/48 (wooden coffin) (600-580 Primary cremations: 510-500 B.C.: B.C.); LXI/61 (pithos) (600-575 B.C.). Ker. VII.1: 14 (520-510 B.C.); 337 (520 B.C.); Ker. IX: El (525-500); AA 1964: p. AGE GROUP 1: Offering-trench and -place, appurtenant 445: 4 warrior burials (shortly after 540 graves not known: B.C.); AM 1966:1: 30/hS 116 (530-520 Urn-burials: Ker. VI. 1: LXXV (590-580 B.C.) B.C.); 33/hS 128 (525-500 B.C); 35/hS Ker. VII.1: 241 (510-500 B.C.); 466 (510- ADelt 1964: 41, R (early 6th cent. B.C.). 119 (525-500 B.C.); AM 1976: 16/VECK 500 B.C.); Ker. IX: 5/HW 169 (510-500 13 (before 470 B.C.. probably still 6th cent. B.C.); 7/SW 108 (500 B.C.); 8/SW 109 575-560 B.C.: B.C). (500 B.C.); 9/SW 35 (500 B.C); 13/HW 100 (500 B.C.); 90/HW 99b (520-490 Primary cremations: Simple inhumations: B.C.); E8 (520-490 B.C): E ll (500 B.C.); Ker. VI.1: XXXV/34 (575-570 B.C.); Ker. VII.1: 299 (550-525 B.C.); AM Pr2 (500 B.C.); Pr3 (500 B.C.). XLI/41 (580-560 B.C.) Ker. VII: 226 1966:1: 32/hS 96 (530-20 B.C.); 34/hS (575-550 B.C.?); 228 6575-550 B.C.?-). 123 (525-500 B.C.); AM 1976: 18/VECK AGE GROUP 2: 27 date 6th to early 5th cent. B.C.): Inhumation in wooden coffin: 19/NECK 17 (550-480 B.C.). Basin-burials: Ker. VI.1: XXXVI/35 (570 B.C.). Ker. VII.1: 96 (500 B.C.); 174 (500 B.C.); Means of interment not described: Ker. IX: E10 (500 B.C.). 560-535 B.C.: AA 1964: p. 445 grave building Gamma (before the end of the 6th cent. B.C.). Inhumations: Primary cremations: Ker. VII.1: 173 (tile-cover) (500 B.C.); 452 Ker. VII.1: 229 (540 B.C.); 458 (550 B.C.); Offering-place, appurtenant grave not (simple) (500 B.C.); 470 (simple) (510 461 (550-525 B.C.); Ker. XII: 79, 14/ Rb known: B.C.). 12 (550-525 B.C.). Ker. VII.1: 450 (530-520 B.C.).

174 510-500 B.C.: 5th cent, burials have been published AM 1966:2 • 33Q in the following publications:' U. Knigge, II. Graber hS 205-230, AM 81, Primary cremations: 1966, 112-135. Ker. VII.1: 565 (510 B.C.); Ker. IX: AA 1964 4/HW 65 (520-500 B.C.); 10/HW 195 K. Vierneisel, Die Ausgrabungen im Kera­ AM 1976 (500 B.C.); E5 (500 B.C.). meikos, AA 1964, 420-467. B. von Freytag gen. Loringhoffi, Archaische Inhumations in a wooden coffin: und Klassische Grabfunde auf dem Hang Ker. VII.1: p. 23, 4 (500 B.C.); 239 (510 AA 1972 nordlich der “Eckterrasse” im Kerameikos, B.C.); 475 (500 B.C.); 520 (510-500 B.C.). U. Knigge, Untersuchungen bei den Ge- AM 91, 1976, 31-61. sandtstelen im Kerameikos zu Athen, AA Plain inhumations: 1972, 584-629. Ker. VII. 1 Ker. VII. 1: p. 23, 5 (500 B.C.); p. 23, 6 K. Kiibler, Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der (500 B.C.); 18 (510-500 B.C.); 41 (510- AA 1974 Ausgrabungen. Die Nekropole der Mitte 500 B.C.); 43 (500 B.C.); 217 (510-500 U. Knigge - B. von Freytag gen. des 6. bis Ende des 5. Jhs., Bd. VII. T .l, B.C.); 546 (510-500 B.C.); 565 (500 B.C.); Loringhoffi, Die Ausgrabungen im Kera­ 1976, Berlin. Ker. IX: 12/HW 148 (500 B.C.); 15/HW meikos. Tatigkeitsbericht 1973/74, AA 48 (500 B.C.); AM 1966:1: 36/hS 129 1974, 181-198. Ker. IX (500 B.C.). U. Knigge, Sudhugel. Kerameikos. Ergeb­ AA 1975 nisse der Ausgrabungen, Bd. IX, 1976, Means of interment not described (perhaps U. Knigge - B. von Freytag gen. Berlin. rather child graves): Loringhoffi, Kerameikos. Tatigkeitsbericht Ker. IX: E3 (500 B.C.); E4 (500 B.C.); E7 1973/74, AA 1975, 456-468. Ker. XII U. Knigge, Der Rundbau am Er­ (500 B.C.); E15 (510-490 B.C.). idanos. Mit Beitragen von B. Boben und AM 1964 W. Koenigs, In: W. Koenigs - U. Knigge - B. Schlorb-Vierneisel, Zwei Klassische A. Mallwitz, Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Kindergraber im Kerameikos, AM 79, Ausgrabungen. Rundbauten im Keramei­ n o t e 3 3 8 1964, 85-104. kos, Bd. XII, 1980, Berlin. Since 5th cent, burials are mostly well pub­ lished in the shape of catalogues and gener­ AM 1966:1 ally present no dating problems, I see no B. Schlorb-Vierneisel, Eridanos - Nekro- point in giving a detailed catalogue of these pole I. Graber und Opferstellen hS 1-204, around 1,100 burials. AM 81, 1966, 4-111.

175 Appendix 1

Survey of forms of interment of undated graves

Many of the graves published in Ker. VII.1, IX, lack of grave gifts. They therefore do not figure in XII, AM 1966 and 1976 could either not be dated my study, except for Fig. 7 and Tables 1, 2 and 3. more accurately than to the 5th cent., or could not be dated at all due to poor state of preservation and Forms of interment:

FORMS OF INTmM ENT^ ADULT CHILD AGE UNKNOWN

Amphora-burials 0 56 0 Other urn-burials (hydria.pithos cooking-pot) 0 4 2 Basin-burials 0 26 0 Inhumation, simple 29 6 88 Inhumation, coffin 8 2 3 Inhumation, tile-cover 5 4 3 Inhumation, shaft grave 0 0 3 Cremation in pit or shaft grave 59* 0 0 Not described 0 0 13

Total 101 98 112

N O . O F GRAVES: 311

* For the likelihood that cremation burials are adult burials, see Appendix 3.

I76 Appendix 2

Criteria for the definition of age groups

NOTE 3 3 9 AGE G R O U PS 1 A N D 2: dition which caused slow growth. Natural­ Ker. IX, 20. One urn-burial of the “Eck- Very few burials have been anthropologi­ ly, however, many children were grossly terrasse” has been anthropolgically deter­ cally age-determined. Normally, the age is undersized, owing to chronic illness, for mined as containing remains of a 0-1 simply described in terms of “new-born”, which reason even much older children month old baby (Ker. XIV, p. 58 no. “small” and “bigger child”, and “adult”. In could be buried in these basins, as is obvi­ 56/Eck 48). the present study, I have defined age groups ously the case in Ker. IX, 40/HW 111 and 1 and 2 according to the statement of the 289/HW 35, since the length of the skele­ n o t e 3 40 excavator of the child-necropolis of ton was respectively 99 and 86 cm, and the Ker. IX, 196/SW2, 289/HW 35 Sudhugel, U. Knigge, that urns (mostly am­ age determination respectively 5 and 6 phorae) served as coffins for new-born ba­ years old. NOTE 341 bies, while terracotta-basins served as cof­ Ker. IX, 64/SW 149 fins for bigger children.339 Since the length AGE G R O U P 3: of the basins in most cases is 80-95 cm, and In this group I have placed all inhumation- n o t e 342 since in two instances the length of the burials in which the length of the grave-pit I thank Elisabeth Iregren for helping me to child is described as 80 and 86 cm 340 (in or coffin was between approximately 1 m find these studies. one case, however, 137 cm ),341 I have also and 1.50 nr and/or the length of the skele­ placed burials in simple pits or coffins the ton mesured between 1 m and 1.35 m. n o t e 3 4 3 length o f which is less than or equal to ap­ Prokopec et al. 1982, 121, fig. 2; Greil & proximately 1 m in age group 2, likewise AGE G R O U P 4: Som m er 1988, 223, fig. 1. burials of skeletons the length of which is In this study “adults” are defined as “non­ less than or equal to approximately 1 m. children”. That is “adults” are defined as all NOTE 3 4 4 Owing to the poor number of age-de- those burials which could not be placed in Therefore the burial which contained a ternnned child skeletons, I have used the age group 1-3. Thus “adults” are all burials 1.55 m long skeleton and which was de­ length of the basins as a general indicator of in which the length of the grave is equal to scribed by the excavators as “Kindergrab” the upper age limit for children buried in or exceeds 1.50 m and/or in which the (AM 1976, 41, 2-1), has here been treated such basins. The 1.37 m long skeleton length of the skeleton is equal to or ex­ as adult. mentioned above seems to represent a rare ceeds 1.35 m.344 It should be noted, how­ example of a much bigger child being ever, that almost all skeletons of which the NOTE 34 5 squeezed into a basin. In most cases the length was preserved measured well over Bisel in Ker. XIV 159, table 7. child is described as lying in the supine po­ 1.50 m; exceptions are mentioned below. sition in the basin. In the absence of studies From anthropological examinations of n o t e 3 4 6 on average stature of children in antiquity, I Classical skeletal remains we get the follow­ Bennike 1985, 49-53, esp. fig. 15. have turned to early modern and recent ing average stature for women and men: studies. This comparison seems justified, since the average stature for adult women “Ecktenasse” in Kerameikos: and men in Classical Greece does not lie The average stature of adult women was significantly below the one from early 159.2 cm. (In the rest of Greece in Helle­ modern times (see below). In all studies I nistic times it was 156.4 cm.) And the aver­ have come across,342 the highest age of age stature of adult men was 171.3 cm. (In healthy children of both sexes in modern the rest of Greece in Hellenistic times it Europe having an average stature of was 171.9 cm.).345 between 85-100 cm is 3-4 years.343 The Other studies have produced the fol­ height of children from the same countries lowing average stature: aged 6 years was between little less than 110 cm and approximately 118 cm, and Denmark between Mesolithic times and 1850: going back to 1895, the stature of Czech The average stature for women was in boys aged 6 years was 110 cm. Compared all periods between 154.0 cm and 163.7 with such studies the basins seem best fitted cm, and for men between 161.5 cm. and as a coffin for children aged maximum 4 177.4 cm.341 years, if the reason for death was not a con­

177 The Medieval population of St. Stefan in Lund, were considered sexually mature.349 Girls NOTE 347 Sweden: and boys aged more than 12-14 years, the Persson 1981, 155 table 4. The average stature of women aged 20 ephebs and young unmarried girls, are or m ore belonging to different social classes mixed with the “adult” burials. Two such NOTE 34 8 was between 159.8 and 163.8 cm and for cases may be AM 1966, 119, 210/hS 227 Exceptions to this rule from the 6th-5th men, likewise aged 20 or more and belong­ in which the length of the skeleton meas­ cent.: AM 1966:1: 23/hS 181; 54/hS 170: ing to different social classes, was between ured 150 cm, and AM 1976, 41, 2/VEck 79/hS 151 (adolescent); Ker. VII.1: grave 171.4 and 175.4 cm.347 4, mentioned above, since the excavators 568; the following undated graves: 106; calls the burial a “ child grave” , but the 141; 143; 154; 231; 233; 500. Since as a rule small children seldom seem length of the skeleton is close to that of to have been cremated348, ashurns and all adults (155 cm). A third case is no doubt NOTE 3 49 primary cremation burials in pits or shaft- Ker. VII.1, 19 no. 9. Here the approximate Deissmann-Merten 1986, 269. graves have been defined as adult burials. length of the skeleton (110 cm) - which From this survey of age-group defini­ had turned to dust - points towards a child. NOTE 3 50 tions and average stature of men and wom­ However, Kubler mentions this burial in Ker. V II.1, 176 en in antiquity and pre-industrial societies, his chapter on adult burials,350 and later on it becomes obvious that adolescents are in­ Kubler describes the state of preservation of NOTE 351 visible in the present study. The age groups this and other skeletons as very poor and Ker. V II.1, 177 1 -3 seem to represent childhood until describes no. 9 as “jugendlich”, an adjec­ about 12 years. Thus it may be held that tive which normally indicates a person 14- they mirror ancient Greek perception of 18 years old.381 An analysis o f the composi­ childhood, according to which it ended tion of grave gifts may, however, lead to the rather abruptly for boys at the age of 14 identification of more adolescent burials, and for girls at the age of 12, when both but is outside the scope of this study.

178 Appendix 3

Categories of grave gifts for children in the 6th and 5 th cent. B.C.

OBJECT CATEGORY 600-510 B.C 510-500 B.C 500-400 B.C

Lekythoi XXX

Drinking-, eating-, and pouring vases cup XXX goblet X X kantharos X kotyle X XX m ug X skyphos ix X X kylix X Rheneia cup X “Kelchgefass” X bowl skyphos X bow l XX X plate X ju g XXX oinochoe ■X X

Special child-vases “Saugtasse” X “Schnabelt” X X “Siebtasse” X one-handler X child-jug X chous X olpe (small) X X

Terracottas Sirene X Silene X bird X boar X cock X d°g X m onkey X Pig X pigeon X horse X

179 OBJECT ( ATEGORY 600-510 B.C 510-500 B.C 500-400 B.C

seated woman x statuette (?) x kore X female doll X mourning woman X rider X boy X child (sex?) X pomegranate X egg X kline X basket X lamp X

5. Pyxis lekanis

6. Various bones from animals and birds... unidentifiable objects of glass wood, iron, bronze and gold... x x omphalos x x seal x scarab x small pan x chytra x cooking-pot x am phora x pelike x

7. Toys astragals x ball x bell x phormiskos1 x NOTE 1 For the identification of 8. Perfume vases the phormiskos as a con­ tainer for astragals, see x small bottle Hampe 1976, 192. ring askos x amphoriskos x x alabastron x arybal x exaleiptron x k othon x

9. Personal greasy substance (soap?)... x soap x m ake-up x

180 OBJECT CATEGORY 600-5JO B.C 510-500 B.C 500-400 B.C

kalathos ' : ~1; ” x lebes x arrow-head ■ x needle or pin x strigil x

10. Jewellery arm-ring ' x ring(s) x x ear-ring(s) ' x ear-pearl x bead(s) and pearl(s) ; X

181 Appendix 4

Categories of grave gifts for children in relation to age groups of the 5 th cent. B.C.

OBJECT CATEGORY ; AGE AGE AGE AGE G R O U P 1 G R O U P 2 G R O U P 3 G R O U P 4

1. Lekythoi X XX X

2. Drinking-, eating-, and pouring-vases cup XXX X goblet XX XX kantharos XXX X kotyle XX XX m ug XX skyphos X XXX kylix XX X Rheneia cup X X X “Kelchgefass” X bowl skyphos X bowl XXX X plate XX X ju g XXX X oinochoe XXX ’ X

3. Special child vases “Saugtasse” XX “Schnabeltasse” XX “Siebtasse” XX one-handler XX X child ju g X chous XX olpe XXX

4. Terracottas sirene X silene XX bird XXX boar XX

cock X X dog XX m onkey XX Pig X pigeon X

182 OBJECT CATEGORY AGE AGE AGE AGE GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP 3 GROUP 4

horse x x x hare : x seated woman x x x x statuette x x x kore x female doll x mourning woman x rider x male figure ! x negro head x boy x x child (sex?) x pomegranate x egg x x kline x basket * x lam p • x x stool x

5. Pyxis x x x x lekanis x x

6. Toys astragals x x x x ball x x bell x phormiskos x shell x x x

7. Perfume vases askos x amphoriskos i x x alabastron x x x exaleiptron x x kothon x . x guttus x lydion x

8. Various (Personal) greasy substance (soap?) x x soap ; x x make-up x x x m irror x x Ichcs ...... ,...... x ...... _ x kalathos x needle or pin x ; x x x spindel-whorl x

183 . '(.HOLT 1 (,KOUI*2 CIU)UIM GROUP 4

strigil XXX knife X w eapon X arrow -head XX (Jewellery) ring(s) X X XX ear-ring(s) X eye-p earls XX bead(s) and pearl(s) XX (Various vases and objekts) small pan XX chytra X X cooking-pot X am phora XXX hydria X psykter X small crater X omphalos XXXX offerings-plates XX pelike X curse tablet X box X unidentified objekts of wood, glass, iron, bronze and gold... XX bones from animals and birds XXX

184 Bibliography

Adkins, A.W.H. 1960 Boardnran, J. 1988 Charneux, P. 1956 Merit and Responsibility. London. Sex Differentiation in Grave Vases, A nnO r- Inscriptions d'Argos, BCH 80, 598-618. Nap X, 171-179. Alexandris, O. 1969 Clairmont, C.W. 1983 KeipaAi EitiTopBiou avayXtxpou, AAA 1, Boardman.J. 1990 Patrios Nomos. Public Burials in Athens 89-93. Symposion Furniture, in O.Murray (ed.) during the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. 1990, 122-131. (= B A R International Series 161 (i)). O x ­ Arcini, C. 1992 ford. Skillnader i alders- och konsfordeling i Borbein, A.H. 1989 populationen pa medeltidiga kyrkogarder i Tendenzen der Stilgeschichte der bildenden Clinton, K. 1974 Skane, META 1-2, 44-61. Kunst und politisch-soziale Entwicklungen The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian zwischen Kleisthenes und Perikles, in W.- Mysteries, (= Transactions of the American Austin, M.M. and Vidal-Naquet, P. Schuller et al. 1987, 91-106. Philosophical Society held at Philadelphia Economic & Social History of Ancient for promoting useful knowledge, New Se­ Greece: an Introduction. 2nd rev. ed., Lon­ Bourriot, F. 1976 ries vol. 64,3). Philadelphia. don. Recherches sur la nature du genos. Etude d’histoire sociale Athenienne. Periodes ar- Conze, A. 1890-1922 Bennike, P. 1985 chaique et classique. Paris. Die attischen Grabreliefs. Berlin. Palaeopathology of Danish Skeletons. A Comparative Study of Demography, Dis­ Brenrnrer, J.N. 1990 D ’Agostino, B. & D ’Onofrio, A-M. 1993 ease and Injury. Copenhagen. Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty, in Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of O. Murray (ed.) 1990, 135-148. the Greek City-state by I.Morris, Gnomon Beazley, J.D. 1927/28 65:1, 41-51. Aryballos, BSA 29, 187-215 Brock, R . 1991 The Emergence ofDemocratic Ideology, Daube, D. 1977 Berard, C. et al. 1989 Historia XL:2, 160-169. The Duty of Procreation, Proceedings of A City of Images. Iconography and Society the Classical Association LXXIV, 10-25. in Ancient Greece. (English translation of Brooklyn, J.P. 1981 “Cite des Images”), Princeton. Attic Black-Figure Funerary Plaques. Diss. Davies, J.K. 1971 Univ. of Iowa. Athenian Propertied Families. Oxford. Bergquist, B. 1990 Sympotic Space: A Functional Aspect of Brook Manville, P. 1990 Day, J.W. 1989 Greek Dining-rooms, in O. Murray (ed.) The Origins of Citizenship in Ancient Rituals in Stone: Early Greek Grave Epi­ 1990, 37-65. Athens. Princeton. grams and Monuments, JHS CIX, 16-28.

Binford, L. 1971 Brueckner, A. 1909 Deissnrann-Merten, M. 1986 Mortuary Practices: their Study and Poten­ Der Friedhofanr Eridanos. Berlin. Zur Sozialgeschichte des Kindes im antiken tial, in J. Brown (ed.), Approaches to the Grichenland, in J.Martin and A. Nitschke Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, B urkert, W. 1985 (eds.), Zur Sozialgeschichte der Kindheit, (= Memoirs of the Society for the Ameri­ Greek Religion. Archaic and Classical. 2nd (= Historische Antropologie 4), Freiburg, can Archaeological Society 25). rev. ed. Oxford. 1986, 267-316.

Boardman,J. 1955 Carson, A. 1990 Desborough, V.R. d’A. 1952 Painted Funerary Plaques and Some R e­ Putting Her in Her Place: Woman, Dirt, Protogeometric Pottery. Oxford. marks on Prothesis, BSA L, 51-66. and Desire, in D .M .H alperin et al. (eds.) 1990, 135- 169.

I 85 D onlan, W. 1970 Garland, R. 1989 Hampe, R . 1951 Changes and Shifts in the Meaning of De­ The Well-Ordered Corpse: an Investiga­ Die Stele von Pharsalos im Louvre, BWPr mos in the Literature of the Archaic Pe­ tion into the Motives behind Greek Funer­ 107. riod, PP CXXXV, 381-395. ary Legislation, B1CS 36, 1-15. Hampe, R. 1976 Donlan, W. 1973 Garland, R. 1990 Tonerner Phormiskos aus Metapont, AA The origin of kalos k’agathos, AJPh 94, The Greek Way of Life: From Conception 192-202. 365-374. to Old Age. London. Hanfmann, G.M.A. 1983 D onlan, W. 1980 Gejwall, N.-G. 1960 Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. The Aristocratic Ideal in Ancient Greece. Westerhus. Medieval Population and Results of Archaeological Exploration of Lawrence, Kansas. Church in the Light of Skeletal! Remains. Sardis 1958-75. Cambridge Mass. London. Lund. D ’Onofno, A.M. 1982 Hannestad, L. 1988 Korai e kouroi funerari Attici, AnnOrNap Geniere, J. de la 1982 The Athenian Potter and the Home Mar­ IV, 135-170. Asie mineure et Occident. Quelques con­ ket, in J.Christiansen and T. Melander siderations, PP 37, 163-181. (eds.),Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium Dover, K.J. 1973 on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behav­ Geniere, J. de la 1984 Copenhagen August 31-September 4 1987, ior, Arethusa 6, 59-73. “Parfumes comme Cresus”. De l’origine Copenhagen, 222-230. du lecythe attique, BCH CVIII, 91-98. Dover, K.J. 1978 Hannestad, L. 1992 Greek Homosexuality. London. Gericke, H. 1970 Athenian Pottery in Corinth c. 600-470 Gefassdarstellungen auf Griechischen Va- B.C, ActaArch 62, 151-163. Ducat, J. 1976 sen. Berlin. Fonctions de la statue dans la Grece Hansen, M.H. 1990 archai'que: kouros et Kolossos, BCH C, Gero, J.M . & Conkey, M.W. (eds.) 1991 Solonian Democracy in Fourth-Century 239-251. Engendering Archaeology. Women and Athens, in W.R. Connor et al. (eds.), As­ Prehistory. Oxford and Cambridge Mass. pects of Athenian Democracy (= ClMedi- Eckstein, F. 1958 aev Dissertationes XI), Copenhagen, 71- Die attischen Grabmalergesetze, Jdl 73, 18- Golden, M. 1988 99. 29. Did the Ancients Care When their Chil­ dren died? GaR XXXV:2, 152-163. Hansen, M.H. 1991 Fehr, B. 1971 The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Orientalische und Griechische Gelage. Greil, H. & Sommer, K. 1988 Demosthenes: Structure, Principles and Bonn. Aktuelle Norm- und Richtwerte von Ideology. Oxford. Korperhohe und Korpermasse in der Freytag, gen. Loringhoff, B. von 1975 DDR, Wiss. Zeitschrift der Humboldt- Hansen, M .H . et al. 1990 Neue Friihattische Funde aus dem Kera­ Universitat zu Berlin, R. Med.37:2, 222- The Demography of the Attic Denies. The meikos, AM 90, 49-81. 227. Evidence of the Sepulchral Inscriptions, AnalRom XIX, 25-44. Garland, R. 1982 Halperin, D.M. et al. (eds.) 1990 A First Catalogue of Attic Peribolos Before Sexuality. The Construction of Herman, G. 1987 Tombs, BSA 77, 125-175. Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek Ritualized Friendship in the Greek City. World. Princeton. Cambridge. Garland, R. 1985 The Greek Way of Death. London. Halverson, J. 1985 The Social Order of the Odyssey, Hermes 113, 129-145.

186 Herzfeld, M. 1986 Houby-Nielsen, S. (in print) Knigge, U. 1988 Within and Without: The Category of The Role of Burial Rites in late 8th and Der Kerameikos von Athen. Fiihrung “Female” in the Ethnography of Modern 7th Cent. B.C. Kerameikos, in: R. Hagg durch Ausgrabungen und Geschichte. Greece, in: J.Dubisch (ed.), Gender & (ed.), The Role of Religion in the Early Athen. Power in Rural Greece, Princeton, 215- Greek Polis. Third International Seminar 233. on Ancient Greek Cult. Swedish Institute Knigge, U. & Walter-Karydi, E. 1974 at Athens 16-18 October 1992. Kerameikos Bd. 6 T.2 (Karl Kiibler) 1970, H odder, I. 1985 Gnomon 46, 198-208. Postprocessual Archaeology, in: M.B.Schif- Humphreys, S.C. 1980 fer (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Family Tombs and Tomb-cult in Ancient Koch-Harnack, G. 1983 Method and Theory vol.8, 1-26, New Athens, JHS 100, 96-126. Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke. Ihre Be- York. deutung im paderasdschen Erziehungssys- Humphreys, S.C. 1983 tem Athens. Berlin. Hodder, I. 1986 Oikos and Polis, in: S.C. Humphreys, The Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Family, Women and Death (International Kolb, F. 1977 Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge. Library of Anthropology), London, 1-21. Die Bau-, Religions- und Kulturpolitik der Peisistratiden, Jdl 92, 99-138. Hoffmann, G. 1988 Jantzen, U. 1963 La jeune fille et la mort: quelques steles a Archaische Grabstele von der Pnyx, AA, Kokula, G. 1984 epigramme, AnnOrNap X, 73-82. 431-439. Marmorlutrophoren, (= AM Beiheft 10), Berlin. Hoffmann, H. 1977 Jeffery, L.H. 1962 Sexual and Asexual Pursuit: a Structualist The Inscribed Gravestones of Archaic At­ Krause, G. 1975 Approach to Greek Vase-Painting, with a tica, BSA 57, 115-153. Untersuchungen zu den altesten Nekropo- foreword by Sir Edmund Leach. (= Occa­ len am Eridanos in Athen, (= HBA Beiheft sional Papers of the Royal Anthropological Johansen, K. Friis 1951 3.2-1), Hamburg. Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, no. The Attic Grave-reliefi. An Essay in Interpre­ 34.) tation o f the Classical Period. Copenhagen. Kreuzer, B. 1992 Friihe Zeichner 1500-500 v.Chr. Hofsten, E. & Lundstrom, H. 1976 Just, R. 1991 (1989) Agyptische, Griechische und Etruschische Swedish Population History: Main Trends Women in Athenian Law and Life. (Paper­ Vasenfragmente der Sammlung H.A. Cahn, from 1750-1970 (Urval. Skriftserie utgiven back), London - New York. ed. by V.M. Strocka. Basel Waldkirch. av statistiska centralbyran 8) Kallipolitis, V.G. 1969 Kiibler, K. 1973 Hopkins, K. 1983 Une stele archaique, AAA 3, 394-397. Eine archaische Grabanlage vor dem Heili­ Death and Renewal (= Sociological Stud­ gen Tor und ihre Deutung, AA 172-193. ies in Roman History 2). Cambridge. Keuls, E.C. 1985 The Reign of the Phallus. New York. Kurtz, D.C. 1988 H oorn, G. van 1951 Mistress and Maid, AnnOrNap X, 141- Choes and Anthesteria. Leiden. Knigge, U. 1972 149. Untersuchungen bei den Gesandtenstelen Houby-Nielsen, S. 1992 im Keramikos zu Athen, AA, 584-629. Kurtz, D.C. & Boardman, J. 1971 Interaction between Chieftains and Citi­ Greek Burial Customs. London. zens? 7th Cent. B.C. Burial Customs in Knigge, U. 1983 Athens, ActaHyb 4, 343-374. Ein Jtinglingskopf vom Heiligen Tor in Lauter, H. 1985a Athen, AM 98, 45-56. Der Kultplatz auf dem Turkovuni, (= Mdl Beiheft 12). Berlin.

I 87 Lauter, H. 1985b Mellink, M.J. 1974 North, H. 1966 Lathuresa. Beitrage zur Architektur und Archaeology in Asia Minor. Karaburun, Sophrosyne. Selfknowledge and Selfres­ Siedlungsgeschichte in Spatgeometrischer AJA 78, 355-359. traint in Greek Literature. New York. Zeit (= Attische Forschungen II). Mainz. Meyer, M. 1988 Ober,J. 1989 Lind, H. 1988 Manner mit Geld. Zu einer rotfigurigen Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Ein Hetarenhaus am Heiligen Tor? Der Vase m it “Alltagsszene”, Jdl 103, 87-125 Princeton. Athener Bau Z und die bei Isaios (6,20f.) erwiihnte Synoikia Euktemons, MusHelv M orris, I. 1987 Oliva, P. 1988 45, 158-169. Burial and Ancient Society. The Rise of Solon - Legende und Wirklichkeit, (— X e­ the Greek City-state. Cambridge. nia, Konstanzer Althistorische Vortrage und Lissarraque, F. 1990 Forschungen. Herausgegeben von Wolf­ The Sexual Life of Satyrs, in: D.M. Halpe- Morris, 1. 1989 gang Schuller. Heft 20). Konstanz. rin et al. (eds.) 1990, 53-81. Attitudes toward Death in Archaic Greece, Cl Ant 8:2, 296-321. Papapostolou, I.A. 1966 Lissarraque, F. & Schnapp, A. 1981 AvayAutpo and xr) BsAavtSe^a, ADelt 21, Iniagerie des Grecs ou Grece des imagiers? M orns, I. 1992 A, 103-115. in: Le temps de la reflexion 2, 275-297. Death-rituals and Social Structures in Clas­ sical Antiquity. Cambridge. Patterson, C. 1985 Littman, R.J. 1978 “Not Worth the Rearing”: the Causes of Kinship in Athens, Ancient Society 9, 5- Murray, O. 1983a Infant Exposure in Ancient Greece, Trans- 31. The Greek Symposium in History, in: E. actAmPhilAss 115, 103-123. Gabba (ed.), Tria Corda, Scritti in onore di Loeschcke, A. 1879 Arnaldo Montigliano, Come, 257-272. Peek, W. 1955 Altattische Grabstelen, AM 4, 36-44. Griechische Vers-Inschriften. Berlin. Murray, O. 1983b Loraux, N. 1981 The Symposion as Social Organisation, in: Peek, W. 1960 Le lit, la guerre, L’Homme XXI(l), 37-67. R.Hagg (ed.), 1983, 195-199. Griechische Grabgedichte. Berlin.

Loraux, N. 1986 Murray, O. 1990 Persson, E. & Persson, O. 1981 The Invention of Athens, translated by The Affair of the Mysteries: Democracy Medeltidsfolket fran kvarteret Repslagaren, Alan Sheridan. Cambridge Mass. - Lon­ and the Drinking Group, in Murray (ed.) in: A.W. Martensson, S:t Stefan i Lund. Et don. 1990, 149-161. monument ur tiden, Lund, 151-169.

Loraux, N. 1991 Murray, O. 1990 (ed.) Pfohl, G. 1966 Tragic Ways of Killing a Woman, translated Sympotica. A Symposium on the Sympo­ Griechische Inschriften als Zeugnisse des by Anthony Forster. Cambridge Mass. - sion. Oxford. privaten und offentlichen Lebens. London. M iinchen. Muller, C. 1990 Mastrokostas, E. 1972 Kindheit und Jugend in der griechischen Pfuhl, E. & Mobius, H. 1977 H Kopn thpaoiKAsia Apiaxfwvoq xou Friihzeit. Eine Studie zur padagogischen Die ostgriechischen Grabreliefs. Mainz. Ilapi'ou Kca Koupoq pappaptvoq Bedeutung von Riten und Kulten. Giessen. av£KaAu

1 88 Pomeroy, S.B. 1975 Schmitt Pantel, P. 1990b Shapiro, H.A. 1991 Goddesses, W hores, Wives, and Slaves. Sacrificial Meal and Symposion: Two The Iconography of Mourning in Athe­ N ew York. Models of Civic Institutions in the Archaic nian Art, AJA 95, 629-656. City? in: O. Murray (ed.) 1990, 14-33. Prokopec, M . et al. 1982 Sinn, U. 1983 The Comparison of Growth Values in Schnntt Pantel, P. 1992 Beobachtungen zum “Realismus” in der Czech Children and Adolescents Ascer­ La cite au Banquet. Histoire des repas pub­ Grossplastik des 6. Jhs. v.Chr., AM 98, 25- tained in 1971 on a Nationwide Scale with lics dans les cites grecques (Collection de 43. Corresponding Data from Abroad, in: Und l’Ecole Francaise de Rome 157). Rome. Anthropological Congress of Ales Hrdlicka Snell, B. 1965 - Universitas Carolina, Praque, 119-122. Schneider, L.A. 1975 Dichtung und Gesellschaft. Hamburg. Zur sozialen Bedeutung der archaischen Reilly, J. 1989 Korenstatuen, (=Hamburger Beitrage zur Snodgrass, A.M. 1977 Many Brides. “Mistress and Maid” on Archaologie Beiheft 2). Hamburg. Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek Athenian Lekythoi, Hesperia 58, 411-444. State. Cambridge. Schreibler, I. 1964 Rhodes, P.J. 1986 Exaleiptra, Jdl LXXIX, 72-108. Snodgrass, A.M. 1987 Political Activity in Classical Athens, JHS An Archaeology of Greece. The Present CVI, 132-144. Schreibler, I. 1983 State and Future Scope of a Discipline. Griechische Topferkunst. Herstellung, Berkeley. Richter, G.M.A. 1961 Handel und Gebrauch der antiken The Archaic Gravestones of Attica. Lon­ Tongefasse. Miinchen. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1987 don. A Series of Erotic Pursuit: Images and Schuller, W. et al., 1989 Meanings, JHS CVII, 131-153. Rosivach, V.J. 1988 Demokratie und Architektur. Der hippod- The Tyrant in Athenian Democracy, amische Stadtebau und die Entstehung der Stahl, M. 1987 QUCC 30:3, 43-61. Demokratie. Miinchen. Aristokraten und Tyrannen im archaischen Athen: Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferung, Ruschenbusch, E. 1966 Schulz, B.J. 1981 zur Sozialstruktur und zur Entstehung des Solonos Nomoi. Wiesbaden. Bezeichnungen und Selbstbezeichnungen Staates. Stuttgart. der Aristokraten und Oligarchen in der Saxe, A.A. 1970 griechischen Literatur von Homer bis Aris- Stais, B. 1890a Social Dimension of Mortuary Practices. toteles, in: E.C. Welskopf (ed.), Soziale Ty- AvaoKCKpai lupfloiv ev ’AcxiKrj, ADelt 6, Ph.D. diss. Univ. o f Michigan, A nn Arbor. penbegriffe im alten Griechenland und ihr 16-28, 49, 100, 105-113. Fortleben in den Sprachen der Welt, Bd.3, Schlorb-Vierneisel, B. 1964 Berlin, 67-156. Stais, B. 1890b Zwei klassische Kindergraber im Keramei­ ’O xojiBoq ev Boupfla, AM 15, 318-329. kos, AM 79, 85-104. Sellevold, B. Jansen et al, 1984 Iron Age Man in Denmark. Prehistoric Stais, B. 1891 Schmitt Pantel, P. 1990a Man in Denmark, Vol.III. Copenhagen. Ile p i tcov ev Bupi] avaoKaqxov, ADelt 7, Collective activities and the political in the 28-32. Greek city, in: O.Murray and S.Price (eds.), Shapiro, H.A. 1989 The Greek City from Homer to Alexan­ Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens. Steuben, H. von 1989 der, Oxford, 199-213. Mainz. Die Agora des Kleisthenes - Zeugnis eines radikalen Wandels? in: WSchuller et al. (eds.) 1989, 81-87.

189 Steuernagel, D. 1991 Verilhac, A.-M. 1985 Willemsen, F. 1963 Der gute Staatsbiirger: zur Interpretation L’image de la femme dans les ‘epigrammes Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der Athener des Kuros, Hephaistos 10, 35-48. funeraires grecques, in: La femme dans le Stadtmauer, AM 78, 104-153. monde mediterraneen I. Antiquite sous de Stroud, R. 1978 direction d’A.-M. Verilhac (Travaux de la Willemsen, F. 1977 The Axones and Kyrbeis of Drakon and maison de l’Orient nr. 10), Lyon. Zu den Lakedamoniergrabern im Keramei­ Solon, (= Classical Studies vol.19). Berke­ kos, AM 92, 117-157 ley. Vernant, J.-P. 1982 Myth and Society in Ancient Greece Young, R.S. 1942 Stromberg, A. 1993 (translated from the French by Janet Lloyd). Graves from the Phaleron Cemetery, AJA Male or Female? A Methodological Study London. 46, 23-57. of Grave Gifts as Sexindicators in Iron Age Burials from Athens. Jonsered. Vierneisel, K. 1964 Young, R.S. 1951 Die Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos, AA, Sepulturae intra urbem, Hesperia 20, 67- Stupperich, R. 1977 420-467. 134. Staatsbegrabnis und Privatgrabmal im Klas- sischen Athen. Diss. Munster. Vlavianou-Tsaliki, A. 1981 Young, R.S. 1981 AvaoKa

190 AA 1984 AG Ker. XII U. Knigge, Kerameikos. Tatigkeitsbericht Anthologia Graecia, H. Beckby(edt.),1957. U.Knigge, Der Rundbau am Eridanos. Mit 1982, AA 1984, 27-35. Beitragen von B.Bohen und W. Koenigs, A D elt 1963 in: W.Koenigs - U.Knigge - A.Mallwitz, Agora XXIII K. Vierneisel, Kerameikos-Grabung. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. M.B. Moore & M.Z. Pease Philippides, Nekropole. ADelt 18, 1963, 27-30. Rundbauten im Kerameikos, Bd. XII. The Athenian Agora. Results of Excava­ 1980, Berlin. tions by the American School of Classical A D elt 1964 Studies at Athens. Attic Black-Figured Pot­ K.Vierneisel, Die Ausgrabungen in Kera­ Ker. XIV tery. Vol. X X III. meikos 1963, ADelt 19, 1964, 38-42. W.Kovacsovics, Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Die Eckterrasse im Grabbe- AM 1964 Corinth XIII zirk des Kerameikos, Bd. XIV 1990. Ber­ B. Schlorb-Vierneisel, Zwei klassische C.W. Blegen - H.Palmer - R.S.Young, The lin. Kindergraber im Kerameikos, AM 79, North Cemetery, 1964. Princeton. 1964, 85-104. META. Medeltidsarkeologisk tidskrift Ker. V.l AM 1966:1 K.Kiibler, Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Aus­ NorwArchRev B. Schlorb-Vierneisel, Eridanos - Neko- grabungen Bd.V.l. 1954. Berlin. Norwegian Archaeological Review pole I. Graber und Opferstellen hS 1-204, AM 81, 1966, 4-111. Ker. VI. 1 Olynthus XI K.Kiibler, Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Aus­ D.M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus. AM 1966:2 grabungen. Die Nekropole des spaten 8. Necrolynthia. A Study in Greek Burial U. Knigge, Eridanos - Nekropole II. bis friihen 6. Jhs., Bd. VI.1. 1959. Berlin. Customs and Anthopology, Part XI, Balti­ Graber hS 205-230, AM 81, 1966, 112- m ore 1942. 135. Ker. V II.l K.Kiibler, Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Aus­ AM 1976 grabungen. Die Nekropole der Mitte des B. von Freytag gen. Loringhoff, Archaische 6. bis Ende des 5. Jhs., Bd. VII. T.l. 1976. und Klassische Grabfunde auf dem Hang Berlin. nordlich der “Eckterrasse” im Kerameikos, AM 91, 1976, 31-61. Ker. IX U.Knigge, Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Der Sudhugel, Bd. IX. 1976. Berlin.

191