Chapter 4: Nemesis' Primary Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Home , Adrasteia, Aiantis, Ancient Olympic Games, Aphrodite Pandemos, Dodone (mythology), Heroon

CHAPTER 4: NEMESIS’ PRIMARY CULT CENTRE AT RHAMNOUS

Nemesis, I call upon you, Goddess and greatest queen, Whose all-seeing eye looks upon The lives of man’s many races. From Orphic Hymn to Nemesis1

Nemesis’ principal cult centre was situated at the strategically important coastal town of Rhamnous in Attika where a temple, sanctuary, and cult statue were dedicated to her. Nemesis’ previously discussed chthonic connection is also found here, at Rhamnous, with Petrakos suggesting this was originally an agricultural role involving the just allocation of lands, the fertility and productivity of that land, and the produce which grows from the earth, or in his words: ἧταν ἡ ἀγροτικὴ θεὰ ποὺ φροντίζει γιὰ τὴν κατανομὴ τῶν βοσκοτόπων, μεριμνᾶ γιὰ τὴν ἰσορροπία καὶ τὴ διατήρηση τῆς ἀγροτικῆς τάξης καὶ οἱ ἰδιότητές της αὐτὲς (‘she was an agriculture goddess who cared for the allocation of pastures, ensuring balance and maintaining the rural order, and the qualities of these’).2 As such, this aspect is reflected in the etymological origins of her name from the verb νέμω ‘to deal out’, ‘distribute’, and also ‘lead to pasture’.3 Whatever aspects of life and death, distribution and allocation, were her concern before and after the Archaic period, it was the Greek success over the invading Persian forces at Marathon in 490, in which she was believed to have played a seminal role, that her attribute as a retributive goddess became so firmly established that Pausanias, writing six or seven hundred years later, described her as: ‘the most implacable deity to

1 Athanassakis & Wolkow, The Orphic Hymns, 50, Hymn 61. 2 (Translation: author.) V. Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα,' Αρχαιολογια, no. 39, 1991, 36; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273; cf. Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 7; B. C. Dietrich, Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer, London, 1965, 157-159, 161-168; Farnell, The Cults of The Greek States, vol. II, 490. 3 LSJ9 1167, col. 1 s.v. νέμω, 1167; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 36; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273.

~ 187 ~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous hybristic men’4 (ἣ θεῶν μάλιστα ἀνθρώποις ὑβρισταῖς ἐστιν ἀπαραίτητος),5 owing to her punishing retribution towards the arrogance and hybris of Persian presumption, to be discussed.

Figure 20: The view from Nemesis' temple across the gulf towards Euboia (photograph: author).

It can be credibly concluded that the place-name Rhamnous was derived from the plant which grew prolifically in the area, namely the buckthorn bush or to use its botanical name, Rhamnus Cathartica or Rhamnus Frangula.6 This plant was thought to have magical and purifying properties, including purgative qualities.7 When chewed, it was believed the resultant diarrhoea exorcised the spirits of the dead away from the body through its power to act as an emetic. As a bouquet it might also be hung over the door of a house where a baby was about to be born to ward off evil spirits, and it was believed to give protection against witchcraft, demons, and headaches.8

Rhamnous is situated on the coast of Attika, approximately forty kilometres north-east of Athens, with magnificent views across to the island of Euboea (figure 20). In his writings, Pausanias described the location of the town in relation to its distance from Marathon, and its sanctuary to Nemesis:

4 LSJ9 1841, col. 1, s.v. ὕβρις: ‘wanton violence’, ‘insolence’; II: an outrage, pl., ‘wanton acts’, ‘outrages’; B. ὑβριστής, ‘a violent, overbearing man’. 5 Paus. 1.33.4. 6 LSJ9 1565, col. 1, s.v. ῥάμνος 1565: ‘name of various prickly shrubs: Stone Buckthorn, Rhamnus Graeca, Black Buckthorn, Rhamnus Oleoides’; H. T. Peck (ed.), Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, New York, 1898, s.v. Ῥαμνοῦς: 'a deme in Attika named from the ῥάμνοι growing in it'. 7 Pliny NH 24.124. 8 Diosc. 1.119; Phot. Lex. s.v. Ῥάμνος; S. I. Johnston, Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece, Berkeley, 1999, 63-64, n. 81; Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 39-40, 54, 97, 165, 168, 172.

~188~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

About sixty stades from Marathon as you go along the road by the sea to Oropos stands Rhamnus. The dwelling houses are on the coast, but a little way inland is a sanctuary of Nemesis, the most implacable deity to hybristic men.9

A brief account is also given by Strabo:10 μετὰ δὲ Μαραθῶνα Τρικόρυνθος, εἶτα Ῥαμνοῦς, [ὅπου] τὸ τῆς Νεμέσεως ἱερόν (‘after Marathon one comes to Tricorynthus; then to Rhamnous, the sanctuary of Nemesis’).

Mythologically, Rhamnous was significant, since, according to Eratosthenes and implied by Kallimachos, this was where Zeus raped Nemesis (as part of his plan to bring about the destruction of mankind as told by the Kypria):11

ἀυτὸν ὁμοιωθέντα τῷ ὀρνέῳ τούτῳ καταπτῆναι εἰς Ῥαμνοῦντα τῆς Ἀττικῆς, κἀκεῖ τῆν Νέμεσιν φθεῖραι· τὴν δὲ τεκεῖν ᾠόν, ἐξ οὗ ἐκκολαφθῆναι καὶ γενέσθαι τὴν Ἑλένην, ὥς φησι Κρατῖνος ὁ ποιητής.12

Zeus, having changed into a bird, flew to Rhamnous in Attika, where he had intercourse with Nemesis, who bore an egg, from which Helen emerged and was born, so Kratinos the poet says.13

It is difficult to know whether the naming of Rhamnous in the myth was inspired by the temple or whether Eratosthenes’ had another, more ancient, source. What can be argued is that as the supposed site of Nemesis’ rape this was a mythically sacred place imbued with a potent force meriting a sanctuary to honour the wronged goddess. The sculptor of Nemesis’ fifth-century statue base preserved this myth by including a scene of Leda presenting Helen to her true mother, Nemesis,14 and thus provided a tangible connection between the worship of Nemesis at Rhamnous with the legend of Nemesis as Helen’s mother, and a conviction of Rhamnous as central in the myth. Later literary sources continued to link goddess, daughter, and place in references to

9 Paus. 1.33.2. 10 Strab. 9 1.22. See also: Steph. Byz. s.v. Ῥαμνοῦς, 543: Ῥαμνοῦς, δεμος τῆς Αἰαντίδος φυλῆς. Rhamnous is not mentioned by the lexicographers, Harpokraton or Hesychios. 11 Σ Kallim. Hymn to Artemis 3.232: Ῥαμνοῦς δῆμος Ἀττικῆς, ἔνθα τῇ Νεμέσει ὁ Ζεὺς συνεκαθεύδησεν, ἥτις ἔτεκεν ᾠόν, ὅπερ εὑροῦσα ἡ Λήδα ἐθέρμανε καὶ ἐξέβαλε τοὺς Διοσκούρους καὶ τὴν Ἑλένην; Eratosth. 25. Zeus’ plan in discussed above, pp. 96-102. 12 Eratosth. 25 s.v. κύκνου. 13 The poet Kratinos and his play Nemesis (PCG iv FF114-127) is discussed above pp. 152- 165. 14 Paus. 1.33.2-8; V. Petrakos, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite,' BCH 105, no. 1, 1981, 227-253.

~189~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

‘Nemesis Rhamnousia’, and ‘Rhamnousian Helen’: Τευκρῶν ἡνίκα νῆες Ἀχαιίδες ἄστεα κήδειν ἔπλεον ἀμφ’ Ἑλένῃ Ῥαμνουσίδι θυμωθεῖσαι (‘the Achaian ships sailed to grieve the Trojan cities, angered for Rhamnousian Helen’).15

Archaeologists have established that the Rhamnous area was a thriving agricultural community from ca. sixth century forward. At its peak, ca. fifth and fourth centuries, the town would have been teeming with activity: around and near to the temple stood houses, official buildings, boundary walls and fences, pens for animals, farm buildings, store houses for the produce (mainly olives, figs, almonds, and cereal crops) grown throughout the wider area,16 people thronged the surrounding streets as they went about their business, Athenian soldiers from the fort in the walled town-centre swaggered through the neighbourhood, children played in the streets, while pilgrims and travellers marvelled at the sights. The temple itself would have been a hive of activity with worshippers coming and going, prayers and sacrifices offered, and a priestess with assistants in attendance. The temple stoa would have been alive with the raised voices of buyers and sellers of sacrificial animals, dedicatory offerings, and souvenirs. The noise, the smells, the sights, the frenetic pace of life would all have contributed to the vibrant and important town of ancient Rhamnous with its goddess Nemesis.17 Today the temple temenos and the town lie deserted, isolated, and silent, with vast empty tracks of scrubby land stretching for kilometres in every direction.

15 Kallim. Hymn to Artemis 3.232 (translation: author); Suda, s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις (rho 33); Zen. Centuria 5.82, CPG vol. 1, 153.82, s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις; cf. M. B. Skinner, 'Rhamnusia Virgo,' Classical Antiquity 3, no. 1, 1984, 134-141. Catullus uses the term ‘Ramnusia virgo’ when he means Nemesis: Catull. 64.395, 66.71, 68.77; also: Apuleius, Met. 11.5; Ovid, Met. 3.406: ‘Adsensit precibus Rhamnusia iustis’ (‘the Rhamnousian approved the righteous prayer’), 14.694: ‘time Rhamnusidis iram’ (‘you should fear the wrath of the Rhamnousian’); Stafford, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet,' 40. 16 Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273. 17 Archaeologists have found remains of large and small buildings, houses, boundary markers, and farms. Inscriptions and graffiti left by ancient vandals provide information about the locals as well as the ethnicity and social standing of the numerous visitors to the area: V. Petrakos, Rhamnous, Athens, 1991, 14; V. Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 139.

~190~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

THE SANCTUARY

The first known significant archaeological expedition at Rhamnous was undertaken under the auspices of the Dilettanti Society in 1812-1813 led by John Gandy Deering,18 and a few years later by fellow society member, William Leake.19 Gandy’s work is valued for his detailed descriptions of the remains including meticulous mathematic detail in the drawings of his interpretation of how the site may have originally looked. On the other hand, it is regrettable that he failed to draw the remains in situ and in the condition in which he found them, especially since several pieces in his report have subsequently been lost or stolen:20 for example, two corner akroteria each with a griffin attacking a stag.21 Conversely, Despinis argues that the artwork on these akroteria would have been later Roman modifications since the association of Nemesis and the griffin more correctly belongs to the Hellenistic and Roman periods.22

Later nineteenth-century archaeologists who undertook excavations at the site included Spyridon Phintiklis and Dimitrios Philios in 1879-1880, and Valerios Staïs in 1890-1892.23 Petrakos, the most recent archaeologist to excavate the site, has strongly criticized Staïs for his confused methodology, lack of academic application, his omission to record items correctly, and his failure to

18 Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 2nd edn, London, 1833, 41-52. Gandy’s diary is in: Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 46-51. 19 W. M. Leake, 'On the Demi of Attica,' in Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. 1, London, 1829, 195-198; W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. II, London, 1835, 434. 20 The first detailed drawings of the site and its remains were made in 1924 by: A. K. Orlandos, 'Note sur le sanctuaire de Némésis à Rhamnonte,' BCH 48, 1924, 305-320, pls. viii- xii; also: W. H. Plommer, 'Three Attic Temples,' ABSA 45, 1950, 66, n. 83; J. Travlos, 'Rhamnous,' in Deutsches Archaologisches Institut: Bildlexikon zur topographie des antiken Attika, Tübingen, 1988, 388. Pouilloux conducted a comprehensive study in the mid-1950s but his main focus was the remains of the town and fortress below the sanctuary: J. Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte: Étude de Topographie et d'Histoire, Paris, 1954. 21 Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 45, and pl. II. In 1820 Gandy gifted five pieces from Rhamnous to England but the akroteria were apparently not included: Plommer, 'Three Attic Temples', 102, n. 102. 22 G. I. Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, Athens, 1971, 163; cf. Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 212-214. 23 A comprehensive list of travellers and archaeologists who visited Rhamnous in this period can be found in: Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 139-140, with notes; Travlos, 'Rhamnous,' 390; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 9-13.

~191~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous publish much of what he discovered.24 Although important inscriptions and artefacts have subsequently been found within Staïs’ spoil-heap where they lay ignored or unnoticed by him, his lack of archaeological methodology have, according to Petrakos, made it impossible for modern archaeologists to determine their original find spots.25

THE EARLY SIXTH-CENTURY TEMPLE

Petrakos’ excavations have established that three consecutive temples occupied the site on which the present fifth-century temple stands, with the first dating to the early sixth century.26 And, although the datable pottery shards have led him to confidently confirm continuous occupation of the site from at least the early Helladic period,27 he has found no evidence of any permanent building or structure within the temenos until this early sixth-century building. Conversely, Early Helladic and Mycenaean building remains have been discovered nearby, with evidence suggesting the Rhamnous area was one of the earliest settled areas of Attika.28

With the exception of Corinthian and Lakonian manufactured roof-tiles nothing else remains of the early sixth-century building.29 The roof tiles are especially appealing aesthetically, since several have an impressed potter’s stamp depicting a striding lion with head looking back and a raised tail. The

24 Petrakos has excavated the site since 1975: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 6; Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 10-12; also comments in: H. W. Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1988- 1989,' Archaeological Reports, no. 35, 17-18; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 12. Descriptions of some of the finds, now in the NAMA, are in: V. Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 1981, 80-83. 25 V. Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 152; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 131-132, 135. 26 Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 136-142, esp. 142; G. Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1982,' BCH 107, 1983, 752. 27 Mycenaean and Geometric pottery fragments have been found throughout the site which still showing traces of colour: Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 135, 143, 153; Parker, Athenian Religion, 18. 28 F. van den Eijnde, Cult and Society in Early Athens: Archaeological and Anthropological Approaches to State Formation and Group Participation in Attica 1000-600 BCE, Dissertation, Utrecht University Press, Netherlands, 2010, 247, no. 1.46; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20; M. Pantelidou-Ghopha, 'Η Αττική στους προϊστορικούς χρόνους,' Αρχαιολογια 39, 1991, 16; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273; N. A. Winter, 'News Letter from Greece 1982,' AJA 88, no. 1, 1984, 51; V. Petrakos, Έργον 29, 1982 [1983], 34-36; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 153. 29 Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 151-152, 176-177.

~192~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous inclusion of the potter’s name, ΕΣΤΟΝ or ΑΛΕΣΤΟΝ, under the lion’s paws, adds a nice personal touch (figure 21).30

Although early sixth-century building remains are scarce the same cannot be said for other material of this date. Amongst the finds were large quantities of pottery-shards that originally belonged to superior quality vessels; richly decorated amphorae, votive offerings, phialai, hydriai, loutrophoroi,

tripods, temple accoutrements and Figure 21: Impressed ca. sixth-century Lakonian other items all manufactured in manufactured roof-tile with lion and potter’s name; from Rhamnous. various places but especially Attika and Corinth, all of which has led Petrakos to conclude the building functioned as a temple.31 What is less certain is the identity of the deity worshiped here, although in the opinion of Petrakos and others the circumstantial evidence indicates it was Nemesis (to be discussed).32 It can also be stated that despite the absence of any concrete evidence to prove the deity’s identity, that since Nemesis is confirmed for the fifth century, a presumption of continuity of dedicatee is a fairly safe one.

30 SEG 34.249, 36.136, 40.275bis, 40.1731.5, 46.116; I.Rhamnous II 373; BE 1988.138bis; BE 1991.100; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 36; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; R. C. S. Felsch, 'Further Stamped Roof Tiles from Central Greece, Attica, and the Peloponnese,' Hesperia 59, no. 1, 1990, 305- 307, 309, 312, 317-318, 320; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 177 no. 109, 178 figs 18-19, pl. 120a; Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1982', 752; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 136, pl. 91c; V. Petrakos, PAAH 137, 1981 [1983], 121. See also the inscribed tiles from the town of Rhamnous (some with graffiti): SEG 35.229; 38.51, 46.117, 54.86ter. 31 V. Petrakos, 'Περιηγηση στον Αρχαιολογικο χωρο του Ραμνουντος,' Αρχαιολογια, no. 39, 1991, 46; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 43; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273, 275; H. W. Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1983-1984,' Archaeological Reports, no. 30, 13. The painters are discussed in: Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 122. 32 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42.

~193~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Pottery and Sculptures

Figure 22: On the left, an early sixth-century ceramic face with ‘archaic smile’ from the Rhamnous temple fill thought to have originally belonged to a sphinx (perhaps similar to the Athenian sphinx on the right that sat on top of a grave pillar; MMA inv. 11.185 (photograph: [left]Theocharaki-Tsitoura, museum [right]).

The quality and rich decoration of the votive offerings and temple vessels point not only to the high regard in which the goddess was held, but also to the high social standing of her worshippers, many of whom were pilgrims from afar, which proves her renown extended well beyond Rhamnous.33 An example of the fine quality of the pottery is evident in the early sixth-century ceramic face with ‘archaic smile’ in figure 22,34 which was found within the fill material of the post-480 retaining wall along with other artefacts discarded by Staïs. The face is believed to have originally belonged to a funerary sphinx similar to the one on the right in figure 22 of the same period.35 The sphinx had chthonic

33 Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 41. 34 I.Rhamnous I 193; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 41-43; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], pl. 115b; Winter, 'News Letter from Greece 1982', 53; Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 113; Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1982', 752-753, fig. 17; Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1983-1984', 13. Theocharaki 43 has identified the face as one belonging to a sphinx: αποτελεί κεφάλι «σφίγγας» με αμυγδαλωτά μάτια, αρχαïκό χαμόγελο και λεία και στιλπνή επιδερμίδα. 35 Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 58 fig. 42, 62 no. 28; M. Robertson, A Shorter History of Greek Art, Cambridge, 1981, 31, fig. 41; G. M. A. Richter, The Archaic Gravestones of Attica, London, 1961, 16, figs 40-41; Friis Johansen, The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the Classical Period, 117, figs 48-49; G. M. A. Richter, 'Two Reconstructions of Greek Grave Monuments,' AJA 45, no. 2, 1941, 159-161.

~194~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous associations connected with death and funerals from at least the Bronze Age, as well as a reputation as a ‘corpse snatcher’ and as an agent of death.36 She had close links to the Harpies, Sirens, and Keres, was a prophetess of ill-omen, and reputed to carry men towards destruction.37 Conversely, the sphinx was also a protector of tombs and graves, and was a frequent inclusion on grave- stelai for this purpose,38 an attribute she shared with Nemesis in her similar role as protector of the dead and of tombs.39

Loutrophoroi were used to carry water for ritual purification purposes connected with marriage ceremonies or burial rites.40 The remains of those found at Rhamnous date from the late seventh to the end of the sixth century, and their artwork reveals they were largely funereal.41 Theocharaki-Tsitoura notes that although there were many that were closed underneath, several showed evidence of being ‘open’ (Επικρατούν τα ανοιχτά σχήματα και ιδιαίτερα οι λεκάνες) i.e. their bases were not complete so that libations poured into a loutrophoros would flow out at the bottom enabling the dead to partake thereof, a typical feature of chthonic loutrophoroi.42 The pottery pieces from Rhamnous in figures 23 and 24 are from high quality loutrophoroi which still show the bright colours with which they were decorated over two thousand six

36 Eur. Phoen. 806-811, 1019-1042; C. Sourvinou-Inwood, 'Reading' Greek Death: to the End of the Classical Period, Oxford, 1995, 268, 271-272, 409; L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, revised edn, Oxford, 1990, 97-98, 99 no. 8, 401 pl. 11.8; Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, 69, 171-173; Dietrich, Death, Fate and the Gods, 143-144. 37 Aischyl. Seven 541; Apollod. Bibl. 3.5.8; Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 204, 207-212. Sourvinou-Inwood, 'Reading' Greek Death: to the End of the Classical Period, 272-273; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 97-98, 99 no. 8, 401 pl. 11.8; Dietrich, Death, Fate and the Gods, 143-144, n. 6; Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, 173; Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 204, 207-212. 38 Sourvinou-Inwood, 'Reading' Greek Death: to the End of the Classical Period, 271. From Thessaly a sixth-century inscribed base of a column which once supported a sphinx narrates the sphinx’ protective role over the grave: SEG 15.381; Volos Museum E650. 39 Previously discussed, pp. 142-146, 151. 40 Cf. Dem. 44.18, 30, where loutrophoros is referred to as the vessel in which to carry water for funeral rites especially for an unmarried youth, inferring that the deceased was now wedded to death. Water was important in funeral and wedding rites: Eur., Hek. 611. 41 I.Rhamnous I 188-190, 196-197; A. Alexandridou, The Early Black-Figured Pottery of Attika in Context (c. 630-570 BCE). Monumenta Graeca et Romana 17, ed. J. M. Fossey, 2011, 25; Petrakos, 'Περιηγηση στον Αρχαιολογικο χωρο του Ραμνουντος', 46; Theocharaki- Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273, 275; H. W. Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1984-1985,' Archaeological Reports, no. 31, 12; Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1983-1984', 13; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 136. 42 Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42-43.

~195~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous hundred years ago. Petrakos and Theocharaki-Tsitoura describe many as being decorated with chthonic snakes along the rim, with processions of wailing women, attractive floral rosettes on the handles, and consecutive rows of lions, sirens, and water birds on the bowl.43 Some of these features are illustrated on the shards in figures 23 and 24.

Figure 23: Loutrophoroi shards from Rhamnous depicting a procession of women; mid sixth century (source: Petrakos).

These features correspond almost identically to the funereal loutrophoros from the Kerameikos in figure 25, although the latter artist is identified as the KX painter and the former as the Polos Painter.44 Clearly evident are the similar rosettes, the wailing women, the lions, the sirens, and the water birds.

43 I.Rhamnous I 196 pl. 112; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 36; V. Petrakos, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,' in Φίλια έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν δια τα 60 έτη του ανασκαφικού του έργου, vol. II, 1987, 301-302; Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 122. 44 B. Kreuzer, 'The Exaleiptron in Attica and Boeotia: Early Black-Figure Workshops Reconsidered (Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Université libre de Bruxelles, 27-29 April 2006),' in A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases (7th-4th Centuries B.C.), Brussels, 2009, 25 n. 50; V. Sabetai, 'Marker Vase or Burnt Offering? The Clay Loutrophoros in Context (Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Université libre de Bruxelles, 27-29 April 2006),' in A. Tsingarida (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases (7th-4th Centuties B.C.),

~196~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Figure 24: Loutrophoroi shards from Rhamnous; Polos Painter (source: Petrakos).

Brussels, 2009, 298; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42.

~197~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Figure 25: Funereal loutrophoros with a procession of female mourners; KX Painter; early sixth century; Kerameikos Museum inv. 2865 (source: museum).

~198~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

There can be little doubt that chthonic loutrophoroi shards are amongst those found at Rhamnous, as confirmed by Petrakos and Theocharaki-Tsitoura. Consequently, I find the hypothesis presented by Alexandridou confusing. After first describing the Rhamnous loutrophoroi as chthonic, he later infers their association with marriage and fertility rituals connected with Nemesis.45 Similarly, I do not agree with Sabetai’s identification of the Rhamnous loutrophoroi shards as connected to pre-nuptial rites associated with Nemesis as ‘the protector of marriage’.46 Sabetai goes on to state that: ‘Since no funerary loutrophoroi were found, the cult of Nemesis should be perceived, not as a ‘chthonic’ one, but as related to the safe passage to married life’. This statement contradicts the conclusions reached by Petrakos and Theocharaki- Tsitoura, following their discovery and examination of the shards from the archaeology at Rhamnous, that Nemesis’ cult was chthonic in nature.47 Further substantiating evidence, unfortunately now lost, that confirms this aspect of the goddess was the discovery in the nineteenth century AD of chimairai shards of unknown date (called griffins by Miles),48 with their clear chthonic association. Nemesis’ association with marriage and fertility rites, or with pre-nuptial ceremonies are aspects of the goddess which are no-where else attested or suggested in the primary sources nor in the archaeology.

From the evidence of the ceramic sphinx-face, the chimairai shards, and the quantity of seventh- and sixth-century funerary loutrophoroi I believe the deity

45 Alexandridou, The Early Black-Figured Pottery of Attika in Context, 25, 32, 84. 46 V. Sabetai, 'The Wedding Vases of the Athenians: A View from Sanctuaries and Houses,' Mètis 12, 2014, 55, 62-63. 47 Petrakos, 'Περιηγηση στον Αρχαιολογικο χωρο του Ραμνουντος', 46; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273, 275; Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1984-1985', 12; Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1983-1984', 13; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 136. Cf: Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 6-8; Dietrich, Death, Fate and the Gods, 157-159, 164-168; Farnell, The Cults of The Greek States, vol. II, 488, 495-496. Nemesis’ chthonic nature continued uninterrupted into the Roman era, were she was occasionally named in funerary imprecations to protect the one interned and to punish anyone who would seek to disturb the rest of the departed: J. H. M. Strubbe, '"Cursed Be He That Moves My Bones",' in C. A. Faraone & D. Obbink (eds), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic & Religion, New York and Oxford, 1991, 45, 46, 86, 104; cf. Aischyl. F148 where Hermes tells that the dead feel neither good nor evil done to them, but ‘our Nemesis is mightier than they, and Justice executeth the dead man's wrath’; Soph. Elekt. 792: ‘Listen! Nemesis of the newly dead. 48 Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 45, pl. ii; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 212. Homer talks of chimairai: Hom. Il. 6.179-182.

~199~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous worshipped in, and prior to, this early sixth-century temple, had associations with chthonic worship, and that the deity was Nemesis. From the fifth century forward there is less evidence of loutrophoroi shards, leading to a conclusion the goddess’s role, or part thereof, had begun to alter in line with her new- found fame as a goddess of retribution after she was credited with the Greek victory over the Persian hybris.49 Despite this slight role change at Rhamnous, Nemesis continued her relationship with death and the dead. As previously discussed she was the avenger of the wronged dead, since they cannot avenge themselves; she was a protector of the tomb against those who would violate the one interned or the tomb itself; she was invoked on altar inscriptions, such as the one on an altar from the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros: Τύχας [Νεμ]έσεος; and, her chthonic nature was petitioned in fifth-century literary sources such as Aischylos Phrygians, and in Sophokles Elektra where Elektra makes a heartfelt appeal to her: ‘Listen! Nemesis of the newly dead!’50

THE LATE SIXTH-CENTURY TEMPLE

Seemingly the goddess soon outgrew her early sixth-century temple or perhaps she was thought to be deserving of a new one. Whatever the reason, the first temple was replaced in the late sixth century by a small poros Doric temple with two columns in antis. Extensive quantities of the stone from this temple have been found within the aforementioned retaining wall fill to the north and east of the sanctuary area.51

Amongst the artefacts linked to this temple is a collection of coarsely made herms, together with a pair of stone sandals believed by Petrakos to have been dedicated by a craftsman working on the temple or on the retaining wall that pre-dated the existing one built after 480.52 The stone sandals are an unusual dedication for a builder, so I suggest they may have been an offering from a

49 Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 43. 50 Aischylos’ Phrygians is discussed above, pp. 142-145; Sophokles’ Elektra, pp. 146-148; altar inscription from the sanctuary of Asklepios at Epidauros, pp. 148-149. Generally as avenger of the wronged dead, and protector of the tomb, pp. 142-151. 51 Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38. 52 Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 122, pl. 107a-b; Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 16.

~200~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous cobbler in the hope of business prosperity or, a dedication from a traveller about to embark on a journey in the hope of safety and protection.

One especially interesting item is the 45cm, now headless and handless, female statuette depicted in figure 26. It was found with a group of other statues of various periods in a small polygonal building close to main temple. From her seated position Petrakos confirms she is a representation of a goddess, perhaps a votive offering, and from the stylistic attributes has dated it to ca. 520.53 The goddess sits on a throne with her feet resting on a footstool. Her pose and dress is indisputably Archaic, with her stiff formal posture, her himation and

Ionian chiton, and the remains of Archaic-styled braided hair falling Figure 26: Seated statue of a goddess from the late sixth-century temple; ca. 520; NAMA down her back and each shoulder. 2569 (photograph: author).

Although the goddess cannot be definitively identified, the evidence of a helmet dedicated to Nemesis of very nearly the same date (discussed below) may suggest this is a sixth-century representation of Nemesis. A theory possibly supported by the fact that after the late sixth-century temple was destroyed, probably by the Persians in 480, this statuette was not, as were numerous others items from this temple, consigned as discarded fill to the post- 480 retaining wall, but was moved into the fifth-century polygonal temple for safe keeping. Its good state of preservation reveals it had been well cared for.

53 Discovered in 1890 at Rhamnous. NAMA, cat. no. 2569; N. Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, trans. D. Hardy, Los Angeles, 2002, 61 no. 79; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 59, fig. 5; Petrakos, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,' 303; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 34, 38; Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 62 fig. 45, 68 no. 2569; S. Karouzou, National Archaeological Museum: Collection of Sculptures, Athens, 1968, 30. Not in LIMC.

~201~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

The discovery of three sixth-century marble pieces from the rim of an inscribed περιρ(ρ)αντήριον54 confirm the worship of not only Nemesis at the sanctuary for this period but also Themis (figure 27).55 The badly fragmented inscription, restored by Petrakos and dated by him to the second-half of the sixth century, although Karanastassi suggests early sixth century,56 reads: Φιλόδ[ορο]ς ἐστ[ήσατο] Θέ[μιδι καὶ Νεμέσ]ει.57 Other restorations suggest: Φιλόδ[εμο]ς ἐστ[έσατο] Θέ[μιδι καὶ Νεμέσ]ει with a date of ca. 470-480,58 and Φιλόδ[ορος ἐστ[ήσατο] ἀνε]θε[κεν Νεμέσ]ει by Pimpl.59 The degree of fragmentation frustrates a definitive reading but with the majority view following Petrakos, I would be inclined to accept his reading. In which ever way it is restored epigraphers, with the exception of Pimpl, agree Nemesis and Themis were the deities to whom the perirrhanterion was dedicated, proof of their combined worship at Rhamnous from at least this date. I have taken Petrakos’ ‘second-half of the sixth century’ date as most likely since it was he who discovered and initially analysed the three marble pieces along with hundreds of other inscribed items from the site, the surrounding area, and the town below, enabling him to competently familiarize himself with any chronological regional idiosyncratic letter formations. Another factor to consider is that advances in writing styles would have been adopted more slowly by towns and villages in the countryside, such as Rhamnous. The perirrhanterion, used for ritual purification purposes, would have been placed

54 Large water basin on a tall stand (similar to a bird-bath), used for ritual water purification which were placed in various religious situations, such as the front of temples, the entrances to sanctuaries, and also in votive cult places in gymnasiums or near herms. Cf. inscribed fourth- century perirrhanterion found in the military fort dedicated to Nemesis: I.Rhamnous II 125. 55 Another perirrhanterion was found at Rhamnous in 1813 by Gandy and given to the British Museum where it remains. There is no inscription and is thought to be Hellenistic: BM 1823,0811.1; M. D. Fullerton, 'The Archaistic Perirrhanteria of Attica,' Hesperia 55, 1986, 211-212; Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 54-55, fig. 20. 56 P. Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau hinter Nemesis? (Studien zur Statuenbasis der Nemesis von Rhamnus),' MDAI(A) 109, 1994, 129. 57 IG i³ 1018,5; SEG 38.26, 49.65; I.Rhamnous II 75; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 5; A. Chaniotis, I. Mylonopoulos & E. Stavrianopoulou, 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1996,' Kernos 12, 1999, 276-277, no. 220; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 200 no. 129. 58 The authors of IG i3. 59 H. Pimpl, Perirrhanteria und Louteria: Entwicklung und Verwendung grosser Marmor- und Kalksteinbecken auf figürlichem und säulenartigem Untersatz in Griechenland, Berlin, 1997, 96.

~202~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

just outside the temple, and it was in this exact spot that two of its fragments were discovered with the third coming from within Staïs’ spoil heap.

This second sixth-century temple was, along Figure 27: Pieces from the sixth- with many other Greek temples, believed to century perirrhanterion (source: Petrakos). have been destroyed by the advancing Persians during 480-479.60 It would be approximately another forty or fifty years before another was built, and it is the ruins of this third temple which are still visible today.

The Archaic Votive Wheel

Of all the finds from the two sixth-century temples the one which deserves particular attention is a small bronze four-spoke votive wheel (figure 28) measuring approximately one-hundred millimetres in diameter.61 Found in 1982 within the debris of the fifth-century well and with two thirds of the rim inscribed in late sixth-century Attic script, it reads: Ἑρόδορος ⋮ ἀνέθεκεν62 (‘Herodoros dedicated me’).63 The straight, blunt ends of each spoke have led

60 On the probable destruction of Nemesis’ temple at Rhamnous by the Persians: I.Rhamnous I 24-26, 194-198; M. M. Miles, 'Burnt Temples in the Landscape of the Past,' in C. Pieper & J. Ker (eds), Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII, Leiden, 2014, 124; Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, 224; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38; Theocharaki- Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 137-139. For the destruction of Athens and Attika generally, see: Hdt. 8.50-53; Thuc. 1.89.3; Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, 57-58; L. T. Shear, Jr., 'The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1989-1993,' Hesperia 66, no. 4, 1997, 513; L. T. Shear, Jr., 'The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits,' Hesperia 62, no. 4, 1993, 383-429, lists of deposit summaries: 429-482; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20; R. Meiggs, 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon,' G&R 10, Supplement, 1963, 37. 61 Petrakos gives the diameter of the wheel as between 0.103m and 0.094m, the spokes between 0.004 and 0.005m, the thickness of the rim as 0.008m and the height of the letters on the rim between 0.005 and 0.006: Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 195 no. 701. 62 IG I3 1018(4); SEG 35.25, 38.24; I.Rhamnous II 76; BE 1998 no. 138bis. The peculiarity of the square-shaped omega, theta, delta, and rho seen in figure 28 are not indicative of any epigraphical variant, rather it was easier for the engraver to inscribe small letters on bronze in this manner instead of with their usual roundness. The same explanation is given for the use of punched dots on other wheel inscriptions instead of whole letters: A. G. Bather, 'The Bronze Fragments of the Acropolis,' JHS 13, 1892, 125. 63 Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 6; M. B. Hornum, 'Nemesis Trampling the Enemy: A Previously Unrecognized Example,' in K. J. Hartswick & M. C. Sturgeon (eds), Στέφανος: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Philadelphia, 1998, 134; Hornum,

~203~

Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Petrakos to conclude that these originally joined σχηματίζοντας ὀρθογώνια ὀπὴ [χνοή] (‘forming a rectangular hole [axle]’).64 This unusual shape would suggest it never held an axle, certainly not the usual round variety, and is therefore deduced not to be the remnant of a votive chariot but a complete offering to the deity in itself, as

confirmed by Petrakos when he adds that the wheel is ἀκέραιος Figure 28: Four spoke inscribed votive wheel from 65 Rhamnous; ca. sixth century (sketch: Petrakos). (‘complete/whole’). The absence of the deity’s name could suggest the sanctuary had a single deity at this date, i.e. Nemesis,66 rendering the added cost of engraving a name superfluous, were it not for the fact of the evidence of the perirrhanterion, just discussed, attesting to the combined worship of Nemesis and Themis at this date. Perhaps Herodoros was anxious to keep costs down and anyway he knew to whom the dedication was intended; what was important to him was to demonstrate his religious piety to his neighbours and the deity.

The wheel, together with the whip, measuring rod, balancing scales, and griffin only became firmly associated with Nemesis ca. second century AD,67

Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 202 no. 91; Edwards, 'Tyche at Corinth', 533 n. 18; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 283. 285 fig. 13; H. W. Catling, 'Archaeology in Greece 1985-1986,' Archaeological Reports, no. 32, 17-18; G. Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1984,' BCH 109, 1985, 768-769, fig. 18; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 173, 195-197 no. 85, fig. 29 pl. 122a; V. Petrakos, Έργον 31, 1984 [1985], 54, fig. 77. Not found in: P. Bol, Antike Bronzetechnik: Kunst und Handwerk antiker Erzbildner, München, 1985. 64 Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 197. 65 Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 195. 66 Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 43; Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 121-122; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 136, 141. 67 This iconography is depicted on coins from Alexandria in Roman Egypt dating to the reign of Domitian, and on an Egyptian style relief of roughly the same period: Hornum, Nemesis,

~204~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous although the evidence of a first-century silver bowl from Novocherkassk in Russia (figure 29),68 would suggest an earlier link.69 The female figure on this bowl who stands to the left holding a wheel in her right hand has been identified as Nemesis by her distinguishing Hellenistic apotropaic gesture of spitting into her kolpos to deflect bad luck.70

Depicted on the bowl is a scene involving Psyche torturing a bound Eros with a burning flame whilst he looks towards Nemesis (statue?). Kaposhina suggests Eros’ torture is a visual interpretation of the pangs of love, while Edwards interprets Nemesis’ presence as a justifying witness to Psyche’s revenge against Eros for his prior treatment of her and sees Figure 29: A silver bowl from Russia with Psyche torturing Eros; ca. first century; State Hermitage the wheel in Nemesis’ hand as a Museum (source: Kaposhina). ‘punishing wheel’.71 Faraone proposes that the scene reminds the viewer of how the hybristic and the recalcitrant are punished by Nemesis. He further argues that the discovery of the Rhamnous votive wheel indicates this punishing element in Nemesis is older than first thought and he assigns a sixth-century date linking her to

The Roman State, and the Games, 14, 25, 26 n. 10; cf. Stafford, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet,' 38; Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 64 n. 105; I. Flagge, Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Greifen, Sankt Augustin, 1975, 115. 68 LIMC vi Nemesis 205b (P. Karanastassi); Hornum, 'Nemesis Trampling the Enemy: A Previously Unrecognized Example,' 134; S. I. Kaposhina, 'A Sarmatian Royal Burial at Novocherkassk,' Antiquity 37, 1963, 256-258, pl. xxx. The discovery of this bowl discounts the theory that Nemesis’ wheel was inspired by the iconography of Tyche/Fortuna whose earliest representation with a wheel dates to the first century AD: Edwards, 'Tyche at Corinth', 532-533 n. 16; Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 25-28, 26 n. 10. 69 The earliest surviving literary reference to Nemesis and the wheel is Mesomedes’ second- century AD Hymn to Nemesis which implies a wheel of torture in the fortunes of men at lines 7-8: ὑπὸ σὸν τροχὸν ἄστατον ἀστιβῆ χαροπὰ μερόπων στρέφεται τύχα. 70 Kallim. F280-281 (third century); Theok. 6.39, 20.11 (third century); Anth. Gr. 12.229 (third-century AD); Stafford, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet,' 39. 71 Edwards, 'Tyche at Corinth', 532-533, n.18; Kaposhina, 'A Sarmatian Royal Burial at Novocherkassk', 256-258.

~205~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

‘judicial torture and punishment’;72 a view no-where else attested for so early a period. Since the wheel as a votive offering was not uncommon,73 and was never unique to Nemesis as attested by the numerous votive wheels dedicated to various deities with no obvious connection to punishment that have been found at temples and shrines around the Greek world,74 I do not accept Faraone’s theory.

Rouse suggests that the many miniature metal objects found in numerous Greek sanctuaries, including wheels, point to offerings made for their intrinsic value alone, similar to tithe (δεκάτεν) offerings,75 and are not necessarily directly associated with the deity; a theory hinted at by Guarducci but rejected by Cook.76 Rouse’s theory is feasibly validated by the inventory lists compiled by the treasurers of Athena which include votive wheels and vast quantities of other metal objects.77 The large variety of smaller metal objects found in

72 Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 64 n. 105; Edwards, 'Tyche at Corinth', 533 n. 18. 73 G. Dunst, 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaetie aus Samos,' MDAI(A) 87, 1972, 139; cf. V. Petrakos, PAAH 131, 1975 [1977], 174; W. Deonna, Le Mobilier Délien - Rouelles: Exploration Archéologique de Délos, vol. XVIII, Paris, 1938, 341. 74 Originally the wheel was thought to be a representation of the sun, i.e. on its journey as it ‘rolled’ across the sky: E. T. H. Brann, 'Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery: Mid 8th to Late 7th Century B.C.,' The Athenian Agora VIII, 1962, 13; Nelson, 'A Greek Votive Iynx-Wheel in Boston', 446; cf. Cook who also includes the iunx-wheel as symbolic of the sun: Cook, Zeus, vol. 1, 253-265. Wheel symbols have been found on prehistoric rock carvings in Egypt, China, Europe, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia. A discussion on the wheel motif in Greek Geometric art is in: J. Bouzek, 'Die Anfänge des griechisch-geometrischen Symbolguts,' Eirene 8, 1970, 98- 101; Benson assigns a Mycenaean date to the symbol: J. L. Benson, Horse, Bird and Man: the Origins of Greek Painting, Amherst, 1970, 67-68. Langdon regards the wheel motif as a Geometric ‘linear artistic repertory’ that endured: M. K. Langdon, 'A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos,' Hesperia Supplements 16, 1976, 61 no. 247. 75 Examples of tithe offerings from the sixth and fifth centuries: Smikythe, IG ii2 473, IG i3 794 (Σμικύθε πλύντρια δεκάτεν ἀνέθεκεν); Glyke, IG i3 548 bis (Γλύκε ⋮ δεκάτεν ἀνέθεκεν); Empedia, IG i3 767 (Ἐμπεδία δεκάτεν ἀνέθεκεν [τ]ε̑ι Ἀθ[ε]ναίαι); Ergokleia, IG i2 582, IG i3 615 (Ἐργόκλεια : ἀ[νέθεκε - - -] ἀπαρχέν). 76 W. H. D. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the History of Greek Religion, Cambridge, 1902, 54-55, 355, 390-391, cf. 347 for an extensive list of the volume of dedicated objects found in the temple of Apollo on Delos; M. Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 4 vols, vol. 1, Rome, 1967, 331; A. B. Cook, 'Greek Votive Offerings,' Folklore 14, no. 3, 1903, 289. 77 IG ii2 1425 line 374 σίδηρος ἀπὸ τροχο (368/7); IG ii2 1425 line 376 χαλκίο[ν τ]ροχὸν ἔχον (368/7); cf. IG ii2 1426 line 23; IG ii2 1481 line 10 τροχοί (fourth century); IG ii2 1424a col. II lines 282-283 χαλκίον τροχὸν ἔχ<ο>ν· τροχὸς χαλκοῦς (369/8). Harris does not mention these wheels: Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, passim. An earlier sixth- century inscription describes the metal objects collectively as χαλκία dedicated to Athena: IG i3 510 (EM 6975): ‘The treasurers [dedicated] these metals [on behalf of the city], having collected them; to [the daughter] of mighty-[minded] Zeus; [the treasurers were] Anaxion and Eudikos and S[--- and ---] and Andokides and Lysimach[os and --- and ---]’: Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, 14; A. de Ridder, Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l'Acropole d'Athènes, Paris, 1896, 428; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 77

~206~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous temple sites, such as those in figure 30 from Ithaca, seemingly supports Rouse’s theory that they represent a δεκάτεν to the temple treasury.

Figure 30: A hoard of miniature metal objects from Ithaca thought to be religious; ca. eighth century (source: Payne).

A useful exercise would be to examine known miniature votive wheels to help clarify the possibilities in these theories:

 The oldest known miniature bronze votive(?) wheel was found in the remains of a large building complex at Modi on the island of Poros, and dates to approximately the LH IIIC era, i.e. eleventh century (ca. 1090- 1060). It is not inscribed,78 and its symbolic significance is unknown, although its find-spot would indicate it had a civic or religious function.

 An eighth-century uninscribed miniature nine-spoke votive(?) wheel pendant was found with other metal objects such as bronze animals, pins and fibulae within a temple precinct near Aetos (possibly ancient Alalkomenes) on Ithaca (figure 30).79 Its find-spot denotes a religious connotation but the association is unclear, although given the variety of objects, Rouse’s δεκάτεν may be indicated here.

no. 21; Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings, 344. Not found in: A. E. Raubitschek & L. H. Jeffery (eds), Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: a catalogue of the inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries B. C., Cambridge, MA, 1949. 78 C. Morgan, 'Archaeology in Greece 2007-2008,' Archaeological Reports 54, 14. 79 H. G. G. Payne, 'Archaeology in Greece, 1931-1932,' JHS 52, 1932, 246, fig. 10.

~207~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

 Olympia has yielded several small uninscribed eighth-century wheels (figure 31),80 consisting of four- or six-spokes, with indications that several originally belonged to miniature chariots such as the ninth-century example in figure 32,81 or may have been representative of one. The chariot is identified by the museum as a votive offering.

Figure 31: Miniature votive chariot wheel Figure 32: Miniature chariot from Olympia; ca. from Olympia; ca. eighth century; Olympia ninth century; Olympia Museum no. B1671 Museum no. B7672 (source: museum). (source: museum).

 A seventh-century uninscribed lead wheel measuring twenty-eight millimetres, now in the British Museum, was found at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta.82 The find-spot suggests a religious connection and owing to its small size may have been jewellery such as a pendant, brooch, or perhaps worn as a good luck charm by the dedicant, or was given to the goddess as such.

 Figure 33 depicts a sixth-century inscribed four-spoke bronze votive wheel measuring one hundred millimetres in diameter thought to have come from Argos,83 possibly the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi (Ἄνακες). Epigraphers

80 G. E. Hatzi (ed.), The Archaeological Museum of Olympia, Athens, 2008, 59. Other miniature votive chariot wheels at Olympia include nos Br4799, Br10849. 81 Hatzi (ed.), The Archaeological Museum of Olympia, 63, cat. no. B1671. Other ninth- century votive chariots from Olympia are illustrated on page 63, cat. nos. B3005, B1670. 82 BM 1923,0212.238, BM 1923,0212.188. 83 IG iv.566; P. Haarer & I. Toth (eds), The Anne Jeffery Archive, 'Poinikastas: Epigraphic Sources for Early Greek Writing', CSAD, Oxford, Argos cat. no. 430; Woodhead, The Study of Greek Inscriptions, 49.10; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 151-152, 169 no. 28; J. Swaddling, The Ancient Olympic Games, London, 1980, 70; Dunst, 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente', 139; Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 127 n. 1; G. Vollgraff, 'Ad Titulos Argivos,' Mnemosyne 58, no. 1/2, 1930, 29; H. B. Walters, Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek,

~208~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

have generally restored the inscription as: τοῖ Ϝανάκοι ⋮ ἐμί ⋮ Εὔδ[ικο]ς ⋮ ἀνέθεκε.84 But the BM suggests: τῳ Ϝανάκῳ ⋮ ἐμί ⋮ Εὔδ[αμο]ς (or Εὔδ[αμα]ς)⋮ ἀνέθεκε, arguing that Ϝανάκῳ is another form of the dative Ϝἄνακτι from ἄναξ that may indicate that Zeus and not the Dioskouroi was the intended recipient.85 If correct, Newton suggests the wheel was given as thanks to Zeus for victory in a race, possibly the Nemean Games.86 However, since ἄναξ as a term of respect can refer to several of the gods including Zeus,87 the Dioskouroi,88 Apollo,89 Poseidon,90

or even to the collective gods,91 the Figure 33: Bronze votive wheel dedicated to intended deity cannot be confidently Zeus or the Dioskouroi from Argos, ca. sixth century; BM no. 1880,1211.1; (photograph: stated. author).

Considering the unconventional and rather small axle hole, this wheel was unlikely to have ever been a component of a miniature votive chariot. It may, however, have been dedicated as a token representation of one,92 but it is more likely that the

Roman, and Etruscan in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, London, 1899, 28 no. 253; E. S. Roberts & E. A. Gardner (eds), An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy: The Archaic Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet, Cambridge, 1887, 116; H. Fränkel, 'Zwei Archaische Inschriften,' Arch. Zeit. 40, 1882, 385; C. T. Newton, E. L. Hicks & G. Hirschfeld, The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Oxford, 1874-1916, 3 no. 138; Roberts & Gardner (eds), An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy: The Archaic Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet. There was a sanctuary to the Dioskouroi between Argos and Lerna (Paus. 2.22.5, 36.6). (Photograph: author.) 84 IG iv.566; Woodhead, The Study of Greek Inscriptions, 49.10; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 169 no. 28; Dunst, 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente', 139; Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 127 n. 1; Vollgraff, 'Ad Titulos Argivos', 29. 85 LSJ9 114, col. 1, s.v. ἄναξ; Walters, Catalogue of Bronzes, 28 no. 253; Newton, Hicks & Hirschfeld, Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions, 3 no. 138. 86 BM 1880,1211.1; Newton, Hicks & Hirschfeld, Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions, 3 no. 138; Walters, Catalogue of Bronzes, 28 no. 253. 87 Aischyl. Pers. 762, Suppl. 524; Dem. 35.40. 88 Plut. Thes. 33. 2. 89 Aischyl. Ag. 509, 513, Eu. 85; Soph. Oed. Tyr. 80; Hom. Il. 1.390. 90 Aischyl. Seven. 130; Ar. Clouds 264. 91 Aischyl. Suppl. 222; Pind. Ol. 10.49. 92 Small single wheels may have been dedicated as an abbreviated representation of a chariot, making the offering less cumbersome for the sanctuary and less expensive for the dedicator.

~209~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

central hole was the means by which it was attached to the sanctuary wall or pillar amongst other votive offerings.93 Perhaps it was offered as thanks for some personal victory in a chariot race or similar, in which case the Dioskouroi (possibly Kastor the horse-tamer) would be an appropriate recipient. Certainly the inscription would broadcast the piety of Εὔδ[ικο]ς or Εὔδ[αμο]ς, and would have advertised him as a good and devout citizen.

 At Kamiros, Rhodes, a sixth-century six-spoke bronze wheel seventy-five millimetres in diameter was dedicated to Apollo by Onesos, a bronze- worker (figure 34).94 Here the wheel’s identification as a representation of a miniature chariot wheel is indisputable since it is clearly inscribed: Ονησος ⋮ με ανηθεκη ⋮ τὀπολονι ⋮ ο χαλχοτυπος ⋮ τροϙον95 αρματο|ς ⋮ (‘Onesos, the smith, has dedicated me to Apollo, a chariot wheel’). The flanged hub also identifies it as such. Since it is improbable that the only surviving part of a votive chariot/wagon would be this well-preserved wheel with its inscription, I believe it was dedicated as a token representation of a chariot by Onesos who personally crafted it to perhaps thank the god for past business success and future prosperity.

As a theory it is not universally accepted: Rouse argues that if a wheel could represent a chariot then the same would apply for a leg of a tripod representing the complete tripod which would be an ‘artistic blunder’: Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings, 166; also Deonna, Delos, 341. 93 This practice became something of a nuisance to the temple officials and worshippers, for example see the disparaging remarks made by Plato about devotees cluttering up the temples with votive offerings of whatever comes to hand: Pl. Laws 202e-210a. A problematic situation which was evident in temples and sanctuaries throughout the ancient world as seen in two third-century decrees: one from Rhodes alludes to this problem by stipulating that no-one should request any votive offerings to be set up in the lower part of the sanctuary or anywhere where they would hinder people: BE 1948 no. 172; Suppl. Epig. Rodio 1; F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques: Suppliment, Paris, 1962, no. 107. The second from Miletus states: ‘it is forbidden to fasten to the woodwork of the new stoa in the sanctuary of Apollo either a votive tablet or anything else, to prevent the woodwork from being damaged, nor to the columns. And if someone wishes to place any votive offering in the new stoa, he must place it against the plastered sections of the walls, underneath the stone course supporting the beams’, (trans. van Straten): D. F. McCabe (ed.), Miletos Inscriptions: Texts and List, Princeton N J, 1984, no. 6; Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques: Suppliment, no. 123; a useful discussion on this topic is found in F. van Straten, 'Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries,' in A. Schachter (ed.), Le Sanctuaire Grec, vol. xxxvii, Geneva, 1992, 248-254, 270-271. 94 SEG 12.364; Lazzarini, no. 779; I. K. Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952-1989), Princeton N J, 1998, 11 no. 41; R. Osborne, Classical Landscape with Figures, London, 1987, 185; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 349, 356 no. 13, 415, pl. 67.13; F. van Straten, 'Gifts for the Gods,' in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden, 1981, 84; Guarducci, Epigrafia Greca, 330- 331, fig. 165; I. D. Kontis, 'Dyo Archaikai Epigraphai ek Kamirou,' Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 27-29, 1949-1951, 347-349, fig. 1. 95 τροϙον from τροϙος, archaic form of τροχός, wheel.

~210~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Figure 34: Six-spoke votive wheel dedicated to Figure 35: Votive wheel dedicated to Poseidon Apollo from Rhodes; ca. sixth century; Rhodes from Isthmia; ca. sixth century; Isthmia Museum no. 14464 (source: museum). Museum no. 2724 (source: museum).

 The four-spoke sixth-century bronze wheel from Isthmia in figure 35 is dedicated to Poseidon. It measures ninety millimetres in diameter and is inscribed in archaic Corinthian letters which read: [...]ν [ἀ]νεθεκε Ποσειδανοσ[...]. Raubitschek believes it to be an individual votive offering and suggests that the genitive of the god’s name is dependant on another now missing word such as ἱαρὸν.96 In common with the wheel from Argos in figure 33 the axle-hole of this wheel indicates it would have been well-suited to have adorned the temple wall.

 The inscribed sixth-century bronze votive wheel illustrated in figure 36 is eighty-five millimetres in diameter and was discovered within the surrounds of the Athenian acropolis.97 It has a clearly visible dedicatory inscription in dotted lettering which reads: Πίθεκος ⋮ ἀνέθηκεν.98 Πίθεκος

96 SEG 48.394; Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952-1989), 11 no. 41, pl. 8.41 (IM 2724). Raubitschek also lists uninscribed fragments of bronze wheels from Isthmia: Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952-1989), 11 no. 41A, no. 42, 102 n. 34, pl. 9.42 (IM 1343). 97 Courtesy, © Acropolis Museum: (previously NAMA no. 6914). 98 IG i3 548; IG i2 435; J. S. Traill, Persons of Ancient Athens, vol. 14, Toronto, 1995, 196 no. 773190; M. J. Osborne & S. G. Byrne (eds), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. 2, Oxford, 1994, 367; de Ridder, Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l'Acropole d'Athenes, 132 no. 405; Bather, 'The Bronze Fragments of the Acropolis', 127 no. 42, pl. VI.42; possibly because it was not found within any of the acropolis buildings as such, this wheel is not mentioned in: Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. De Ridder details two other bronze votive wheels found within the acropolis area, though these are smaller and uninscribed: de Ridder, Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l'Acropole d'Athenes, 132-133, nos. 404 and 406. Both Traill and Osborne give the wheel’s date as ca. 480-470 in contrast to the Acropolis Museum and De Ridder who furnish a sixth-century date.

~211~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

translates as ‘ape’, ‘monkey’, and was sometimes the nickname for a trickster,99 but without further information about Πίθεκος it is impossible to know if the name is appropriate. In common with the Rhamnous wheel no deity is mentioned but the find-spot plausibly suggests Athena as the recipient. My examination of this wheel has revealed that its width is very thin, less than two millimetres, denoting its impracticability to have facilitated an axle. As such, I have concluded it was a complete votive offering and not the remnant of a chariot, and would have been displayed attached with other votive offerings to the temple wall or pillar.

Figure 36: Votive wheel dedicated to Athena(?) Figure 37: Inscribed votive wheel from from the Athenian acropolis; ca. sixth century; Samos; ca. 580-570, Vathy Museum no. B1443 Acropolis Museum no. 19.3 (source: museum) (source: museum).

 From Rhoikos on Samos an unusual and seemingly more primitively crafted bronze wheel dating to ca. 580-570 (figure 37). It measures two- hundred and fifty-three millimetres in diameter and is inscribed: Ἀργεῖος μἀνέθηκε.100 Again, no deity is mentioned but, since its find-spot was by the altar within the sanctuary of Hera, where she was the sole deity, this would reasonably indicate that the additional cost of inscribing the goddess’ name was deemed unnecessary. The spoke ends are visibly rounded and meet to form a very smooth axle-hub and if it was the

99 LSJ9 Πίθεκος; IG I3 548; SEG 29.938 (Ἀριστοκλείας ε μ̄̓ ὶ τᾶς καλᾶς καλά· | ℎαύτα δ’ ε μ̄̓ ί, Πίθαος [Πίθακος] αἰτε σας̄́ ἔχει). 100 Dunst, 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente', 139, pl. 55.3. Dunst mentions that the name Ἀργεῖος was a not an uncommon name on Samos. He also discusses another bronze votive wheel from Samos which is uninscribed.

~212~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

remaining part, or the representation, of a wheeled vehicle it is suggested that its unsophisticated manufacture would indicate a cart or wagon.

Figure 38: Bronze votive wheel dedicated to Figure 39: Votive wheel dedicated to Apollo; ca. sixth century; Boston MFA no. Aphrodite, from Dodona; ca. fifth century; 35.61, cat. no. 681 (source: Jeffery). NAMA no. 456 (photograph: author).

 The ca. 550-525 four-spoke votive wheel in figure 38, although inscribed in (Opountian) Lokrian script is thought to have originated in Galaxidi.101 It measures one-hundred and sixty millimetres in diameter and was dedicated to Apollo by Phalas: Φάλας Πεδιαρχείον ἀνέθεκε τὀπόλονι (‘Phalas son of Pediarcheion dedicated [this] to Apollo’).102 Bousquet interprets the second word, πεδιαρχείον, as ‘archon of the plain’ with Phalas making a dedication to Apollo in his capacity as an official at the chariot races during the Pythian Games at Delphi (he further suggests Phalas was perhaps a judge, a magistrate, or president of the games).103 Whatever the interpretation, this wheel with its distinctively flanged axle- hub either belonged to, or is a representation of, a chariot.

101 C. Morgan, Early Greek States Beyond the Polis, London and New York, 2003, 254 n. 95; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 106-108, 403, pl. 15.17. 102 SEG 16.336; Morgan, Early Greek States Beyond the Polis, 254 n. 95; Haarer & Toth (eds), 'The Anne Jeffery Archive,' Lokris cat. no. 244; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 106-108, 403, pl. 15.17; J. Bousquet, 'Delphes et les Asclepiades,' BCH 80, 1956, 591-593; L. Lerat, Les Locriens de l’Ouest, 2 vols, vol. 1, Paris, 1952, xi, section xix; L. Lerat & F. Chamoux, 'Voyage en Locride Occidentale: Octobre - Novembre 1946,' BCH 71-72, 1947/1948, 55 n. 2; L. D. Caskey, 'Recent Acquisitions of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,' AJA 40, no. 3, 1936, 310-311, fig. 5; H. T. Wade-Gery, 'Kynaithos,' in C. Bailey (ed.), Greek Poetry and Life: Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray on his Seventieth Birthday, Oxford, 1936, 64, n. 3. 103 Bousquet, 'Delphes et les Asclepiades', 592.

~213~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

 The unusual fifth-century bronze votive wheel in figure 39 from Dodona is dedicated to Aphrodite by Ophelion. It measures one hundred twenty-five millimetres across, and has a punched inscription around the rim: Ὠφελίων Ἀφροδίται ἀνέθηκε.104 Instead of spokes seamlessly joined to the rim and hub this wheel has individually crafted spokes attached by means of rivets (two are lost). Clearly this wheel was not part of, or was ever meant as a representation of a chariot, although its association with either the donor or Aphrodite is unclear.

 The fifth-fourth century bronze votive wheel in figure 40 is from Boiotian Thebes and measures one hundred millimetres in diameter.105 The punched inscription reads: Ξένων κή Πυρρίππα Καβίρυ κή Παιδί (‘Zenon and Pyrrippa (dedicate this) to the Kabeiros and

child’). Little is known of this Figure 40: Wheel dedicated to the Kabeiros mystery cult though it was linked to and child; ca. fifth-fourth century; BM fertility and to young men entering 1902,0916.1 (photograph: author). manhood, and seems also to have an association with seafaring and blacksmiths.106 As such, it is difficult to know the context in which it was dedicated. With its broad flanged axle-hub and pin still clearly in tact there is no doubt that this wheel originally belonged to a votive model chariot.

Numerous miniature votive(?) wheels have been excavated at sanctuaries such as Corinth, Delphi, and Delos but these are uninscribed with many dating to

104 Lazzarini, no. 144; SGDI II 1372; B. Alroth, 'Visiting Gods - Who and Why?,' in T. Linders & G. Nordquist (eds), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, Uppsala, 1987, 13-14; Dunst, 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente', 140; C. Carapanos, Dodone et ses Ruines, Paris, 1878, 23, 47, pl. xxvi.1; cf. Roberts comments on Carapanos’ conclusion for a sanctuary of Aphrodite at Dodona: E. S. Roberts, 'Inscriptions from Dodona II,' JHS 2, 1881, 107. 105 Dunst, 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente', 139; P. Wolters, Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, vol. 1, Berlin, 1940, 41 no. 46; Newton, Hicks & Hirschfeld, Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions, no. 958. 106 Paus. 9.25.5-7; Burkert, Greek Religion, 167, 281-282.

~214~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous the Roman era.107 It is undeniable that as a votive offering the wheel and other items were a tangible and visual expression of the dedicant’s piety, and given through a need to establish contact with the divine (and most likely to also demonstrate their piety). Perhaps this need arose from some personal crisis, or perhaps a prayer had been answered and the offering was given in gratitude, or possibly the dedication was made simply to appease a chosen deity.

Wheel votive offerings had symbolic and religious significance,108 and this belief logically extended to their use as charms and symbols for good luck, good fortune, and prosperity. In this regard, the wheel is evident everywhere: on weapons of war like shields in the hope of victory in the field;109 on coinage in the expectation of prosperity;110 jewellery as amulets;111 and, on religious artefacts to reinforce spirituality.112 Miniature wheels were also used as burial accoutrements to adorn the body of the deceased, plausibly as amulets for protection into the afterlife. A fine eighth-century example, now in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, was discovered in Amphikleia (Dadi), is the body of a young woman decorated with miniature wheels and other accessories.113

107 G. R. Davidson, 'The Minor Objects,' Corinth 12, 1952, 335-337, cat. nos. 3885, 3886; Deonna, Delos, 342-345. 108 As an ancient motif and its various representations, see: Lezzi-Hafter, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in Attic Vase Painting,' 147-158. The wheel as a votive offering was not unique to Greece. There is evidence throughout Europe, Asia, and the Mediterranean that such offerings were made to various gods in the Bronze Age and later. 109 ABV 322.1; Para. 142; Add.2 87; CVA British Museum vol. 1, iii H e, pl. (26) 2.2a-2b; BM 1842,0314.1. Lezzi-Hafter, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in Attic Vase Painting,' 149-150, fig.5a. Also, two seventh or sixth-century lead votive warriors holding shields decorated with wheel emblems: BM 1923,0212.99, 1923,0212.95; a sixth-century kylix and a lekythos portray shields with wheels held by warriors: BM 1897,1028.1, 1836,0224.220. 110 This type of early coinage is now known as ‘wappenmünzen’ which translates as ‘blazon money’. Seltman’s theory that the symbols on the coins represented ‘coats-of-arms’ or insignia of Athenian aristocrats is disputed: G. R. Stanton, Athenian Politics c. 800-500 B.C.: A Sourcebook, London, 1990, 61 n. 3; R. J. Hopper, 'A Note on Aristophanes, Lysistrata 665- 70,' CQ 10, no. 2, 1960, 242-247; C. T. Seltman, Athens, Its History and Coinage Before The Persian Invasion, Cambridge, 1924, 18, 19-84, and passim; cf. Lezzi-Hafter who thinks the wappenmünzen wheel motif on hoplite shields led to the erroneous belief that hoplites were aristocrats: Lezzi-Hafter, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in Attic Vase Painting,' 148. 111 Walters, Catalogue of Bronzes, numbers: 2186, 2187, 2188, 2198, 2200, 2201. 112 For example, the decorative wheel-motif on the remains of a cauldron leg from Lakonia: NAMA no. 415. 113 From a cist burial discovered in 1953 at Amphikleia (Dadi) in the prefecture of Phthiotis. This burial has been reconstructed and is on display in the Karapanos Bronzes hall in the NAMA; cf. Cook and Boardman’s detailed description of this grave: J. M. Cook & J. Boardman, 'Archaeology in Greece, 1953,' JHS 74, 1954, 157-158.

~215~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Wheel votive offerings were dedicated from at least ca. 1100. The wheels from Olympia, Isthmia, and Delphi were most likely connected with the games held at these centres as gifts to persuade the gods to look favourably upon the chances of the dedicant in one or other of the events.114 Wheels from other sanctuaries might represent the grateful thanks of the dedicant to the deity for the fulfilment of some request or the hope thereof. Or possibly the dedicatee’s profession was associated with wheels in some way such as Onesos from Kamiros and his hope for the god’s blessing on the prosperity of his trade.115

Consequently, the discovery of a single miniature votive wheel at Nemesis’ sanctuary at Rhamnous should not elicit any enormous surprise and should not be interpreted as evidential proof of her connection with ‘judicial torture and punishment’ as suggested by Faraone.116 Nor does it assign a sixth-century date to her later attribute of divine retributive power.

Helmet Dedicated by the Rhamnousians

The earliest documented evidence for the worship of Nemesis at Rhamnous is the previously discussed sixth-century perirrhanterion and votive wheel,117 but the discovery of an inscribed bronze helmet of a similar, or slightly later, date further confirms her worship at this early date (figure 41). The helmet was discovered in the debris of the fifth-century sanctuary cistern, and reads: Ῥαμνόσιοι οἱ ἐν Λέμνo[ι ἀ]νε[θεσαν Νεμ]έσει (‘The Rhamnousians in Lemnos dedicated (this) to Nemesis’).118 Petrakos dates the helmet to ca. 499 or 498,

114 According to Raubitschek over thirty bronze miniature chariot parts including wheels have been found at Olympia: Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952-1989), 102 n. 33. 115 In the Greek Orthodox Church dedications of miniature votive offerings to the icon of one of the saints is a practice still carried out. Called tamata, these are small metal plaques embossed with an image of the prayer-subject for which the plaque is offered. 116 Faraone, Ancient Greek Love Magic, 64 n. 105. 117 Above pp. 202-204. 118 IG I3 225 bis; SEG 35.24, 36.43, 38.25, 46.70, 47.93, 51.53; I.Rhamnous II 86; BE 1988 no. 138bis; E. C. Gastaldi, 'Lemnos e il V secolo,' in Lemno: dai Tirreni agli Ateniesi. Problemi storici, archeologici, topografici e linguistici (Napoli, 4 maggi 2011), ASAtene 88, Series III, vol. 10, 2012, 142-143; N. Sekunda, Marathon 490 BC: The First Persian Invasion Of Greece, Oxford, 2002, 14; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 59; N. F. Jones, The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy, Oxford, 1999, 139; M. Rausch, 'Miltiades, Athen und die „Rhamnusier auf Lemnos“ (IG I3 522bis),' Klio: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 81, no. 1, 1999, 7-17; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 5; N. Salomon, Le cleruchie di Atene: caratteri e funzione, Pisa, 1997, 33; Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 202 no. 90; E. G. Pemberton, 'An Early Red-Figured Calyx-Krater from

~216~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous and connects it to Miltiades’ Lemnos campaign in the late sixth or early fifth century where an Attic occupational settlement of klerouchoi and colonists was later established.119 The helmet directly ties Rhamnous to the actions on Lemnos and indicates a Rhamnousian deme-contingent as part of the original takeover under Miltiades and/or the subsequent klerouchoi.120

Figure 41: The remains of the helmet dedicated to Nemesis by the deme-contingent from Rhamnous (drawing: K. Eliaki).

The extensive archaeological and epigraphical discoveries, under the auspices of Vasilios Petrakos, from the fortified town of Rhamnous which lies immediately below Nemesis’ temple and sanctuary, have established Rhamnous as a garrison town with an important military fort from at least the

Ancient Corinth,' Hesperia 57, no. 3, 1988, 232, n. 30; Petrakos, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,' 304, fig. 5; Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 283; Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1984', 768-769, fig.17; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 197-198 no. 92 (706), fig. 30, pl. 122b; Petrakos, Έργον 31, 1984 [1985], 54, fig. 77. The lettering consists of small dots, and despite damage to the rho and second omicron in Ῥαμνόσιοι, the epsilon in ἐν, the nu in Λέμνọ[ι, and the epsilon in ἀ]νε[θεσαν the inscription can still be read. The date of the Lemnos campaign is discussed by: H. T. Wade-Gery, 'Miltiades,' JHS 71, 1951, 217. 119 Hdt. 6.136-140; cf. Diod. 10.19.6; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἡφαιστιάς; J. McInerney, 'Pelasgians and Leleges: Using the Past to Understand the Present,' in J. Ker & C. Pieper (eds), Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII, Leiden, 2014, 40; T. J. Figueira, 'Colonisation in the Classical Period,' in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 2, Leiden, 2008, 431-432; Salomon, Le cleruchie di Atene, 31-45; J. Cargill, Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC, Leiden, 1995, 2, 4-5 n. 12; R. Parker, 'Athenian Religion Abroad,' in R. Osborne & S. Hornblower (eds), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, 1994, 343-346; Pemberton, 'An Early Red-Figured Calyx-Krater from Ancient Corinth', 231-232, nn. 30-33. Colonists on Lemnos, Imbros, Aigina, and Hestiaia, are discussed by: A. W. Gomme, A. Andrews & K. J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols, vol. 4, Oxford, 1970, 436-437. 120 Andok. 3.12; Xen. Hell. 4.8.15; cf. Thuc. 1.115.3; I.Rhamnous II 86; Gastaldi, 'Lemnos e il V secolo,' 142-143; Cargill, Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC, 6.

~217~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous sixth century (figure 42).121 The epigraphical evidence confirms the fort’s strategic importance continued to increase and by the fourth century the garrison installed there comprised local epheboi, Athenians, other poleis contingents, foreign mercenaries, sailors, and was an Attic military training centre.122 Ober and Petrakos suggest a two-fold purpose for the Rhamnous fort and military installations: firstly to guard the shipping lanes on the north-east coast between Attika and Euboia, and; secondly, to protect the land-route from Oropos, a shipping port handling grains and foodstuffs from agriculturally-rich Euboia, down through Rhamnous to the Marathon and the Athenian plains.123 The route is described by Pausanias:

About sixty stades from Marathon as you go along the road by the sea to Oropos stands Rhamnous.124

Rhamnous’ proximity and excellent views across to Euboia have encouraged Moreno to conclude the fort was used as a base from which to ensure Athenian control over the island (particularly after the revolt there in 446)125 as well as to protect and guard the Athenian klerouchoi who settled there ca. 450.126 He has further identified the Rhamnous fort, albeit on the mainland, as one in a series of forts that stretched along the coast of Euboia to make up a fortification ‘ring’. Such a defensive network would have provided protection

121 For example, an inscribed dedication of a Herm to the Hero Archegetes dated to 550-500 and found within the archaeology of the fort: SEG 41.20-21, 43.6; BE 1991 no. 237; I.Rhamnous II 74, 77; V. Petrakos, Έργον 37, 1990 [1991], 9, fig. 9. Prior to Petrakos’ sixth- century discoveries it had been thought the fort dated to the late fifth or early fourth century: R. Osborne, Athens and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, 2010, 62; J. Ober, Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404-322 B.C., Leiden, 1985, 135-137; J. S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningin, 1970, 83, 93. 122 Osborne, Athens and Athenian Democracy, 54; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 44-45; also, a fourth- century ephebic dedication: W. E. McLeod, 'An Ephebic Dedication from Rhamnous,' Hesperia 28, no. 2, 1959, 121-126. Non Attic Greeks at the fort are attested for the third century, for example: a third-century garrison inscription interpreted by Kent as honouring mercenaries at the Rhamnous fort: I.Rhamnous II 12; EM 12968; Ober, Fortress Attica, 95; J. H. Kent, 'A Garrison Inscription from Rhamnous,' Hesperia 10, no. 4, 1941, 342-350. The garrison related inscriptions found at Rhamnous have been collated by Petrakos: I.Rhamnous II; a discussion on these is found in: Osborne, Athens and Athenian Democracy, 39-63. 123 Ober, Fortress Attica, 112-114, 137; cf. Thuc. 7.19 1-2; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 44; Gomme, Andrews & Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 395. 124 Paus. 1.33.2. There would have been geographical obstacles preventing a strict adherence to a ‘coastal road’ but the route can essentially be described as ‘coastal’. For comments on its exact route, see: Ober, Fortress Attica, 113-114. 125 Thuc. 1.114.1. 126 A. Moreno, Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC, Oxford, 2007, 100-102.

~218~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

against pirates and enemies, shelter for shipping, border controls, and bases for the large Athenian navy during the Peloponnesian war.127 These purposes are construed when Thucydides speaks of: τήν τε γὰρ Ἀττικὴν καὶ Εὔβοιαν καὶ Σαλαμῖνα ἑκατὸν ἐφύλασσον128 (‘for one hundred [ships] were guarding Attika, Euboia, and Salamis’), since such a large contingent would, of necessity, have had bases conveniently situated nearby.

Figure 42: Ruins of the Rhamnous garrison fort on the hill-top with surrounding city-centre, overlooking the gulf across to Euboia, with remains of the city fortification wall in the foreground.

Alternative supply routes from Oropos to Athens traversed Ephidna and Dekeleia, with the latter the most direct and developed route with associated infrastructure such as a good road equipped to withstand heavy traffic and, no doubt, good inns.129 The loss of Dekeleia to the Spartans in 413, during the Peloponnesian War,130 effectively blocked this supply route131 (and possibly

127 Moreno, Feeding the Democracy, 132-135. 128 Thuc. 3.17.2. 129 Thuc. 7.28.1. The remains of this ancient road were still evident in the nineteenth century AD: Ober, Fortress Attica, 115, n. 12. Dikaiarchos narrates that the route that passed Ephidna had good inns: F1.6-7, in: C. Müller (ed.), Geographici Graeci Minori, vol. 1, Paris, 1855, 100-101. 130 Thuc. 7.19.1-2, 27.3-4; cf. Xen. Hell. 1.1.35-36, 2.1.17. 131 Thuc. 7.28.1, 8.95.1-2.

~219~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous also the route via Ephidna owing to its proximity to Dekeleia), which required the Athenians to look for alternatives. Thucydides informs that the alternative route chosen was by sea around Sounion and into Piraeus, and while he is silent about the option via Rhamnous Athens would have utilized this route to maintain the passage of grain and food into Attika given Rhamnous’ advantageously placed harbours lying in close proximity to Euboia just across the gulf.132 It was these harbours which were used at the beginning of the war to effect the secure evacuation of Athenian livestock to Euboia for safe- keeping on the island’s agriculturally rich plains,133 and they would certainly have been used again as a back-door trade route for supplies.

With Rhamnous’ strong strategic position, its two harbours, fortified town and military fort with epheboi from diverse regions, I suggest the Rhamnousian fighting forces would have collaborated with their Athenian counterparts in military sorties, with Miltiades’ Lemnos campaign as a case in point.134 With victory secured the captured Lemnian weaponry would have been dedicated by the different deme contingents in their home town temples in thanks for a successful campaign. The archaeological discoveries at Olympia and the acropolis at Athens of two ca. 500-493 Athenian-dedicated Corinthian-style helmets, inscribed: [Ἀθεναῖοι τ]ον ἐγ Λέ[μνο], and Ἀθεναῖοι [τ]ον ἐγ Λέμν[ο], believed to be dedications from captured Lemnian weaponry, further proves this point.135 The epigraphical letter forms on these helmets is the same as the

132 The harbours served as anchorages for the triremes that patrolled the south Euboian Gulf, and as trading ports for the loading of exports and unloading of the merchant ships carrying goods for Attika from regions throughout the Mediterranean: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 51; V. Petrakos, Έργον 50, 2003 [2004], 12-15 for the geophysical surveys on the harbours; J. Whitley, 'Archaeology in Greece 2003-2004,' Archaeological Reports, no. 50, 9. 133 Thuc. 2.14.1-2. F. Hildebrandt, Die attischen Namenstelen: Untersuchungen zu Stelen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Berlin, 2006, 152-153; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 15; cf. Demosthenes’ later account of Kallisthenes’ fourth-century decree ordering citizens in the countryside to move their property to various fortified towns including Rhamnous for safety: Dem. 18.38. 134 An early fifth-century casualty list in Attic script discovered on Lemnos is believed to list those Athenians who fell in Miltiades’ Lemnos campaign ca 499: IG xii Suppl. 337; N. T. Arrington, 'Topographic Semantics: The Location of the Athenian Public Cemetery and its Significance for the Nascent Democracy,' Hesperia 79, no. 4, 2010, 504. 135 IG i3 518, IG i2 453, (Athenian acropolis); IG i3 1466, (Olympia); Gastaldi, 'Lemnos e il V secolo,' 142-143; Sekunda, Marathon 490BC, 15-16; A. G. Keen, 'Grain for Athens: the Importance of the Hellespontine Route in Athenian Foreign Policy before the Peloponnesian War,' in G. J. Oliver, R. Brock, et al. (eds), The Sea in Antiquity, British Archaeological Reports International Series, vol. 899, Oxford, 2000, 67; Rausch, 'Miltiades', 7-17, esp. 8; A. J.

~220~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous one from Rhamnous establishing all three as contemporary,136 and confirming an Athenian and a Rhamnousian presence on Lemnos in the same period.

Another helmet, belonging to Miltiades, was dedicated at Olympia and inscribed: Μιλτιάδες ἀνέ[θ]εκεν [⋮ τ]οῖ Δί (‘Miltiades dedicated [this] to Zeus’).137 Again the letter forms indicate a date of ca. 500-493, but because of the greater significance of the Greek victory at Marathon it has traditionally been connected with this particular battle where Miltiades was strategos. This customary attribution is unsubstantiated by any firm evidence and since Miltiades’ military career was extensive there is no reason not to suppose this helmet related to some other campaign, perhaps Lemnos ca. 499.

Further confusing the evidence is the debate as to whether the three helmets confirmed as having a connection with Lemnos should be seen as offerings from captured Lemnian weaponry ca. 499, or later dedications by klerouchoi who may have been trying to emphasize their mainland Attic origins after Lemnos collaborated with Persia in 480.138 A third proposal suggests the helmets are later still and should be associated with subsequent action on Lemnos under the command of Kimon ca. 450. These last two suggestions would exclude the addition of Miltiades’ helmet to the three with a confirmed connection to Lemnos, since he had died ca. 489. This inconclusive debate is the result of epigraphic analyses of the helmets’ letter-forms which disposes Gastaldi and others to favour a lower date, whereas Petrakos and followers of his methodology maintain the ca. 499 date for the helmet from Rhamnous.139

Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, 2nd edn, Manchester, 1999, 175; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 300; Pemberton, 'An Early Red-Figured Calyx-Krater from Ancient Corinth', 231; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 198; R. Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, Oxford, 1972, 424; E. Kunze, 'Eine Waffenweihung der Athener in Olympia,' in G. Bruns (ed.), Festschrift für Carl Weickert, Berlin, 1955, 9-11. 136 Rausch, 'Miltiades', 8, 13. Arguing against this conclusion is Arrington, who suggests the Rhamnous helmet may date to a decade later: Arrington, 'Topigraphic Semantics', 504 n. 24. 137 IG i3 1472; SEG 14.351, 23.251, 50.93, 54.492bis; Hatzi (ed.), The Archaeological Museum of Olympia, 142 B2600; W. K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War, vol. III, Berkeley, 1979, 271. (Translation: author.) 138 Rausch, 'Miltiades', 17. 139 Those who favour ca. 475-450: the editors of IG i3 522bis; Gastaldi, 'Lemnos e il V secolo,' 142-143, nn. 46, 48; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 59, 82; E. C. Gastaldi, 'Cleruchie? Non cleruchie? Alcune riflessioni sugli insediamenti extraterritoriali di Atene', paper presented at: 'In ricordo di Dino Ambaglio', Università di Pavia, 2009, 128-129. Those who favour ca. 499 and Miltiades’ Lemnos campaign: the editors of SEG 35.24, 51.53; I.Rhamnous II 86; Sekunda, Marathon 490BC, 14; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 5;

~221~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Although invaluable, the accuracy of epigraphic dating can often be problematic and unreliable, and without additional datable evidence from other sources such as an archon name, reliance on letter forms alone can be ambiguous, especially given differences in regional and scribal scripts. On the other hand, since the helmet dedication from Rhamnous would have been offered in a military context after a victory, in my opinion Petrakos’ ca. 499 date and the connection to Miltiades’ campaign has much to recommend it.

Dedications of armour captured from the defeated enemy was an ultimate hoplite goal that was both traditional and ancient.140 Compare, for example, Hektor’s vow to dedicate the armour of his slain enemy in the temple of Apollo.141 With the exception of the Spartans who did not dedicate or display enemy armour,142 dedications of spoils of war served a two-fold purpose: as thanks offerings to those gods who were thought to have aided the victory;

Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 202, no. 90; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 299-300; Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1984', 769; Pemberton, 'An Early Red-Figured Calyx-Krater from Ancient Corinth', 232, n. 30; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 198; Petrakos, Έργον 31, 1984 [1985], 54. Discussions on date ranges: Salomon, Le cleruchie di Atene, 33; Rausch, 'Miltiades', 13-16. 140 Hdt. 8.27, 9.81; Paus. 5.27.12; cf. IG vii.37 for Megara, IG xiv.268 for fifth-century Selinus; A. H. Jackson, 'Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour,' in V. D. Hanson (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York, 1993, 228; Burkert, Greek Religion, 69; Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings, 95-148. Military equipment dedicated in the Archaic temple of Poseidon at Isthmia together with devices for fixing them to the wall: O. Broneer, 'Excavations at Isthmia, 1954,' Hesperia 24, no. 2, 138, nos 5-12, pl. 54a; Raubitschek, The Metal Objects (1952-1989), no. 576 (IM 694), pl. 88; belt toggle IM 107, 56. Other dedicated inscribed armoury of similar date, include: armoury and helmets from the treasures of the Acropolis: IG i3 351.15; Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, 82-87, 115-119, 206-208; a helmet in the Corinthian style from Olympia dedicated by the Messenians for their victory over Mylai: Hatzi (ed.), The Archaeological Museum of Olympia, 137; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, (Olympian helmet dedicated by the Messenians) 454 no. 6a, (helmet dedicated by the Orchomenians at Olympia) 95 no. 11, pl. 8, (helmet dedicated by Argos as a thanks offering for their victory over the Corinthians) 162,1 69 no. 18, pl. 27 no. 18. 141 Hom. Il. 7.81-83; cf. Il. 10.458-464, 570. Cf. the ca. 700 inscribed large bronze statue of a hoplite dedicated by one Mantiklos to Apollo; and the large inscribed statue of Zeus dedicated at Olympia by the Lakedaimonians after the campaign against Messenia which Jeffery dates to ca. 500: SEG 11.1203a, 17.204, 28.429; Paus. 5.24.3; Meiggs & Lewis 47 no. 22; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 90-91, 94 no. 1 (to Apollo), 195-196, 201 no. 49 (to Zeus); Dillon discusses the difficulties of correctly dating the dedication to Zeus: M. P. J. Dillon, 'The Lakedaimonian Dedication to Olympian Zeus: The Date of Meiggs & Lewis 22 (SEG 11, 1203A),' ZPE 107, 1995, 60-68. 142 When the Spartans were questioned about this Plutarch reports Kleomenes replied that since captured armour had belonged to cowards it was unfit to offer to the gods: Plut. Apoph. 45.18 (Mor. 224B18); Jackson, 'Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour,' 231-232; Pritchett, The Greek State at War, 292. Leotychidas, when asked the same question, added that since the weapons had belonged to cowards they were also unfit for the young to see: Plut. Apoph. 49.4 (Mor. 224F4); Jackson, 'Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour,' 232; Pritchett, The Greek State at War, 292-293.

~222~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous and, as a mark of respect and piety in the hope of further divine military support in the future.143 The offerings would be hung in the god’s sanctuary as evidential proof of the deity’s efficacy,144 and as a public display of the dedicator’s bravery, aretē, and piety. The sight of the weaponry seized from fallen enemies would be cause for civic and national pride, and confirmation of the military prowess and superior strength of those of their demesmen who had fought with such success. This civic pride is summed up in the words of Alkaios, writing in the late seventh and early sixth century, which simultaneously gives a mental image of a sanctuary adorned with weaponry.

The great hall gleams with bronze: the whole ceiling is dressed for the war-god with bright helmets, down from which nod white horse-hair plumes, adornments for men’s heads. Bright bronze greaves hide the pegs they hang on, defence against a strong arrow; there are corslets of new linen and hollow shields thrown on the floor. Beside them are swords from Khalkis and many belts and tunics. These we have been unable to forget, ever since we first undertook this task.145

THE CLASSICAL TEMPLE

The defining event which more than any other increased the fame and renown of the goddess Nemesis was the Greek victory at Marathon over the superior invasionary Persian force in 490. It was at Marathon, a site just fourteen kilometres south of Rhamnous, that Nemesis was credited with having played a seminal role in the defeat of the enemy through the retributive justice meted out by her against the arrogance of the Persian expansionist aims and their overweening goal to invade and forcibly possess the land of another.146 The declared Persian motivation behind this act of aggression was as a means to

143 Jackson, 'Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour,' 230; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 90-91, 94 no. 1. The literary sources are full of the importance or significance of the dedication of captured arms as trophies to the gods, for example: IG ii2 1469B lines 67-68; Aischyl. Ag 578-579; Eur. Tro. 575-576, Andr. 1122-1123, Iph. Taur. 74-75; Diod. 12.70.5; Paus. 1.15.4, 2.21.4, 6.19.13, 10.19.3. 144 A ca. 370 Apulian krater illustrates the interior of Apollo’s temple at Delphi with dedicated wheels and helmets adorning the wall: Museo Nazionali di Napoli 3249; cf. Furtwängler & Reichhold, Griechische Vasenmalerei, pl. 179. 145 Alk. F140; Athen. xiv 627ab. 146 Paus. 1.33.2; Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 174; Petrakos, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,' 305-306, 317-320. Fisher acknowledges that the perception of Nemesis’ involvement in the Greek victory at Marathon and the defeat of the Persians is one occasion for this otherwise rare ‘cause and effect’ concept for this period: Fisher, Hybris, 503, n. 16.

~223~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous punish Athens and Eretria for their involvement in the burning, ca. 498, of the lower town of Sardis in Persian controlled Lydia including the temple of Cybele;147 although as a raison d’être it was a convenient foil to the truer objective of the empire-building, implied by Herodotos’ words: τὸ σκηπτόμενοι οἱ Πέρσαι.

Legend has it that in 490, when the Persians sailed against Greece they brought with them a block of marble from the island of Paros with the intention of creating a victory monument after what they believed would be their certain triumph: a presumptuous and conscious act of hybris.148 The ultimate irony, or so Pausanias relates, was that this slab of marble was ultimately fashioned into the cult-statue of the goddess deemed responsible for their defeat, Nemesis:

The wrath of this goddess fell also upon those barbarians who landed at Marathon. For in their contemptuous belief that would impede their taking Athens they brought a piece of Parian marble for the making of a trophy for victory as if it were already brought about. This stone Pheidias sculpted to be a statue of Nemesis.149

The truth of the story is unknown but, given the route and time the Persians took to arrive on the Greek mainland, it is feasible. Certainly they were not relying on any element of surprise since they spent time advertising their presence and objectives by sailing around the islands, besieging, subduing, and enslaving populations.150 Their successes would have emboldened their anticipation of victory on the mainland and in their arrogance may have procured a suitable piece of marble for the purpose of setting up a monument once they claimed victory. Since Nemesis’ statue is indeed made from Parian marble, and not local marble, this may support the report, but the evidence is

147 Hdt. 5.101-102, 6.95. 148 M. Jung, Marathon und Plataiai: Zwei Perserschlachten als >Lieux de Mémoire< im Antiken Griechenland, Göttingen, 2006, 193; Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, 32; A. Kosmopoulou, The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Wisconsin, 2002, 131. 149 Paus. 1.33.2: δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀποβᾶσιν ἐς Μαραθῶνα τῶν βαρβάρων ἀπαντῆσαι μήνιμα ἐκ τῆς θεοῦ ταύτης: καταφρονήσαντες γὰρ <μηδέν> σφισιν ἐμποδὼν εἶναι τὰς Ἀθήνας ἑλεῖν, λίθον Πάριον [ὃν] ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἐξειργασμένοις ἦγον ἐς τροπαίου ποίησιν. τοῦτον Φειδίας τὸν λίθον εἰργάσατο ἄγαλμα μὲν εἶναι Νεμέσεως. The story is also told by: Parmen., Anth. Gr. 16. 222; Ausonius, Epigrams on Various Matters xlii.1-4; Theaetetus: Anth. Gr. 16.221; Anon: Anth. Gr. 16.263. 150 Hdt. 6.96-97, 99.

~224~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous circumstantial and the story remains hypothetical.151 The truth or historicity of the account is less important than the actual narrative and what it says about Greek beliefs in Nemesis’ punishing power consequent upon hybris, in this case the hybristic Persian invasionary force.

Rhamnous

Figure 43: Map showing the proximity of Rhamnous to Marathon.

When the Persian fleet eventually approached the mainland it first sailed up the Euboian Gulf past Rhamnous to commit further acts of violence by laying waste to Eretria and enslaving the population,152 before returning the same way past Rhamnous and down to Marathon where they disembarked,153 intent on taking Athens. Their journey (blue line in figure 43) would have twice, defiantly, taken them past Rhamnous in clear view of the temple of Nemesis, the goddess who punishes the hybristic. My photograph in figure 20, taken from Nemesis’ temple site, illustrates the clear and expansive view of the gulf

151 Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 45; G. I. Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments and Recognition of the Type of Agorakritos' Statue of Nemesis,' AAA 3, 1970, 408. 152 Hdt. 6.101-102, 106; Pl., Laws 3.698c-d; Cornelius Nepos, Miltiades 4.2; cf. Philostr. VA 1.23-24. 153 Ael. Arist. Pan. 13.

~225~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous across to Euboia. Nemesis and the inhabitants of Rhamnous would have observed the Persian ships at close quarters, and also in 480 when another Persian fleet sailed through the gulf towards Salamis. Having been outraged by the Persian effrontery Nemesis’ anger could now only be assuaged by a total and humiliating Persian defeat.

The Greek victory was an enormous achievement, and probably unexpected. No doubt, it would have been thought that such a momentous triumph had been brought about with the assistance of some god or goddess. In grateful thanks deities such as Pan, Athena, Apollo, and Artemis were honoured;154 a new temple to Eukleia (Glory) was built from the spoils of the battle;155 and in ca. 436-432 Nemesis was given a new marble temple and cult statue at Rhamnous to more appropriately acknowledge and promote her elevated status.156 Despite their defeat, within ten years the Persians again sailed against Greece, set on revenge. This time their partial success was the cause of much destruction, looting, and burning of towns,157 sanctuaries and temples,158 including, it is thought, Nemesis’ late sixth-century temple.159 Ultimately, the Greeks again prevailed and the Persians were defeated in 479.

Persia and its empire abounded in wealth, prosperity, and expansive territories, yet, in their hybris, they sought to seize the comparatively impoverished lands of the Greeks. This arrogance is summed up in the words of the Spartan general Pausanias after the Greek victory at the battle of Plataia in 479, who, on viewing the abandoned Persian camp with its rich embroidered hangings

154 Hdt. 6.105 (Pan); IG i3 784, Meiggs & Lewis 18 (Athena); Meiggs & Lewis 19 (Athena and Apollo); Xen. Anab. 3.2.12, Ael. VH 2.25 (Artemis). 155 Paus. 1.14.5. 156 Stafford notes the ‘aggrandisement of the sanctuary’ is seemingly linked to the repulsion of the Persians’ invasions: Stafford, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet,' 37. 157 Hdt. 8.53 (Athens). 158 Hdt. 8.140, implied in the words of Xerxes’ messenger when asking for a covenant from the Greeks: ‘rebuilt all their temples that I burnt’; Hdt. 5.102, where the Persians use the accidental burning of the Cybele’s Sardis temple by the Greeks as a pretext to burn as many Greek sanctuaries as they could when they invaded in 480-479: τὸ σκηπτόμενοι οἱ Πέρσαι ὕστερον ἀντενεπίμπρασαν τὰ ἐν Ἕλλησι ἱρα. Comment on the evidence for the destruction is found in: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20; Meiggs, 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon', 37-38. 159 I.Rhamnous I 24-26, 194-198; Miles, 'Burnt Temples in the Landscape of the Past,' 124; Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, 224; Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, 57; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38; Theocharaki-Tsitoura, 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 42; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 137-139.

~226~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous decorated in gold and silver thread, the gold plate, the luxurious accoutrements, and the sumptuous feast adorning the tables, is reported by Herodotos to have said, no doubt sardonically:

Ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, τῶνδε εἵνεκα ἐγὼ ὑμέας συνήγαγον, βουλόμενος ὑμῖν τοῦδε τοῦ Μήδων ἡγεμόνος τὴν ἀφροσύνην δέξαι, ὃς τοιήνδε δίαιταν ἔχων ἦλθε ἐς ἡμέας οὕτω ὀϊζυρὴν ἔχοντας ἀπαιρησόμενος.

Men of Hellas, it is for this reason I gathered you together, as I wished to show you the folly of the leader of the Medes who, having such a lifestyle as this, came to us so they might deprive us of our pitiful existence.160

With the construction of Nemesis’ new fifth-century temple she was honoured for the part she was believed to have played in bringing about a Greek victory. The sixth-century military fort in the town below was improved and strengthened with city walls, and it became a centre for epheboi in their second year of training. These youths participated in agonistic games held during the annual Nemeseia festival,161 a festival in which they would have honoured the goddess thought to have aided their forebears during the Persian invasions and in the hope of her future help in wars to come or whenever Greece was threatened by hybristic invaders. Nemesis was also honoured with an imposing cult statue with elaborate base depicting the introduction of Helen to her true mother, Nemesis, by Leda, her step-mother, in the company of numerous Trojan War notables, interpreted as an allusion not only to the Greek conquest of the Trojans, but also of Nemesis’ retributive punishment of the Persians at Marathon,162 i.e. Greek nemesis subduing Persian hybris. This was a theme that endured, and still celebrated in song in a first century AD Hymn to Nemesis. The hymn names Datis, the Persian commander at Marathon, a figure whose arrogance was still remembered.163 It would also have been Datis who, if the story is true, brought the block of marble from Paros after subduing

160 Hdt. 9.82. Translation: author. 161 Discussed below, pp. 278-286. 162 J. L. Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' in J. Bodel & N. M. Dimitrova (eds), Ancient Documents and Their Contexts: The First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (2011), Leiden, 2014, 107; O. Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' in N. K. Rutter & B. A. Sparkes (eds), Word and Image in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh, 2000, 62-68. Discussed below, pp. 239-260. 163 Aristophanes ridicules Datis, in: Ar. Pax 289.

~227~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous the island, to erect a victory stele, but which was instead sculptured into a statue of Nemesis.164 Datis and the Persians deserved Nemesis’ retribution:

[----- c.14 ------]ισε------] [------c.12 ------]δωτατ[------c.9 ------]ς [------c.9 ------]νεοχμὰν κα[------c.8 ------]α [------c.6 ---- σ]τείβοισα πόδ[εσσι------] [------c.5 --- ὄπ]α Καλλιόπας ἀνε[------] [------]δια μελετᾶ πεδ’ ἀειτ[------] [------]ινον ἔχοισα πόνον κάμνε[ι] [ἦτ]ορ ὅμως· (vac.) [οὔ]τι γὰρ εὐπαλές ἐστι· Δᾶτις τ’ ἀγασ[․] [ο]ἷδε παθὼν (vac.) καὶ χώρα Ἀχαιμενιδᾶν μεγαλαύχων.165

… new … she (Nemesis) treading with her feet … (of) Calliope … (Fate’s) providence with ever-… enduring … toil is distressed in her heart nevertheless; for it is no easy matter; … Datis knows it, having suffered, as does the land of the vainglorious Achaemenids.

The Temple

Figure 44: Petrakos’ reconstruction of the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous; (drawing: K. Eliaki).

164 This marble block is discussed on p. 224, and the statue on pp. 239-247. 165 SEG 19.222, cf. 36.271, 51.226; I.Rhamnous II 165; EM 4212; E. Stafford, ''The People to the Goddess Livia': Attic Nemesis and the Roman Imperial Cult,' Kernos 26, 2013, 218; A. Chaniotis & I. Mylonopoulos, 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2001,' Kernos 17, 2004, 237; M. Kajava, 'Livia and Rhamnous,' Arctos 34, 2000, 54-55; D. A. Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric, vol. 5, Cambridge, MA, 1993, no. 932; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 52.

~228~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Figure 44 is an artistic representation of Petrakos’ interpretation of Nemesis’ fifth-century sanctuary, with the temple in the centre, altar to the front, a smaller ‘temple’ on the left, and on the right a roofed well-house in front of a stoa.166 The temple was built in exactly the same position as the previous two sixth-century temples in ca. 436-432,167 although Miles and Fullerton suggest 430-420.168 Immediately in front of the post-480 retaining wall is a road that linked the sanctuary, domestic houses, and farms to the main town-centre on the coast below. Excavations of the fill behind the retaining wall have revealed considerable quantities of archaeological material, which has proved invaluable in providing additional evidence on the chronology, function, and history of the sanctuary and surrounding area.

The delay of approximately forty or fifty years between the destruction of the late sixth-century temple and the construction of the fifth-century temple is curious. A lack of funds after the deprivations suffered during the two Persian wars is a theory suggested by Palagia,169 but this seems unlikely given the apparent fiscal health of the sanctuary, to be discussed. The more likely reason is one of the terms of an oath known as the Oath of Plataia. This oath was reputably taken by the Greeks before the battle of Plataia in 479, and included a number of vows to the gods in return for a Greek victory against the Persians.170 One of these, recorded by Diodoros and Lykourgos, stated:

166 Extensive architectural analyses of the temple in: J. A. K. E. de Waele, 'The Design of the Temple of Nemesis,' Stips Votiva: Papers Presented to C.M. Stibbe, 1991, 249-264; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 133-249; Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 1-81; A. T. Hodge & R. A. Tomlinson, 'Some notes on the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous,' AJA 73, no. 2, 1969, 185-192; W. B. Dinsmoor Jr., 'Rhamnountine Fantasies,' Hesperia 30, no. 2, 1961, 179-204; Plommer, 'Three Attic Temples', 94-109; W. Zschietzschmann, 'Die Tempel von Rhamnous,' AA XLIV, 1929, 441-451; Orlandos, 'Note sur le sanctuaire de Némésis à Rhamnonte', 305-320. 167 A date first postulated by: W. B. Dinsmoor Sr., 'Observations on the Hephaisteion,' Hesperia Supplements 5, 1941, 153-155; W. B. Dinsmoor Sr., 'The Temple of Ares at Athens,' Hesperia 9, no. 1, 1940, 47; W. B. Dinsmoor Sr., 'Archaeology and Astronomy,' Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 80, no. 1, 1939, 152. Petrakos cautiously says that it was built after the middle of the fifth century, Petrakos, Rhamnous, 24. 168 M. D. Fullerton, Greek Sculpture, Chichester, 2016, 200, 338; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 227, 233. 169 Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 62. 170 M. N. Tod (ed.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions from 403 to 328 BC, 2nd edn, vol. 2, Oxford, 1962, 303-307, no. 204. The Oath is discussed by: Mikalson, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, 25, 90-93, 125; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 88; J. M. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic to the

~229~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Nor will I rebuilt any of the sanctuaries that have been burned and razed, but I will leave them as a memorial for our descendants and as a memorial of the impiety of the barbarians.171

The late date of the only extant copy of the Oath (a fourth-century inscribed stele), and the fact that it was described as an invented falsehood (καταψεύδεται) by Theopompos,172 makes it uncertain whether an oath in the form in which it now exists was actually avowed.173 Regardless of its authenticity, the temples burnt and destroyed by the Persians were mostly left in a desolate state for many years, as noted by Pausanias:

The Greeks who resisted that barbarous invasion decided not to re-erect the sanctuaries that were burnt down, but to leave them for-ever as remembrances of hatred. This is why the shrines at Haliartos, and in Athens Hera’s shrine on the Phaleron road, and Demeter’s at Phaleron, have stayed half-burnt to this day.174

Hostilities between Greece and Persia were apparently set aside ca. 449 in a treaty known as the Peace of Kallias, the authenticity of which is similarly

Present, Cambridge, 1999, 141-143; C. W. Fornara (ed.), Archaic Times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, 2nd edn, Cambridge, 1983, 56-57, no. 57; Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, 504-507, 597; Meiggs, 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon', 36-40. See also: Plut. Arist. 21.1; Hdt. 7.132. 171 Diod. 11.29.1-4: καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν τῶν ἐμπρησθέντων καὶ καταβληθέντων οὐδὲν ἀνοικοδομήσω, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπόμνημα τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις ἐάσω καὶ καταλείψω τῆς τῶν βαρβάρων ἀσεβείας; and in almost identical phraseology: Lyk. 1.80-81: καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν τῶν ἐμπρησθέντων καὶ καταβληθέντων ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων οὐδὲν ἀνοικοδομήσω παντάπασιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπόμνημα τοῖς ἐπιγιγνομένοις ἐάσω καταλείπεσθαι τῆς τῶν βαρβάρων ἀσεβείας. 172 FGrH 115 F153: ὅτι ὁ Ἑλληνικὸς ὅρκος καταψεύδεται, ὃν Ἀθηναῖοί φασιν ὀμόσαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας πρὸ τῆς μάχης τῆς ἐν Πλαταιαῖς πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους, καὶ αἱ πρὸς βασιλέα [Δαρεῖον] Ἀθηναίων [πρὸς Ἕλληνας] συνθῆκαι (‘the Hellenic oath which the Athenians say the Hellenes swore against the barbarians before the battle is falsified, and the treaty of the Athenians with King Darius against the Hellenes’). 173 Its authenticity is argued by: Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, 155-156, 504-507; Meiggs, 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon', 39-40; A. E. Raubitschek, 'The Covenant of Plataea,' TAPA 91, 1960, 178-183. And, contra: FGrH 115 F153 (=Theon Prog. 67.22); A. J. Podlecki, Perikles and His Circle, London, 1998, 70-71; N. Loraux, The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City, Cambridge MA, 1986, 156, 402 n. 106. Cartledge sees the inscription as genuine, but not actually sworn, and as a fourth-century view of an idealized past: P. Cartledge, After Thermopylae: The Oath of Plataea and the End of the Greco-Persian Wars, Oxford, 2013, 4. 174 Paus. 10.35.2: Ἑλλήνων δὲ τοῖς ἀντιστᾶσι τῷ βαρβάρῳ τὰ κατακαυθέντα ἱερὰ μὴ ἀνιστάναι σφίσιν ἔδοξεν, ἀλλὰ ἐς τὸν πάντα ὑπολείπεσθαι χρόνον τοῦ ἔχθους ὑπομνήματα: καὶ τοῦδε ἕνεκα οἵ τε ἐν τῇ Ἁλιαρτίᾳ ναοὶ καὶ Ἀθηναίοις τῆς Ἥρας ἐπὶ ὁδῷ τῇ Φαληρικῇ καὶ ὁ ἐπὶ Φαληρῷ τῆς Δήμητρος καὶ κατ' ἐμὲ ἔτι ἡμίκαυτοι μένουσι. Plut. Per. 17, mentions a Panhellenic conference to be convened (ca. 447-448) which would, amongst other topics, discuss the temples burned by the barbarians; Podlecki, Perikles and His Circle, 70.

~230~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous controversial.175 If an Oath of Plataia can be assumed, it would follow that any vows made under its charter during a time of hostility between the two nations would be null and void once peace was agreed, whereupon a programme of temple rebuilding could commence with impunity. Whatever the reason for the delay, rebuilding began approximately forty years after their destruction, with Nemesis’ Rhamnous temple one which fell within this programme.

It is likely that Athenian capital contributed to the financing of the temple rebuilding,176 along with local gifts, donations, taxes, and the temple treasury. Although it cannot be confirmed whether temple funds suffered during the hostilities, the Rhamnous temple treasury had been, from at least the late sixth or early fifth century, in a healthy fiscal position as confirmed by an inscribed lead receipt for the transfer of funds from the epistatai to the hieropoioi.177 The receipt names the sanctuary officials, the amounts received by them (which were not insignificant), and details monies being repaid into the sanctuary treasury.178 By the middle of the fifth century the sums involved had increased with temple accounts specifying increased payments for the sanctuary administrators, large rental revenue from sanctuary properties, and interest-bearing loans made to borrowers, all of which was the property of

175 Isok. 4.118-120, 7.80, 12.59; Dem. 19.273; Lyk. 1.73; Diod. 12.4.4-6; Plut. Kim. 13.4-5; Livy 33.20.1-1; Aristod. FGrH 104 F13; cf. Hdt. 7.151; Thuc. 8.56.4-5 notes the geographical limits for Persian ships, which may be a reference to the treaty. Hurwit, The Athenian Acropolis, 157; Meiggs, 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon', 38; cf; P. Krenz, 'The Athenian Treaty in Theopompus F 153,' Phoenix 63, no. 3/4, 2009, 232-234; Podlecki, Perikles and His Circle, 67-70; L. J. Samons, 'Kimon, Kallias and Peace with Persia,' Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 47, no. 2, 1998, 129-140; G. L. Cawkwell, 'The Peace Between Athens and Persia,' Phoenix 51, no. 2, 1997, 115-130; E. Badian, 'The Peace of Callias,' JHS 107, 1987, 1-39; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, The Origins of the Pelopponesian War, London, 1972, 310-314; Meiggs, The Athenian Empire, 129-151, 487-495. 176 The Delian League treasury was moved from Delos to Athens ca. 454, and Perikles’ temple rebuilding and beautification of Attika commenced soon after. His actions brought condemnation from League members who complained their contributions were being misused: Thuc. 1.99.1-3; Plut. Arist. 25.2-3; Meiggs, 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon', 43- 44; W. K. Pritchett, 'The Transfer of the Delian Treasury,' Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 18, no. 1, 1969, 17-21. 177 LSJ9 822, col. 1, s.v. ἱεροποιός: ‘overseer of temples and sacred rites’; R. Develin, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C., Cambridge, 1989, 17. 178 IG 13 247bis; SEG 35.13, 36.26, 38.13; BE 1988.138bis; I.Rhamnous II 181; N. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, Oxford, 2011, 143 n. 207; L. Threatte, The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, 2 vols, vol. 2, Berlin, 1996, 757; Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 432 no. M; Immerwahr, Attic Script: A Survey, 125, no. 864a; Touchais, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1984', 769, 768 fig. 19; Petrakos, Έργον 31, 1984 [1985], 53-55; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 192-194 no. 35 (652), fig. 28, pls 14-15.

~231~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Taxes, and possibly fines, were another source of sanctuary income, with evidence for the former provided in an Hellenistic inscription stipulating that taxes from leased properties be used to subsidize Nemesis’ cultic temple activity.181 The deity’s wealth continued to increase so that by the middle of the fourth century temple treasury funds were substantial enough to enable her to subsidize other local cults,182 such as sacrifices to Zeus Herkeios,183 Apollo Lykeios,184 and possibly [The]mis185 or [Arte]mis. With the exception of Themis these others have no obvious connection with Nemesis, yet her largesse was such that she was able to magnanimously fund other deme cults in addition to her own on account of her considerable wealth.

Within the temple precinct stands a small building to the left and within a few centimetres of Nemesis’ larger temple. It has long been debated whether this

179 Dated ca. 450-440: IG i3 248; SEG 10.210, 36.27, 42.21; I.Rhamnous II 182; Meiggs & Lewis 144-146 no. 53, ‘Accounts of Nemesis of Rhamnous’, 144-146; Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 288 n. 19; Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 65, n. 56; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 83; Jones, The Associations of Classical Athens, 139; K. M. W. Shipton, 'The Private Banks in Fourth-Century B. C. Athens: A Reappraisal,' CQ 47, no. 2, 1997, 405; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 234; Petrakos, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,' 309; T. Linders, 'Gods, Gifts, Society,' in T. Linders & G. Nordquist (eds), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, Uppsala, 1987, 117; Fornara (ed.), Archaic Times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, 90-91 no. 90; M. H. Jameson, 'The Leasing of Land in Rhamnous,' Hesperia Supplements 19, 1982, 66-74; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 147-150 no. 35; M. I. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500-200 B.C.: The Horos-Inscriptions, New Brunswick, 1951, 284 n. 39, 285 n. 43. Cf. lease document from the Athenian Agora: IG ii2 1590, 1591, 2495; SEG 33.167: M. B. Walbank, 'Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part I,' Hesperia 52, no. 1, 1983, 100-135. Borrowing from the gods: T. Linders, 'The Treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and their Functions,' Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 62, 1975, 9. 180 IG i3 248 lines 3-4, 9-12, 17-18 and 21-22 (sacred money); SEG 10.210, 36.27, 42.21; I.Rhamnous II 182. For Rhamnous’ monetary situation, see: Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, esp. 135-147. 181 SEG 41.75; I.Rhamnous II 7; Stafford, ''The People to the Goddess Livia'', 212-213; V. Petrakos, PAAH 144, 1989 [1992], 31-32 no. 15; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 15. 182 IG ii2 2493 + 2494, lines 22-23 of the latter; I.Rhamnous II 180, lines 82-90; Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 87; Jameson, 'The Leasing of Land in Rhamnous', 66-74. 183 I.Rhamnous II 180, line 87. 184 I.Rhamnous II 180, line 85. Apollo’s appellate Λυκέας was an uncommon personal name for a mortal, except at Rhamnous where it was frequently used; cf. Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 142-144, no. 204; Osborne & Byrne (eds), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. 2, s.v. Λυκέας. 185 I.Rhamnous II 180, line 88: - - - - μιδι.

~232~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

building functioned as a temple in its own right or whether it served as a treasury. Petrakos suggests it operated in both capacities: originally a temple, probably dedicated to Themis (and perhaps a temporary temple for Nemesis after the destruction of her late sixth-century temple ca. 480 until her new fifth-century temple was completed),186 and ca. second century this purpose changed when it became a treasury.187 Whether it was thought Themis no longer needed her own temple or whether she moved in with Nemesis to share hers, is not known, but since there is no mention of her in the inscriptional sources after 100/99 it is probable her influence had declined by this date.188 Figure 45: Statue of a goddess from the small polygonal building; ca. 460; NAMA 1848 (photograph: author). Whatever its function, the building has proved to be a rich source of archaeological artefacts, building materials, and statues: for example, the ca. 460 small headless statuette of a goddess in figure 45,189 and the previously discussed ca. 520 statuette of a seated goddess (figure 26).190 Also found were a statue of Themis (figure 57), one of priestess Aristonoe (figure 59), a statue of a youth (figure 60), and several others in differing states of fragmentation.191 The large number of statutory and votives found strongly supports the hypothesis that at one time in its history it served as a treasury.

186 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20; Travlos, 'Rhamnous,' 388. 187 Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 23. 188 Themis is discussed below, pp. 261-267. 189 Discovered in 1890, the statuette measures 43cms in height; Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, 91 no.158. 190 Discussed above, p. 201. 191 Statue of priestess Aristonoe (NAMA no. 232); statue of Themis (NAMA no. 231); statue of a youth dedicated by Lysikleidos (NAMA no. 199): Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38.

~233~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

This smaller building dates to the early fifth century. Petrakos suggests a date immediately after the Persian War of 480-479, and Travlos after the battle at Marathon in 490.192 It measures 9.90m by 6.15m, is built in a polygonal style with local dark marble, and roofed with Corinthian terracotta tiles.193 These tiles and other architectural features have been found inside the building and scattered throughout the sanctuary site. The building was built on bedrock, was unadorned, and lacked traditional Classical artistic adornments, although paint-remnants indicate that the roof palmettes (and most likely other features) were painted.194

Stoa facing south to take advantage of the daylight

Well with small porch

New temple ca. 437

Altar

Small polygonal building, early fifth century

Figure 46: Petrakos’ plan of the Rhamnous sanctuary showing the close proximity of the two temple buildings (drawing: K. Eliaki). (Labels added by author.)

192 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20; Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38; Travlos states: 'wurde gleich nach der Schlacht von Marathon erbaut': Travlos, 'Rhamnous,' 388; Miles chooses the safe option by describing the temple as 'a small Archaic temple', allowing for a date of somewhere between 500 and 480: Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 139. 193 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 21-22; Boersma, Athenian Building Policy, 197, concerning the architectural detail. 194 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 20-23.

~234~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Nemesis’ new fifth-century temple, although larger than her previous temples, was sited straight on top of and in the same alignment as the ruins of her late sixth-century poros temple. This would have been consciously done and was consistent with the traditional practice of siting new temples directly on top of the ruins of their predecessors so as to maintain continuity of the sanctity of both the site itself and of the previous temple.195 As a result, the new larger temple naturally encroached outwards in all directions and towards the small polygonal temple on the south side until it almost touched it;196 in fact the two buildings stand just 0.084m apart at their nearest point (figure 46)197 with neither facing exactly true east, the usual orientation of Greek temples.198

The temple’s architect is unknown, but the coincidence of several similar technical features, including unusual measurement units, between the Rhamnous temple,199 the temple to Ares at Athens, the temple to Poseidon at Sounion, and the temple to Hephaistos in Athens, have been taken as an indication that the same architect was responsible for the four temples.200 The

195 Miles notes that the wish for continuity of the sacred place influenced the location of the Classical temple: Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 153 n. 34. 196 Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38-39. 197 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 18; Boersma, Athenian Building Policy, 143 (temple chronology), 193-194 (architectural details). 198 A study by nineteenth-century academics presented theories that temple orientation may have had religious significance in relation to the sun, moon or stars, so that a celestial body’s light might shine directly into the temple on a special day such as an annual festival or the establishment myth of the cult. The case for Rhamnous is addressed by: F. C. Penrose, 'On the Results of an Examination of the Orientations of a Number of Greek Temples with a View to Connect these Angles with the Amplitudes of Certain Stars at the Time the Temples were Founded, and an Endeavour to Derive there from the Dates of their Foundation by Consideration of the Changes Produced upon the Right Ascension and Declination of the Stars by the Precession of the Equinoxes,' Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A 184, 1893, 808, 813, cf. 823, 827-828. A contemporary discussion is found in: E. Boutsikas, Astronomy and Ancient Greek Cult: An application of archaeoastronomy to Greek religious architecture, cosmologies and landscapes, PhD Thesis, University of Leicester Press, Leicester, 2007, 1-192. The aspect of any celestial reason behind the orientation of the temples at Rhamnous is mentioned at this point in this thesis but is not otherwise addressed. 199 The technical details are found in: de Waele, 'The Design of the Temple of Nemesis', 249- 264, esp. Appendix 2; W. B. Dinsmoor Sr., The Architecture of Ancient Greece: an Account of its Historic Development, New York, 1973, 180-182; cf. Plommer, 'Three Attic Temples', 96. 200 The name Theseion or Temple of Theseus was incorrectly given to what is now known as the temple of Hephaistos. It had been incorrectly thought that the remains of the Athenian hero Theseus had been placed in the temple in 475 after Kimon brought them back to Athens from the island of Skyros. This erroneous labelling has led to the unknown architect being dubbed the ‘Theseum Architect’ in all four instances: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 24; Boersma, Athenian Building Policy, 76, 77-78; Dinsmoor Jr., 'Rhamnountine Fantasies', 179; Dinsmoor Sr., 'The Temple of Ares at Athens', 40-47; Dinsmoor Sr., 'Observations on the Hephaisteion',

~235~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous discovery inside the temple precinct of pottery shards that once belonged to drinking vessels used by the builders of the temple and inscribed with their names,201 adds a nice personal touch.

Figure 47: Artistic representation of the east facade of Nemesis’ temple at Rhamnous; (drawing: K. Eliaki).

The new temple was in a Doric peripteral style of six columns wide and twelve long and measured 10.05m by 21.4m.202 The roof was adorned with sculptural akroteria,203 lions’ heads at the gutter-line,204 with large double doors at the temple entrance. Gandy described the fragmented shards of a central akroterion as originally depicting Boreas’ abduction of Oreithyia, an interpretation which has been repeated as fact ever since.205 Conversely, the

153-154. Miles disagrees with Petrakos that the Theseum Architect was responsible for Nemesis’ temple: Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 242. 201 Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 283. 202 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 24. 203 See the discussion above (p. 191) on the akroteria decorated with griffins attacking stags. 204 Petrakos, Rhamnous, 25. 205 NAMA 2348; Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, 120 no. 218; P. Schultz, 'The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike,' Hesperia 70, no. 1, 2001, 11, n.34; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 162-164.

~236~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous study of a fragment from an akroterion, attributed to Agorakritos and dated ca. 430-420 and now in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens, has led Miles to reject Gandy’s Boreas and Oreithyia since the dimensions do not allow for their comfortable placement.206 Consequently, it is tempting to re- interpret the akroterion scene as representing Paris’ abduction of Helen or even Zeus’ violation of Nemesis, but such hypotheses remain speculation. Seemingly the temple doors were badly hung since an incised mark on the marble floor left by one of the doors as it scraped the floor each time it was opened or closed is still visible today. The lower steps were constructed of local dark marble and the main structure built from fine quality white Pentelic marble.207 From the reassembled remains of the temple, now housed in a specially built apotheke, it has been established there were no sculptures on the metopes or pediment (figures 47 and 48).208 According to Ridway their absence should not be seen as particularly unusual since carved metopes in the Classical period were not quite as common as they were in the Archaic period, although they did exist.209

Figure 48: The temple entablature reassembled showing the unsculptured pediment and metopes (photograph: Petrakos).

206 Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 212-214; Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 81 no. 2348; cf: Schultz, 'The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike', 11, n. 34. 207 It was not unusual to use different types of marble on the lower steps, for example the same procedure was followed for the Older Parthenon in Athens, the temple to Hephaistos in Athens, and the west facade of the Propylaia also in Athens: Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 145. 208 The reconstruction in figure 48 has been completed using a method whereby all the pieces found so far have been placed together without the use of any permanent fixing material allowing for new finds to be added later: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 32-33. 209 B. S. Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Princeton N J, 1981, 27-28.

~237~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Compensating for the lack of architectural sculptural adornments were the painted surfaces on the cella interior, the pediment, the frieze, and the metopes.210 Gandy writes that artistic decoration could still be seen in his time on the more protected surfaces such as the interior frieze and the ceiling coffers of the lacunaria which were painted with green leaves and gold stars on a blue background.211 He further described the cornice of the pronaos as being painted, gilded, and adorned with lotus ornaments, together with sculptured moulding in the capitals of the antae.212 The colours, it seems, were noteworthy even in Gandy’s day, but after having being

exposed from their previously Figure 49: Reassembled temple columns protected state they have faded and are showing the incomplete fluting. now almost indiscernible.213

It is interesting that while the columns of the pronaos and posticum were fully fluted, the exterior columns are fluted only at the very top and bottom (figures 47 and 49).214 Also, the stylobate blocks that surround the temple seem unfinished, although Hodge and Tomlinson suggest, rightly or wrongly, that the resultant ‘stippled’ effect was a deliberate architectural feature by the

210 Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 149-150. Cf. B. S. Ridgway, Prayers in Stone: Greek Architechtural Sculpture ca. 600-100 B.C.E., Berkeley, 1999, 103-110, 114-119, esp.108. 211 See the discussion on the still evident masons’ marks made on to the ceiling coffers to help them set the slabs correctly in place: SEG 34.246; V. Petrakos, Praktika 8th Congress for Greek and Latin Epigraphy 1, 1983, 329-330. 212 Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 46, 49; Gandy's unpublished diary reproduced in: Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 49; Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 149-150, 217. 213 Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 53, no. 111. 214 Boersma, Athenian Building Policy, 77. Another building of the same period with unfinished column fluting is the temple(?) to Demeter and Kore (or stoa?) at Thorikos: E. Lupu, 'SEG XXXIII 147: Attika. Thorikos. Sacrificial Calendar 380-375 or 440-430/430- 420(?) B.C.,' in Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL), Leiden, 2005, 134; V. Petrakos, Έργον 41, 1994 [1995], 22, figs 7, 10; W. B. Dinsmoor Jr., 'Anchoring Two Floating Temples,' Hesperia 51, no. 4, 1982, 416, pl. 96a-b.

~238~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous architect.215 Palagia suggests the unfinished state of the temple indicates Rhamnous’ state of impecunity, especially in view of the story of Nemesis’ cult statue being made from a recycled block of marble whose original purpose had been for use as a Persian victory monument.216 But, given the previously discussed documented prosperity of the temple treasury this seems doubtful.217 It is more likely that the Peloponnesian War of 431-404 interrupted the building works which had commenced ca. 436-432. This war was lost by Athens and the subsequent peace in 404 left a weakened Attika having to deal with more pressing issues than completing unfinished temples.

The Cult Statue and Base

T HE STATUE

Ancient authors were divided on the identity of the sculptor of Nemesis’ Parian marble cult statue, with some suggesting the great Pheidias himself and others his pupil, Agorakritos.218 Despinis’ reconstruction of the statue from the collected fragments has resulted in several detailed examinations and studies of the sculptor’s execution and artistic style which, when compared with confirmed works of Pheidias and Agorakritos, has led to a general consensus of Agorakritos as the more likely candidate.219 Whoever he was, the fine execution still discernible in the fragments confirm the statue would have been a magnificent testament to a fine sculptor, a conclusion supported by Strabo:

215 Hodge & Tomlinson, 'Some notes on the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 185-192. Petrakos comments on the value of the temple’s ‘unfinished’ state in allowing archaeologists to study the different stages of ancient building methods: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 24. 216 Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 62.Cf. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy, 77. 217 Discussed above, pp. 231-232. 218 Pliny NH 36.5 (Agorakritos); Paus. 1.33.3, Zen. Centuria 5.82, CPG vol. 1, 153.82 (Pheidias). 219 LIMC vi.1 Nemesis 734 (P. Karanastassi); Fullerton, Greek Sculpture, 200, 202; Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 131; Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, 301; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 53; Stafford suggests there was a temptation in antiquity to give the credit to the more renowned sculptor: Worshipping Virtues, 84; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 2; W. Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus,' AntK 40, 1997, 36; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 108; Robertson, A Shorter History of Greek Art, 104, attributes the conflicting views surrounding the identity of the sculptor to the close similarity in style and technique of Pheidias and Agorakritos; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 111-210; Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments', 407-413.

~239~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Rhamnous has the statue of Nemesis, which by some is called the work of Diodotus and by others of Agorakritos the Parian, a work which both in grandeur and in beauty is a great success and rivals the works of Pheidias.220

With the exception of Pausanias, the ancient sources give little descriptive detail about the statue, although they provide some interesting anecdotes. Pliny writes that the statue started out in a contest as a statue of Aphrodite, but ended up renamed as Nemesis:

Another of [Pheidias’] pupils was Agorakritos of Paros, who pleased him also because of his youth and beauty, so that Pheidias is said to have allowed him to put his name to several of his, the master's, own works. In any case, the two pupils [Alkamenes and Agorakritos] competed with each other in making an Aphrodite, and Alkamenes won the contest not through superior skill but through the votes of the citizenry, who favoured one of their own against a foreigner. So Agorakritos is said to have sold his statue on condition that it should not remain in Athens, and that it should be named ‘Nemesis’. It was set up at Rhamnous, a deme of Attika, and Marcus Varro preferred it above all other statues.221

The truth of the story is impossible to confirm, but it can be argued that since Nemesis’ iconography in Pliny’s time included the later Roman attributes of balancing scales, measuring rod, wheel, and griffin, that he saw in the Classical Nemesis a better likeness to an Aphrodite or a Venus.222 Photios credits Pheidias as the sculptor,223 as does the Suda which repeats the Aphrodite story:

She was first modelled on the appearance of Aphrodite; that is why she held a sprig from an apple tree. Erechtheus set her up, since she was his mother, but she was named Nemesis and reigned in the place.224 But Pheidias made the statue, whose inscription favoured his beloved, Agorakritos of Paros.225

220 Strab. 9 1.17: Ῥαμνοῦς δὲ τὸ τῆς Νεμέσεως ξόανον, ὅ τινες μὲν Διοδότου φασὶν ἔργον τινὲς δὲ Ἀγορακρίτου τοῦ Παρίου, καὶ μεγέθει καὶ κάλλει σφόδρα κατωρθωμένον καὶ ἐνάμιλλον τοῖς Φειδίου ἔργοις. 221 Pliny NH 36.5. 222 LIMC vi.1 Nemesis 734 (P. Karanastassi). 223 Phot. Lex. s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις· αὕτη πρῶτον ἀφίδρυτο ἐν Ἀφροδίτης σχήματι διὸ καὶ κλάδον εἶχε μηλέας· ἱδρύσατο δὲ αὐτὴν Ἐρεχθεὺς μητέρα ἑαυτοῦ οὖσαν ὀνομαζομένην δὲ Νέμεσιν καὶ βασιλεύσασαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ· τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα Φειδίας ἐποίησεν οὗ τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἐχαρίσατο Ἀγορακρίτῳ τῷ Παρίῳ ἐρωμένῳ ὃς καὶ Ὀλυμπίασι τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ Διὸς ἐπέγραψε· Παντάρκης καλός ἦν δὲ οὗτος Ἀργεῖος, ἐρώμενος αὐτοῦ (‘Pheidias made the statue, and his signature was a favour to Agorakritos of Paros, his beloved’). 224 Nemesis as Erechtheus’ mother is found nowhere else. Hom. Il. 2.545-550 records Erechtheus’ mother as Earth but that he was raised by Athena, while other sources quote his

~240~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Zenobios provides a little more information about the attributes of the statue, which he thinks was made by Pheidias, of whom he is rather derogatory:

In Rhamnous there stands an image of Nemesis, ten cubits in height, stone throughout, the work of Pheidias; she holds an apple branch in her hand. Antigonos of Karystos claims that a little tablet hangs from this, and is inscribed as follows: ‘Agorakritos of Paros made [me].’ Yet this is no wonder, for many others have inscribed someone else’s name upon their own work. It is likely that Pheidias conceded this to Agorakritos because he was his lover, and was generally much excited over boys.226

Figure 50: Artistic representation of Nemesis' cult statue within the fifth-century temple (source: Petrakos).

parents as Pandion and Zeuxippe: Marm. Par. A15; IG xii,5 444.29a; FGrH 239 A15; Apollod. Bibl. 3.14.8; Paus. 1.5.3; Hyg. Fab. 48. Cf C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Athenian Myths and Festivals: Agauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia, Oxford, 2011, 89 n. 201. 225 Suda s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις (rho 33): αὕτη πρῶτον ἀφίδρυτο ἐν Ἀφροδίτης σχήματι: διὸ καὶ κλάδον εἶχε μελέας. ἱδρύσατο δὲ αὐτὴν Ἐρεχθεύς, μετέρα ἑευτοῦ οὖσαν, ὀνομαζομένην δὲ Νέμεσιν καὶ βασιλεύσασαν ἐν τῷ τόπῳ. τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα Φειδίας ἐποίησεν: οὗ τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἐχαρίσατο Ἀγορακρίτῳ τῷ Παρίῳ ἐρωμένῳ. 226 Zen. Centuria 5.82, CPG vol. 1, 153.82 s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις: ἐξ οὖ φησιν Ἀντίγονος ὁ Καρύστιος πτύχιον τι μικρὸν ἐξηρτῆσθαι τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχον ‘Ἀγοράκριτος Πάριος ἐποίησεν’ οὐ θαυμαστὸν δὲ· καὶ ἄλλοι γὰρ πολλοὶ ἐπὶ τῶν οἰκείων ἔργων ἕτερον ἐπιγεγράφασιν ὄνομα. εἰκὸς οὖν καὶ τὸν Φειδίαν τῷ Ἀγορακρίτῳ συγκεχωρηκέναι· ἦν γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐρώμενος, καὶ ἄλλως ἐπτόητο περὶ τὰ παιδικά.

~241~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

The Parian marble statue stood 4.44m tall with its base (3.55m without) and from Roman copies it is known she wore a chiton and himation.227 Invariably she was portrayed as having her hair coiffured into a chignon at the nape of her neck, a conclusion confirmed by the remains of her head, now in the British Museum.228 Originally Despinis dated the statue to ca. 430s on stylistic grounds and its base to approximately a decade later.229 The logistics of how this would have been achieved are fraught with difficulties and can only be speculated: did the statue originally stand on an unadorned base that was later carved, or did the statue initially have no base but once one was completed some mechanical mechanism hoisted the statue up to facilitate its placement, something hesitantly suggested by Despinis writing some time later and where he indicates a reluctant willingness to accept the possibility both were made at the same time?230 I would suggest that if the statue and its base are stylistically and thus chronologically different, it is possible that, despite statue and base being credited as the work of Agorakritos, they were in fact executed at the same time by different sculptors, with the base the work of a younger man using more modern and innovative techniques, possibly a pupil of Agorakritos.

The statue on its base would have been placed towards the back of the inner- sanctum of the temple with the sacred trapeza in front (figure 50) where Nemesis would have projected a dominating presence.231 Although the temple interior shown in figure 50 is very plain, the walls and floor area would

227 Paus. 1.33.3-6; LIMC vi Nemesis 1 (P. Karanastassi); ThesCRA iv: 60 no. 21; OCD3 1034 s.v. Nemesis; Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 43-44, 145 S 2, fig. 4.1, list of statue copies:145-146; Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, 113-114; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 84-86; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 1-3, 7-9, fig. 1; Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', 29-39, fig. 1; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 28 fig. 18; Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, gives a statue height of 3.50m, 173; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 1-82; Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments', 407-413. 228 BM 1820,0513.2. Ridgway erroneously describes her hair in the Archaic fashion as: ‘massive braids hanging over the shoulders at the back’: Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, 173. By the fifth century this style of dressing the hair was out of date. The chignon mentioned above would have been more chronologically appropriate. 229 Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 1-65, esp. 55, 57-58; Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments', 411; cf. Miles, 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', 227 n. 153; V. Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως,' Kyrieleis 2, 1986, 90; Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, 173. 230 Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 107. 231 Trapeza fragments have been found in the sanctuary well: Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 133.

~242~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous originally have been adorned with dedicated weaponry, as well as strategically placed votive offerings to the goddess.

It is regrettable that in the Christian era, during the purge of all things pagan, Nemesis’ statue and temple were destroyed.232 The impetus was likely to have been Arcadius’ edict of ca. AD 399,233 ordering the demolition of pagan temples.234 From the fragmented state of the hundreds of pieces so far found it seems Nemesis’ statue and base came in for an extremely frenzied attack; no doubt the Christian vandals were making a statement of defiance against the goddess of retribution; an interpretation reinforced by the almost unscathed and largely intact female statue who may represent Themis, found in the smaller temple.235 The degree of fragmentation done to Nemesis’ statue and base has added to the enormity of the reconstruction process,236 although this has been aided by inexact Roman copies and ancient descriptions.237

232 The stone from the temple was plundered for new building works: Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 40. Rhamnous had been in decline before this and the temple would not have been the grand monument to the goddess it had been: Petrakos, Rhamnous, 54. 233 Edicts ordering the destruction of pagan temples began ca. AD 324 after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. Arcadius’ edict specifically mentions the pagan temples in the countryside: ‘If there should be any temples in the country districts, they shall be torn down without disturbance or tumult. For when they are torn down and removed, the material basis for all superstition will be destroyed’: C. Pharr, T. S. Davidson & M. B. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, New Jersey, 2001, 474-475, no. 16. 234 An account of the destruction of the pagan temples is recorded by Libanius ca. AD 386: ‘[Christian monks] ... hasten to attack the temples with sticks and stones and bars of iron, and in some cases, disdaining these, with hands and feet. Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs, demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priests must either keep quiet or die. After demolishing one, they scurry to another, and to a third, and trophy is piled on trophy, in contravention of the law [there had previously been a law that protected temple buildings but not the associated pagan religion which was illegal]. Such outrages occur even in the cities, but they are most common in the countryside’: Libanius: Or. 30.8-10. This frenetic hatred against other beliefs and distain for historical significance is seen today in the violent destruction of ancient monuments and museum artefacts by marauding members of the cult of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) intent on the obliteration of all evidence of other religious faiths, tolerance, and peoples of other beliefs. 235 NAMA no. 231. 236 Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 1-110; Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments', 407. 237 Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 28-44; Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 145-146. A copy of the head of Nemesis’ cult statue: Agora S 1055. A list of known Roman copies are found in: LIMC vi Nemesis 1 and 2a- o (P. Karanastassi) The most complete copies are: LIMC 2d (NAMA cat. no. 3949, Antonine period), LIMC 2a (Copenhagen Glytotheck cat. no. 2086, early Imperial), and LIMC 2n (Messene Museum cat. no. 240, Antonine); E. Brigger, 'Roman Adaptations of Classical Cult Statues: the Case of Nemesis of Rhamnous,' Mediterranean Archaeology 15, 2002, 74-79.

~243~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Of the ancient sources Pausanias provides the most comprehensive description of the statue, although this is superficial and lacks any real depth of detail:

τοῦτον Φειδίας τὸν λίθον εἰργάσατο ἄγαλμα μὲν εἶναι Νεμέσεως, τῇ κεφαλῇ δὲ ἔπεστι τῆς θεοῦ στέφανος ἐλάφους ἔχων καὶ Νίκης ἀγάλματα οὐ μεγάλα: ταῖς δὲ χερσὶν ἔχει τῇ μὲν κλάδον μηλέας, τῆ δεξιᾷ δὲ φιάλην, Αἰθίοπες δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ φιάλῃ πεποίηνται.238

Pheidias carved this stone to make a statue of Nemesis, on the head of the goddess is a crown with deer and images of small Nikai. In her left hand she holds an apple-branch, and a phiale in the right hand, on which Ethiopians have been worked.

Pausanias’ reference to the Ethiopians is intriguing; why Ethiopians, and how did he know they were Ethiopian and not some other African peoples? From Snowden’s work it seems peoples of obvious African origin were generally referred to as ‘Ethiopians’ regardless of their actual origin.239 Homer describes Ethiopians as ‘noble’ or ‘incomparable’ (ἀμύμονας Αἰθιοπῆας) and as friends of the gods, possibly reason enough for them to be linked iconographically to a goddess who represents the upholder of virtuous qualities:240 And they say that they [the Ethiopians] were the first to be taught to honour the gods and to hold sacrifices and festivals and processions and festivals and the other rites by which men honour the deity; and that in consequence their piety had been published abroad among all men, and it is generally held that the sacrifices practised among the Ethiopians are those which are the most pleasing to heaven … And they state that by reason of their piety towards the deity, they manifestly enjoy the favour of the gods, inasmuch as they have never experienced the rule of an invader from abroad; for from all time they have enjoyed a state of freedom and of peace one with another, and although many and powerful rulers have made war upon them, not one of these has succeeded in his undertaking.241

238 Paus. 1.33.3. 239 F. M. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience, Cambridge MA, 1970, vii. Snowden adds (p. 2) that Ethiopians were the yardstick by which the ancient Greeks measured all peoples of darker skin. 240 Zeus was fond of visiting them: Hom. Il. 23.205-207; 1.423-424; Poseidon also visited them: Hom. Od. 1.22-25; Iris makes plans to visit them to share in the hecatombs being sacrificed to the gods: Hom. Il. 23.205-207; cf. Diod. 3.2.2-3.3.1. 241 Diod. 3.2.2-3.3.1. According to Aelian, Ethiopia is where the gods bathe: Ael. NA 2.21; Dionysius Periegetes described Ethiopians as ‘godlike’ and ‘blameless’: K. Broderson (ed.), Das Lied von der Welt: Dionysios von Alexandria, 'Orbis terrae descriptio', Hildesheim, 1994, 559-561; Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἰθίοψ 47, says they were the first to honour the gods; Seneca

~244~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Snowden suggests the Ethiopians represent the black soldiers in Xerxes’ army and symbolize the great Greek victory over the Persians, with Nemesis’ aid.242 Fisher sees the Ethiopians representing Athenian power extending towards distant barbarians,243 and others that the Ethiopians may be a visual analogy of Nemesis’ influence and retributive power reaching to the ends of the world.244 If this were so, why are other Attic phialai, with no connection to Nemesis, similarly embossed with African heads?245 Possibly, the perception of Ethiopian piety made them appropriate as adornments on sacred religious items in the hope that such piety would, by association, permeate the temple, its precinct, and the people worshipping there. One such example is the exceptionally beautiful fourth-century finely worked gold mesomphalos phiale adorned with African heads (figure 51) from Panagyurishte in Bulgaria.246 Despite its find spot, metallurgical assay studies have established it was made in Attika, and importantly, it is thought to be a replica of the phiale once held by the statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous.247 If correct, posterity is now able to

admires their tenacity: De Ire 3.20.2; see also, Statius Thebais 5.426-428; Luk., Prom. 17, Zeus Rants 37. 242 Hdt. 7.69-70, 90. Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity, 125. 243 Fisher, Hybris, 503 n. 47. 244 Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 131; Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', 29-39, esp. 33-34; Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 174-176; Shapiro, Personification of Abstract Concepts, 152; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 63-64; N. M. Kontoleon, 'The Gold Treasure of Panagurischte,' Balkan Studies 3, no. 1, 1962, 200; E. Simon, 'Der Goldschatz von Panágjuriste - eine Schöpfung der Alexanderzeit,' AntK 3, no. 1, 1960, 3-26, esp. 6-18. 245 For example, four fourth-century inventories of the treasurers of Athena record Ethiopian phialai: IG ii2 1413 lines 6-7, 1424a lines 30-31, 1425 lines 25-26, 1443 line 127, with the latter made of gold: Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, 175 no. 337. Von Bothmer’s dubious argument that a Greek visitor to Egypt may have seen Negroes in Egyptian art and taken this idea back to Greece is not supported: D. von Bothmer, 'A Gold Libation Bowl,' Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21, no. 4, 1962, 161. 246 Photograph source: http://ancient-treasure.info/thracian-treasures/panagyurishte-gold- treasure.html. The phiale is 24.7cms in diameter. SEG 37.212; O. Lordkipanidze, Phasis: The River and City of Colchis, Stuttgart, 2000, 68; D. M. Lewis, Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History, Cambridge, 1997, 47; D. M. Lewis, 'Temple Inventories in Ancient Greece,' in M. Vickers (ed.), Pots and Pans: A Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese, and Greco-Roman Worlds, Oxford, 1986, 76-77; Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity, 27, 125, 149; von Bothmer, 'A Gold Libation Bowl', 154-166; Kontoleon, 'The Gold Treasure of Panagurischte', 185-200; Simon, 'Der Goldschatz von Panágjuriste - eine Schöpfung der Alexanderzeit', 3-26; E. Vanderpool, 'Newsletter from Greece,' AJA 59, no. 3, 1955, 227-228; D. Tsonchev, 'The Gold Treasure of Panagiurishte,' Archaeology 8, 1955, 218- 227. 247 Lordkipanidze, Phasis, 68, n. 397; Snowden, Blacks in Antiquity, 125; Kontoleon, 'The Gold Treasure of Panagurischte', 200; implied by: Lewis, Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History, 47; Lewis, 'Temple Inventories in Ancient Greece,' 76-77.

~245~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous see Nemesis’ phiale and is not solely reliant on Pausanias’ inadequate description.

Figure 51: Gold phiale from Bulgaria thought to be a copy of the one held by Nemesis at Rhamnous; ca. fourth century; Plovdiv Archaeological Museum, inv. no. 3204.

An examination of the head of Nemesis’ statue shows that the now lost crown or head-dress would have been metal, perhaps bronze or gold, with spikes that inserted into the still visible holes to secure the head-piece.248 The small Nikai described by Pausanias could have been an ever-present reminder of her perceived victory over the hybristic Persian invasionary force of 490, or they may have represented Nemesis’ own retributive powers, in that she will always have victory over arrogance and hybris wherever it is found. The deer or stags are an enigmatic inclusion: perhaps added as a reference to the futility of trying

248 My personal observation: BM 1820,0513.2.

~246~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous to escape the longevity of Nemesis’ retributive power since, according to Pausanias in a different context, deer live longer than elephants,249 i.e. no amount of time would allow an offender to escape her justice. Or, possibly they were a retrospective acknowledgement of her former agrarian nature.

Photios, Zenobios, Pausanias, and Pliny, all mention the apple branch held in her hand. Since the apple is an attribute of Aphrodite its presence here has been interpreted as evidential proof of the story of the statue having been initially sculpted as a statue of Aphrodite.250 On the other hand, the apple was also mythology significant to Nemesis: Eris’ apple of Discord was the catalyst that sparked the Trojan War,251 a war in which Nemesis was directly involved through Zeus’ orchestrated rape of her (at Rhamnous) as a means to produce a beautiful daughter who would be his cause célèbre to destroy mankind; Hera’s golden apples were tended by the Hesperides, siblings of Nemesis according to Hesiod,252 and daughters of Hesperos in other accounts253 (the same Hesperos who was present when Zeus and Themis were plotting the destruction of mankind through warfare);254 and, apples were connected to the land located at the ends of the earth,255 where those pious Ethiopians and long-lived deer reside. Consequently, the apple branch held by Nemesis was a visual reminder of Nemesis’ potent retributive powers that stretch into every corner of the earth; her violation by Zeus at Rhamnous; and, her subsequent role in the Trojan War. It was this Trojan War role that was the theme depicted on the frieze of her statue base.

249 Paus. 8.10.10. 250 Phot. Lex. s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις; Zen. Centuria 5.82, CPG vol. 1, 153.82, s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις; Paus. 1.33.3; Suda s.v. Ῥαμνουσία Νέμεσις (rho 33); Pliny NH 36.5. 251 Apollod. Ep. 3.2. 252 Apollon. Argon 4.1396-1400; Paus. 5.11.6, 5.18.4, 6.19.8; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.11; Hyginus, Astron. 3. Hes. Theog. 215. 253 Diod. 4.27.2; Servius on Virgil Aen. 4.484. 254 Discussed above at: pp. 97-98. 255 Hes. Theog. 275 (at the edge of night), 517 (at the limits of the earth), 744 (Tartaros); Virgil Aen. 4.480 (farthest of lands); cf. Eur. Hipp. 742.

~247~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

T HE ST ATUE BASE

According to Kosmopoulou, fifth-century Rhamnous was unique amongst Attic demes in possessing a quality cult statue with a superbly sculpted base; and Shapiro Lapatin writes that the reliefs on the base were executed ‘to a greater degree than the sculptures which adorned the bases of other fifth- century cult statues’.256 An analysis of the architectural execution of the base has generally concluded it was the work of Pheidias’ pupil, Agorakritos of Paros,257 and has been stylistically dated to ca. 420s, an aspect discussed in more detail above.258 It measures 0.5 metres high by 2.43 metres wide by 1.66 metres deep and consists of three parts: a white Pentelic marble decorative socle, i.e. a short supporting plinth; a central base of two large white Pentelic marble slabs decorated with a frieze of highly carved figures described as almost ‘in the round’; and, a cavetto crown of dark Eleusinian limestone on which the cult statue stood.259 Three sides (the back was plain) were adorned with figures carved into the blocks.260

256 Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 130-131; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 118. 257 Pliny NH 36.5; Strab. 9.1.17; Smith suggests Agorakritos but admits to the possibility of Pheidias: Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 142 R1; O. Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου,' Ἀριάδνη 9, 2003, 10; Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 131, 141 n. 49; Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, 301, says base and statue were probably by Agorakritos; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 53; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 2, figs 1-3; Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', 36, fig. 2; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 108, fig. 1, pl. 27 b-d; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 68-69. 258 Above p. 242. 259 Paus. 1.33.7-8; LIMC vi Leda 234 no. 33 (L. Kahil/N. Icard-Gianolio); LIMC vi Nemesis 210 (P. Karanastassi); LIMC vi Neoptolemos 1 (O. Touchefeu-Meynier); LIMC iv Helene 14 (L. Kahil/N. Icard); LIMC iii Dioskouroi 187 (A. Hermary) LIMC iii Epochos II 1 (N. Icard- Gianolio); LIMC i Agamemnon 4 (O. Touchefeu-Meynier/I. Krauskopf); I.Rhamnous I 251- 266; Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, 44; Palagia, 'Classical Athens,' 124-125; Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', 10-14, 23 fig. 2; Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 130-135, cat. 62, 244-248, figs. 101-104; Camp, The Archaeology of Athens, 113-114, 301; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 62-68; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 86-87; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 2-4, figs. 1-3; Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', 29-39, 34-36 fig. 2; Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 121-131; Shapiro, Personifications in Greek Art, 176-177, 256 no. 115, fig. 133; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 107-119, 108 n. 2, pl. 27b-c; Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 89-107, figs 1-7, pls. 111-116; Petrakos, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite', 237-253; Robertson, A Shorter History of Greek Art, 103-106; V. G.

~248~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

As previously mentioned, the base and the statue it supported were deliberately smashed to pieces in a seemingly frenetic assault by Christians in late antiquity; and although many fragments have been re-discovered, countless others remain lost. Had it not been for Pausanias’ second-century AD eye- witness description of the figures, together with a restored Roman copy depicting four figures from the left-hand section of the front of the base (figure 52),261 interpretation and identification would have proved impossibly problematic especially given the lack of distinguishing attributes for any individual figure.262 (A comparison between the Roman copy and the first four figures of the base in figure 53a reveals, with some small differences, a very close likeness between the two, leading to the conclusion the relief is indeed a copy of the original.) One re-discovered fragment which uniquely does have identifiable features is a male head complete with pilos, which credibly identifies it as once having belonged to one of the Dioskouroi,263 although its correct placement has proved elusive. This head and numerous other pieces of unknown placement have been shelved in the Rhamnous storage apotheke until such time as they can be accurately placed.264

Kallipolitis, 'Η βάση του αγάλματος της Ραμνουσίας Νεμέσεως,' AEph 117, 1978, 1-90, pls. 1- 32; Shapiro, Personification of Abstract Concepts, 154-155; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου; Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments', 407-413; Hamdorf, Griechische Kultpersonifikationen der Vorhellenistischen Zeit, 97 nο. 285. 260 A. Avramidou, The Codrus Painter: Iconography and Reception of Athenian Vases in the Age of Pericles, Wisconsin, 2011, 77; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 77-78. Fullerton incorrectly says they were carved separately and attached later: Fullerton, Greek Sculpture, 202. 261 The copy measures 0.54 x 1.2 metres. It was found in Rome’s Tiber river AD 1763. Stockholm National Museum SK 150; LIMC iv Helene 15 (L. Kahil/N. Icard); Fullerton, Greek Sculpture, 200, 201 fig. 9.11; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue- Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 64-65, n. 32, fig. 4.7; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 110-111, pl. 27a; J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period, London, 1985, fig.123; Robertson, A Shorter History of Greek Art, 105, fig. 144; M. Robertson, A History of Greek Art, Cambridge, 1975, 353 pl. 118c; H. Brising, Antik Konst i Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, 1911, 75 no. 150, pl. 32 no. 150. 262 According to Petrakos, Pausanias’ identification of the figures is largely accurate: Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 93; but note his earlier reservations on Pausanias' accuracy: Petrakos, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite', 227-253. 263 Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 97, 98 fig. 5; Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 82-83, fig. 63. 264 There are an additional 97 unplaced pieces, and Petrakos notes that if the pieces taken by the Dilettanti expedition were returned a more comprehensive interpretation could be made: Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 105; cf: Kallipolitis, 'Η βάση του αγάλματος της Ραμνουσίας Νεμέσεως', 1-90, pls 1-32.

~249~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Figure 52: Roman copy of first four figures on the front of Nemesis’ statue base at Rhamnous (source: Palagia).

Pausanias describes the frieze scene as Helen being introduced to Nemesis, her true mother, by Leda, her foster mother, in the company of others:

Ἑλένῃ Νέμεσιν μητέρα εἶναι λέγουσιν Ἕλληνες, Λήδαν δὲ μαστὸν ἐπισχεῖν αὐτῇ καὶ θρέψαι· πατέρα δὲ καὶ οὗτοι καὶ πάντες κατὰ ταὐτὰ Ἑλένης Δία καὶ οὐ Τυνδάρεων εἶναι νομίζουσι. ταῦτα ἀκηκοὼς Φειδίας πεποίηκεν Ἑλένην ὑπὸ Λήδας ἀγομένην παρὰ τὴν Νέμεσιν, πεποίηκε δὲ Τυνδάρεών τε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας καὶ ἄνδρα σὺν ἵππῳ παρεστηκότα Ἱππέα ὄνομα· ἔστι δὲ Ἀγαμέμνων καὶ Μενέλαος καὶ Πύρρος ὁ Ἀχιλλέως, πρῶτος οὗτος Ἑρμιόνην τὴν Ἑλένης γυναῖκα λαβών· Ὀρέστης δὲ διὰ τὸ ἐς τὴν μητέρα τόλμημα παρείθη, παραμεινάσης τε ἐς ἅπαν Ἑρμιόνης αὐτῷ καὶ τεκούσης παῖδα. ἑξῆς δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ βάθρῳ καὶ Ἔποχος καλούμενος καὶ νεανίας ἐστὶν ἕτερος· ἐς τούτους ἄλλο μὲν ἤκουσα οὐδέν, ἀδελφοὺς δὲ εἶναι σφᾶς Οἰνόης, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐστι τὸ ὄνομα τῷ δήμῳ.265

The Greeks say that Nemesis was the mother of Helen, while Leda suckled and nursed her. The father of Helen the Greeks like everybody else hold to be not Tyndareos but Zeus. Having heard this legend, Pheidias has represented Helen as being led to Nemesis by Leda, and he has represented Tyndareos and his children with a man Hippeus by name standing by with a horse. There are Agamemnon and Menelaos and Pyrrhos, the son of Achilles and first husband of Hermione, the daughter of Helen. Orestes was passed over because of his crime against his mother, yet Hermione stayed by his side in everything and bore him a child. Next upon the pedestal is one called Epochos and another youth (νεανίας); the only thing I heard about them was that they were brothers of Oinoe, from whom the parish has its name.

265 Paus. 1.33.7-8.

~250~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Omitted from Pausanias’ account is the exact sequential order for each of the figures; a topic which has generated debate for over one-hundred and fifty years, and produced several conjectural attempts at reconstruction.266 The first was Posnansky (1888), followed by Staïs (1891), Pallat (1894), Rossbach (1897), Robert (1897), Svoronos (1905), Kallipolitis (1979), and Petrakos (1985).267 The latter’s painstaking work has exposed a scene of, not the twelve figures mentioned by Pausanias but fourteen high relief figures (figures 53a- c).268 Despite all modern-day attempts to identify the figures, no conclusion is definitive and the subject continues to stimulate discussion.269

The general consensus is for symmetry in the arrangement of the figures: the left and right sides each with three males and a horse (figures 53b and c); and the front (figure 53a) a central group of four female figures with two males on either side.270 Ehrhardt counters this theory by suggesting the figure at position 9, indeed a mere shadow, is not female but male, which would result in a composition of two males, three females, and three males.271 Regardless of any aesthetic reservations, his conclusion is invalidated by the just visible remnants of a veiled head,272 suggesting, more plausibly, a female.

266 A detailed analysis is found in: Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 89-107; Petrakos, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite', 227-253; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 1-110, esp. 66-72; or more briefly: Despinis, 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments', 407-413. 267 Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 89-107, pls. 111-116, 106 figure 8; Petrakos, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite', discusses the various arguments over the base's reconstruction stretching back over one hundred years, 227-253; H. Posnansky, De Nemeseos Monumentis, Whitefish, 1888, 13-17. Additional bibliography: Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 142 n.64. 268 Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 103. 269 The theories are discussed by: Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 64-67; Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 121-131; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 107- 119. Petrakos discusses the variant theories, and describes how he arrived at his proposed identifications: Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 89-107, figs 2, 6-7. See the discussion in: Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 244-248; Kallipolitis, 'Η βάση του αγάλματος της Ραμνουσίας Νεμέσεως', 1-90, pls 1-32. 270 Arguing for symmetry, are: Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 95; K. D. S. Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous? Who's Who on the Nemesis Base: a Note,' The 92nd Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America 95, no. 2, 1991, 114; Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 123; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 65-66. 271 Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', 34. 272 Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', pl. 111, and very clearly in pl. 112.4; Petrakos, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite', 237 fig. 5.

~251~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Figure 53a: Drawing of the front of the fragmented statue base illustrating extant fragments above with Petrakos’ interpretational sketch of the eight figures below.273

1 2 2b 3 Figure 53b: Drawing and sketch of the left-hand side of the Rhamnous statue base.

273 This and the following sketches are found in: I.Rhamnous I 260-262 figs 169-172, 174-177; Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 96 fig. 4 (figure 63a), 99 fig. 6 (figure 63b), 100 fig. 7 (figure 63c).

~252~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

12 12b 13 14

Figure 53c: Drawing and sketch of the right-hand side of the Rhamnous statue base.

In an attempt to explain the disparity between Pausanias’ twelve figures and Petrakos’ fourteen, Shapiro Lapatin has suggested Pausanias’ Τυνδάρεών τε καὶ τοὺς παῖδας (Tyndareos and his children) is a reference to not only the Dioskouroi, Kastor and Polydeukes, but that παῖδας may include Tyndareos’ female child Klytemnestra, and possibly his grand-daughter, Hermione. If so, he argues that the number of figures on the base would then total the fourteen identified by Petrakos.274 On the other hand, Karanastassi is inclined to believe that since Nemesis and Themis shared the sanctuary at Rhamnous the figure at position 9 should logically be Themis standing next to Nemesis;275 a view challenged by Palagia who argues that Nemesis and Themis were not shown together in Greek art before the fourth century.276

The table below lists the most recent theories on the identification of the fourteen figures and demonstrates that, with the exception of Nemesis, whose

274 Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 113-115. 275 Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 127-131. 276 Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', 13.

~253~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

head is so similar to her cult statue that her identification is secure, there is no consensus on the remaining figures.

Petrakos 1986277 Shapiro Lapatin Ehrhardt Palagia 2003280 1991278 1997279

1 Agamemnon or Menelaos Neanias Epochos

2 Pyrrhos Oinoe Neanias

3 Hippeus or Epochos Hippeus Hippeus

4 Tyndareos Zeus Menelaos Zeus

5 Dioskouros Kastor Dioskouros Pyrrhos (Neoptolemos)

6 Leda Helen Helen Hermione

7 Helen Leda Leda Helen

8 Nemesis Nemesis Nemesis Nemesis

9 Oinoe Klytemnestra Tyndareos Leda

10 Dioskouros Polydeukes Dioskouros Menelaos

11 Menelaos or Agamemnon Tyndareos Agamemnon Agamemnon

12 Epochos or Hippeus Pyrrhos Kastor

13 unknown male (Theseus?) Hermione Polydeukes or Klytemnestra

14 Neanias Epochos Tyndareos

What is clearly evident is that the majority of the figures, whether in their correct positions or not, have some connection to the mythology that surrounds

277 Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 95, 97-101, note his table on 104-105 listing the identifications given by his predecessors and contemporaries. 278 Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 110-115; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous? Who's Who on the Nemesis Base: a Note', 319. 279 Ehrhardt, 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', 29-39. 280 Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', 23 fig. 2; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 67, fig. 4.6.

~254~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Nemesis, Helen, and/or the Trojan War, with just a few figures having no obvious link. Belonging to this latter category are Neanias, Hippeus, and Epochos. Although not always given the capital letter by translators,281 it is the opinion of Petrakos and others that Pausanias’ νεανίας was not simply ‘a youth’ but the local Rhamnousian hero Νεανίας who, together with Epochos, was a brother of Oinoe and enjoyed a heroon at either Marathon or Rhamnous in which capacity he is mentioned epigraphically in several documents.282 Before presenting my own theory on Νεανίας I discuss the ancient extant evidence on this local hero.

In one very fragmented document his name has been restored as [Δ]ιὶ Νε[ανίαι],283 which would indicate his perception as semi-divine. At line 27 of the sacrificial calendar attributed to the deme at Thorikos he is spoken of as having sacrifices made to him in the month of Pyanopsion:

Νεανίαι τέλεον, Πυανοψίοις, Π[…6…]284

For Neanias, a full-grown victim at the Pyanopsia [to be sold?]285

He was similarly named in the Marathonian Tetrapolis sacrificial calendar as having been the recipient of three sacrificial animals – a bovine, a sheep, and a piglet during the month of Mounychion:286

281 Humphreys interprets Pausanias’ νεανίας as a common noun with a small ‘n’: S. C. Humphreys, The Strangeness of Gods: Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion, Oxford, 2004, 176 n. 119. 282 Paus. 1.33.8; Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', 11; Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 131-133; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 63; Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 73-75. Although given a capital letter by Lambert, he interprets Νεανίας as ‘the Youth’ and a counterpart of Kore: S. D. Lambert, 'Another Look at the Sacrificial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis', paper presented at: 'Feasting and Polis Institutions', Utrecht, 16-18 January 2014, 6. 283 SEG 21.540 1B, Ag. 4310.1 1a, line 10. 284 Ca. 430s, SEG 33.147, face a1, l. 27; IG i3 256 bis; Lupu, 'SEG XXXIII 147: Attika. Thorikos. Sacrificial Calendar 380-375 or 440-430/430-420(?) B.C.,' 117-122, 137, fig. 3; Humphreys, The Strangeness of Gods, 159, 163, 184 n. 143; S. R. F. Price, Religions of the Greeks, Cambridge, 1999, 172-173; E. Kearns, 'The Heroes of Attica,' BICS Supplement 57, 1989, 188 s.v. Νεανίας (b); G. Daux, 'Le Calendrier de Thorikos au Musee J. Paul Getty,' L’Antiquité Classique 52, 1983, 155. 285 Price’s translation has included ‘to be sold’ which he sees as an obvious inclusion for the lacuna: Price, Religions of the Greeks, 172.

~255~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Μουνιχιῶνος· line 19 … Νεανίαι βõς �ΔΔΔΔ, v οἶς Δ˫˫, χοῖρο χοῖρο[ς ˫˫˫] line 21 ἡρώινηι v οἶς Δ˫, v ἱερώσυνα v г˫˫Ιc line 22

Another mention of Νεανίας is found on a lease stele:

τέλμα τὸ παρὰ [τ]- [ὸ ἡρώιον τοῦ] Νεανίου ἔξω τείχους ε[․]- [․․․․10․․․․] εἰς τὸ τέλμα φέρων τὸ δ[․]- [․․6․․․, μισθ]ῳ287

Evidently Neanias was a figure of some significance and importance, a view supported by his inclusion in a scene on the red-figure ‘Basel Cup’ (figure 54). Here he is labelled as the male standing on the extreme left, naked, with a khlamys over his left arm and holding a staff in his right hand in the company of individuals connected with the Theban Cycle.288 As a local hero from the Rhamnous area his presence on the cup is enigmatic, although Kron plausibly suggests he stands as ‘a topographical reference’ to the Athenian epheboi who trained at Rhamnous,289 i.e. Neanias, a local Rhamnousian hero whose name means ‘a young man’ is a metaphor for the youths in the Athenian militia supporting Thebes, and who are stationed at the military fort at Rhamnous.

286 IG ii2 1358; SEG 34.112, 36.201, 48.137, 50.168; Lambert, 'Another Look at the Sacrificial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis', 6; S. D. Lambert, 'The Sacrificial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis: A Revised Text,' ZPE 130, 2000, 43-70, esp. 46; Kearns, 'The Heroes of Attica', 188 s.v. Νεανίας (a); Walbank, 'Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part I', 122- 123. A discussion on the Marathonian Tetrapolis, its members, and the discovery at Rhamnous of a fourth-century Tetrapolis inscription (SEG 48.129, SEG 50.166) bringing into question Rhamnous’ relationship with the Tetrapolis of which she was not considered a member, is found in: S. D. Lambert, 'Notes on Inscriptions of the Marathonian Tetrapolis,' Attic Inscriptions Online 1, 2014, 8-9; V. Petrakos, Έργον 45, 1998 [1999], 14-16; cf. Moreno, Feeding the Democracy, 72; J. S. Traill, Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica, Toronto, 1986, 85-86, 89, 109, 115, 129, 138; J. S. Traill, 'Diakris, the Inland Trittys of Leontis,' Hesperia 47, no. 1, 1978, 102-104; J. S. Traill, The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylai, and their Representation in the Athenian Council, Princeton N J, 1974, 12. 287 Ca. fourth century, Agora 19, Leases L 6, F. c, col. III, lines 140-141; SEG 33.167 F3 col. III, lines 9-10; the stele was thought to have come from the Athenian Agora, but Walbank speculates that the inclusion of Neanias’ name is an indication it originated from the Marathon- Rhamnous area: Walbank, 'Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part I', 122-123. 288 LIMC viii Suppl. i Neanias 1, 3-4 (D. Tsiafakis); CVA Basel 2, 49, pls. 30, 1-2; 31, 1-3; Para. 472; Add.2 357; Avramidou, The Codrus Painter, 40-42, cat. 15, pl. 9c; Schefold & Jung, Die Sagen von den Argonauten von Theben und Troia in der klassischen und hellenistische Kunst, 88-89, figs. 70-72; U. Kron, 'Zur Schale des Kodros-Malers in Basel: Eine Interpretatio Attica,' in M. Schmidt (ed.), Kanon: Festschrift Ernst Berger zum 60. Geburtstag am 26 Februar 1988 gewidmet (AK), vol. 15, Basel, 1988, 291-304. 289 Kron, 'Zur Schale des Kodros-Malers in Basel: Eine Interpretatio Attica,' 294-301.

~256~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Hippeus, another of the ‘unknowns’ is otherwise unattested, although a ‘Hippeus’ is mentioned at line 144 on the same lease document as Neanias.290 As for Epochos, whom Pausanias names as a brother of Neanias and Oinoe, he appears not to be mentioned in any other extant reference.

Figure 54: The Basel Cup; the Codrus Painter; ca. 430; Basel Antikenmuseum BS432 (source: Avramidou).

The specific occasion at which Helen was being introduced to her true mother by her adoptive mother is a matter for speculation since the incident is not addressed in the existing literature. Several theories have been put forward: Simon and Kjellberg argue the event took place on Helen’s return from Troy;291 with Schefold advocating Helen’s marriage to Menelaos,292 i.e. before the Trojan War – a theory which seems invalidated by the fact that Achilles’ son Pyrrhos, mentioned by Pausanias as one of the figures on the base, was probably not born at this point.293 A more likely theory is the occasion of Helen’s daughter Hermione’s wedding to this same Pyrrhos (also known as Neoptolemos), a returned hero of the Trojan War.294 That the occasion is a

290 Agora 19, Leases L 6, F. c, col. III, lines 144; SEG 33.167 l. 13. 291 Simon, 'Der Goldschatz von Panágjuriste - eine Schöpfung der Alexanderzeit', 19-20; E. Kjellberg, Studien zu den Attischen Reliefs des V. Jahrhunderts v. Chr, Uppsala, 1926. 292 K. Schefold, Die Gottersage in der Klassischen und Hellenistischen Kunst, München, 1981, 244. 293 Other theories are summarized by: Kosmopoulou, Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases, 132-135; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 117-118. 294 Kypria F19 (Pyrrhos as a hero of the Trojan War); Paus. 1.11.1, 1.33.8 (marriage of Pyrrhos and Hermione).

~257~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous wedding is suggested by the female figure at position 6 who has her head uncovered, signifying an unmarried maiden, and who raises the edge of her garment in a typical bridal gesture as she appears to be about to veil herself. Palagia is confident the wedding concerned is that of Hermione and Pyrrhos and that it is taking place in Sparta.295 Certainly all Hermione’s relatives are present: Helen (mother), Menelaos (father), Nemesis (grandmother), Tyndareos (step-grandfather), Leda (step-grandmother), the Dioskouroi (uncles), Agamemnon (uncle), possibly Klytemnestra (aunt), and possibly Zeus (grandfather),296 along with a few unrelated local Attic heroes to add a topographical reference to Rhamnous.

This supposition has much to recommend it, and is one way to explain the otherwise enigmatic over-abundance of Lakedaimonians on an Attic statue base carved during a time of hostilities between the two city-states. In this scenario the scene should be viewed as a deliberate Athenian stratagem to appropriate the mythology of their enemy by usurping Sparta’s divine Helen, in an attempt not only to goad but also to emasculate Sparta psychologically.297 Even Leda, queen of Sparta, collaborates with the Athenians as she acknowledges the Helen she raised in Sparta is not her own but the true daughter of Attic Nemesis and thus rightly Rhamnousian Helen, named for the place where she was conceived by Nemesis.298 The tradition of appropriating deities from other city-states was a practice used at various historical junctures in Greek history. For example, in the sixth century, the Athenians established

295 Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', 14; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 62-68, esp. 67. Palagia further suggests a ‘Helen Cult’ at Rhamnous, an idea which is no-where else attested: Palagia, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', 11. The only known Attic Helen cult for which there is clear evidence is at Thorikos where it is mentioned on a sacrificial calendar of the fifth or fourth century: SEG 33.147; IG i3 256 bis; Kearns, 'The Heroes of Attica', 158 s.v. Ἑλένη. 296 Zeus is suggested by Palagia and Lapatin: Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 67; Shapiro Lapatin, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', 114-115. 297 There were several Lakedaimonian Helen cults. A selection of references include: Hdt. 6.61; Paus. 3.15.3; Theok. 18.43-48; Pind. Ol. 3.1-2; M. P. J. Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, London, 2002, 212, 289; Burkert, Greek Religion, 205. As an anti- Spartan propaganda tool its influence would have been limited to the Rhamnous-Athenian region, and it is unlikely that many Spartans would have even seen the statue base. 298 Kallimachos’ epithet ‘Rhamnousian’ in relation to Helen in his Hymn to Artemis exposes the close inseparable ties between Nemesis and Helen: Kallim., Hymn to Artemis 3.232.

~258~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous cults of Eurysakes and Aiakos in Athens, deities that originated in Salamis and Aigina, to justify claims on those islands; similarly, in order to lay claim to Tegea the Spartans introduced their own cult of Athena Alea, a Tegean deity.299 By extension, I suggest the frieze on Nemesis’ statue base is a depiction of the usurpation of Helen and symbolically represents Athens claiming Sparta, i.e. the Athenian forces winning the current war. Stafford interprets the statue and its base as monuments to celebrate the Athenian victory over the barbarians at Marathon, done without aid from Sparta. In this light she sees the monument as representing Attic solidarity and a political gesture of scorn against Sparta,300 something which would have meaning only to those in Attika who viewed it, since few Spartans would have ever seen it.

To me the relief figures in the scene on Nemesis’ statue base reveal facets of mythology on several levels. They tell of the events surrounding the Trojan War, where Helen through the unwitting machinations of her mother Nemesis, herself a tool of Zeus, was the catalyst that brought retributive destruction upon Troy. They also tell of the avenging nature of Nemesis who similarly brought retributive justice upon the Persians, and who will, now that she has reclaimed Helen and taken her away from Sparta, bring revenge on that city-state for its current aggression against Athens. Aiding Nemesis will be the local heroes, Hippeus, Neanias, and Epochos, who are interpreted here (and not previously identified in the existing scholarship) as allegorical representations of: the horsemen of the Athenian cavalry (Ἱππεύς),301 the young men of the Athenian infantry (Νεανίας),302 and the sailors of the Athenian navy (Ἔποχος),303 i.e. all the Athenian armed forces, who stand forged into stone in perpetual readiness to defend Attika . Thus, Rhamnousian Nemesis stands ready to bring swift retributive justice to the hybristic, be they Trojan, Persian, Spartan, or indeed any foe of Attika.

299 Xen. Hell. 6.5.27; Palagia, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle,' 68; R. S. Stroud, 'The Athenian Grain-Law Tax of 374/3 BC,' Hesperia Supplement 29, 1998, 88-89; Kearns, 'The Heroes of Attica', 46-47, 141 s.v. Αἰακός, 164 s.v. Εὐρύσακης. 300 Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 88-89. 301 LSJ9 833, col. 2 s.v. ἱππεύς (2) ‘horseman, rider, cavalryman’. 302 LSJ9 1163, col. 2 s.v. νεανίας ‘young man’. 303 LSJ9 677, col. 2 s.v. ἔποχος ‘mounted upon (horses, chariots, ships)’.

~259~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Figure 55: Reconstruction of the statue of Nemesis together with its base (source: Petrakos).304

304 I.Rhamnous I 249 fig. 162; Smith, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, pl. 4.1; Petrakos, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', 92, fig. 2; Despinis, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, 63. Nemesis’ head is in the British Museum: BM 1820.5-13.2, cat 460; LIMC iv Helene 14 (L. Kahil/N. Icard).

~260~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

NEMESIS AND THEMIS

The Archaic and Classical evidence overwhelming confirms the simultaneous worship of Themis together with Nemesis, and it is thought the smaller of the two sanctuary buildings functioned as her temple for part of its history.305 Yet, Pausanias, in his description of Rhamnous, omits any mention of the goddess Themis.306 His omission may be rationalized by the fact that her influence had probably waned by his time, and may have ceased altogether, especially since there is no mention of her in the inscriptional sources after 100/99.

Nemesis and Themis were an appropriate and complementary pair, acting as balancing augments to each other: Themis the goddess of Justice and Law and the personification of Right Order, with Nemesis, goddess of Retribution and avenger of Themis’ transgressors. Fullerton appropriately defines the allegorical functionality of the two deities as: ‘divine retribution = cosmic order’.307 The earliest inscriptional evidence of this affiliation is found on the previously mentioned sixth-century perirrhanterion,308 which reads: Φιλόδ[ορο]ς ἐστ[ήσατο] Θέ[μιδι καὶ Νεμέσ]ει,309 and while it confirms a connection between the two deities from at least this date, her mention on the perirrhanterion presupposes she was already established at the sanctuary before this date.

A late fourth or early third-century inscription on the base of a female statue (figure 56)310 found inside the smaller sanctuary building further verifies a

305 Petrakos, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', 38; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 23. Petrakos and the SEG authors believe the building may also have functioned as a treasury to store dedications made to Themis and Nemesis: SEG 40.178. 306 Paus. 1.33.2-8. Detailed discussions on Themis are found in: Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 45-73; Harrison, Themis, passim; and more briefly in: Munn, The Mother of the Gods, 337- 340. 307 Fullerton, Greek Sculpture, 287. 308 Above pp. 202-203. 309 IG i³ 1018,5; SEG 38.26, 49.65; I.Rhamnous II 75; Knittlmayer, 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis', 5; Chaniotis, Mylonopoulos & Stavrianopoulou, 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1996', 276-277, no. 220; Petrakos, PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 200 no. 129. Note Pimpl’s alternative reading of -θε- as a restoration of the verb ἀνε]θε[κεν instead of Θέ[μιδι, i.e. Φιλόδ[ορος ἀνε]θε[κεν Νεμέσ]ει ἐστ[ήσατο]. His idea is not supported by the editors of SEG and is considered an unlikely restoration by Mylonopoulos: Pimpl, Perirrhanteria und Louteria, 96. 310 The statue and base are traditionally dated ca. late fourth or early third century but Ridgway’s analysis concerning the sculptor provides a date of ca. 315, i.e. more late fourth

~261~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous joint veneration and also names two priestesses connected with the pair.311 The large size of this statue, at 2.22 metres tall, and its dedication to Themis has encouraged a theory it may represent the deity herself, although this is not confirmed.312 The inscription reads:

Μεγακλῆς Μεγακ[λέους Ῥαμ]νούσ[ι]ος ἀνέθηκεν Θέμιδι στεφαν̣ωθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν δικαι- οσύνης ἕνεκα ἐ[πὶ ἱ]ερείας Καλλιστοῦς καὶ νικήσας παισὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι γυμνασιαρχῶν καὶ καὶ Φειδοστράτης Νεμέσει ἱερέας κωμωιδοῖς χορηγῶν Χαιρέστρατος Χαιρεδήμου Ῥαμνούσιος ἐπόησε 313

Opinions vary over the correct interpretation of the wording, especially since it is badly executed, the layout of the lines do not naturally fit within the prescribed area, and there is evidence of two scribes. Indeed, the layout has been deduced to be so out of alignment that it is generally restored as follows with a rearrangement of the highlighted lines:

Μεγακλῆς Μεγακ[λέους Ῥαμ]νούσ[ι]ος ἀνέθηκεν Θέμιδι στεφαν̣ωθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν δημοτῶν δικαι- οσύνης ἕνεκα ἐ[πὶ ἱ]ερείας Καλλιστοῦς καὶ Φειδοστράτης Νεμέσει ἱερέας καὶ νικήσας παισὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι γυμνασιαρχῶν καὶ κωμωιδοῖς χορηγῶν vac. 0.04 Χαιρέστρατος Χαιρεδήμου Ῥαμν<ο>ύσι<ο>ς ἐπ<ό>ησε314

century than early third: B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture: Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C., III vols, vol. I, Wisconsin, 2001, 55-57. 311 NAMA 231; J. Ma, Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 2013, 18-19. Petrakos suggests the statue may originally have held a libation flask in one hand and bronze scales in the other identifying her as goddess of justice: Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 112; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 104, fig. 46a. 312 The statue as Themis is suggested by: Fullerton, Greek Sculpture, 287; Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, 272 no. 568; Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture: Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C., 55; G. I. Despinis, 'Neues zu einem alten Fund,' Athenische Mitteilungen 109, 1994, 183 n. 35, pl.42; Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 204 no. 95; Harrison, 'The Shoulder Cord of Themis,' 156-157. Petrakos and Mantēs both cautiously refer to the statue as: τὸ ἄγαλμα τῆς λεγόμενης Θέμιδας (‘the statue of the so-called Themis’): Petrakos, Rhamnous, 13 fig. 13, 14; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 146; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 104; cf. similar comments in: Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 127; O. Palagia, 'No Demokratia,' The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, 1994, 118-119. 313 I.Rhamnous II 120; SEG 40.178, 47.207, 48.197; 314 IG ii2 3109; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, no. 39.

~262~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Obviously correct word placement affects the intended meaning, yet in whichever way it is read there is no dispute that both Themis and Nemesis are mentioned as deities. Hornum translates the inscription as:

Megakles, son of Megakles, Rhamnousian, dedicated (this) to Themis, having been crowned by the people on account of righteousness, having won both as gymnasiarch among boys and men, and as choregos in comedy performances, at the time of the priestess Kallisto and Pheidostrate, priestess to Nemesis. Chairestratos, son of Chairodemos, Rhamnousian, made (this).315

Hornum’s reading suggests the offering was made by Megakles for events that took place in close proximity to a single point in time when the two priestesses, Kallisto and Pheidostrate, simultaneously held office. Figure 56: The Themis statue by Khairestratos, ca. late fourth or Conversely, a different meaning is extracted early third century, NAMA 231; (photograph: author). from Ma’s translation:

Megakles, son of Megakles, of Rhamnous, dedicated (this statue of Themis) to Themis, having been crowned by the demesmen on account of his righteousness, when Kallisto was priestess, and also having been victorious as gymnasiarch for the boys and the grown men, (added on) and when Pheidostrate was priestess of Nemesis, (having been victorious) as choregos of comedies. Chairestratos, son of Chairodemos, of Rhamnous, made this.316

The difference is not negligible. Contrary to Hornum’s close point in time Ma’s reading indicates two events being commemorated at two very different times, possibly at some distance apart: the first when Kallisto was priestess,

315 Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 204 no. 95. 316 Trans: Ma, Statues and Cities, 19. For the theatre at Rhamnous where comedies and drama would have been performed, see: J. Paga, 'Deme Theatres in Attika and the Trittys System,' Hesperia 79, no. 3, 2010, 351-384, esp. 354, 361-364, 366-367, Rhamnous theatre dating to fifth century and before, 373.

~263~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous followed by a second when Pheidostrate317 was priestess to Nemesis. Ma’s reading has the added inference that at one time Kallisto held the office for both goddesses and at another time this role was performed by Pheidostrate, although the latter is named as Nemesis’ priestess only.

Then again, Mantēs’ analysis of the inscription and study of the grammatical variations has led him to propose an alternative textual restoration. Picking up the Greek at the first καί he suggests:

Καὶ Νεμέσει (ἀνέθηκεν) νικήσας παισὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι γυμνασιαρχῶν καὶ κωμωδοῖς χορηγῶν (ἐπὶ) ἱερέας Φειδοστράτης. or Καὶ (ἐπὶ) ἱερέας Φειδοστράτης (ἀνέθηκε) Νεμέσει νικήσας παισὶ καὶ ἀνδράσι γυμνασιαρχῶν καὶ κωμωδοῖς χορηγῶν.

And (he dedicated) to Nemesis, after victory as gymnasiarch for boys and men and as choregos of comedies in the time of priestess Pheidostrate. or And in the priestesshood of Pheidostrate (he dedicated) to Nemesis after victory as gymnasiarch for the boys and men and as choregos of comedies.318

This rearrangement has led Mantēs to argue that: the two datives in Θέμιδι and Νεμέσει indicate the statue was a joint dedication to both Themis and Nemesis, and the more commonly accepted arrangement of καὶ Φειδοστράτης Νεμέσει ἱερέας ought to be replaced by either of his proposals above. He suggests the words should not be read as evidence of Pheidostrate as priestess to Nemesis but as confirmation of a dedication by Megakles to Nemesis when Pheidostrate was priestess,319 a reading Palagia, without explanation, calls ‘impossible’.320 The following is my reading of Mantēs’ analysis: Megakles made a dedication to Themis on account of having been crowned by the people for his righteousness in the time of Kallisto as priestess, and later he made a

317 The name Pheidostrate is the only female name inscribed on the third-century grave peribolos of Diogeiton at Rhamnous. It is possible that this Pheidostrate and the priestess were one and the same; as a priestess this would have been a matter of pride for the family, so they inscribed her name for all to see: SEG 26.304; Petrakos, Rhamnous, 39, 41, figs 22-24. 318 Translation: author. 319 Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 108-111. 320 Palagia, 'No Demokratia', 119.

~264~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous dedication to Nemesis when Pheidostrate was priestess after winning as gymnasiarch and choregos.321 I find this interpretation sits well with the attributes of the two goddesses: Megakles appropriately dedicates to the goddess of righteousness when he is honoured by his fellow demesmen as being righteous; and, he dedicates to the goddess of retribution when he wins victory, no doubt as thanks to the deity but also that he not become too conceited and deserving of punishment.

In addition, Mantēs’ further suggests the statue was not a representation of any one deity or person but of both goddesses combined into one:322 in effect a Themis-Nemesis drawing on the strengths of each goddess into one omnipotent deity. The only other mention of a combined Themis-Nemesis comes seven hundred years later in fourth-century AD Hesychios’ definition of Ἀγαθὴ Τύχη as ἡ Νέμεσις καὶ ἡ Θέμις,323 perhaps meaning ‘good luck’ is having a respect of Themis and all she represents, together with a fear of Nemesis and her retributive power consequent upon too much boastful exuberance as was, for example, demonstrated by Kroisos, whose previously discussed boastful articulation of his good fortune earned him the retribution of nemesis.324 The total absence of any other contemporary evidence for a Themis-Nemesis leaves this aspect of Mantēs’ hypothesis a little implausible, though not impossible.

A proposal by Palagia puts forward the hypothetical thought that the statue may even be a representation of Nemesis being dedicated to Themis.325 At first the idea seems unlikely, but on reflection it is not wholly unreasonable that a statue of Nemesis, goddess of retribution towards those who violate the values of themis, should be dedicated to the service of its personification Themis. Whatever the original intention, for the time being the statue and the meaning of its inscription remain enigmatic.

321 Cf. Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 106-108. 322 Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 112. Karastassi also mentions the ‘doppelnatur’ and ‘zweiheiten’ of the goddesses: Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 129. 323 Hesych. vol. 1, 11.45 (Schmidt), vol. 1, 11.46 (Latte) s.v. ἀγαθὴ τύχη. 324 Kroisos is discussed above, pp. 169-179. 325 Palagia, 'No Demokratia', 119.

~265~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

The priestesses, Pheidostrate and Kallisto, are again mentioned in connection with the two goddesses on two fourth-century stone chairs (figure 57):326

ἐπὶ ἱερείας Φειδοστρά[της] ἐπὶ ἱερείας Καλλιστο[ῦς] Θέμιδι Νεμέσει Σώστρατος Σώστρατος ἀνέθηκεν ἀνέθηκεν

In the priestesshood of Pheidostrate, In the priestesshood of Kallisto, Sostratos dedicated [this] to Themis Sostratos dedicated [this] to Nemesis

The stone chairs may have been offerings made on one occasion by Sostratos to each of the goddesses who each had her own priestess, as argued by Wilhelm.327 Then again, following Mantēs’ reading of Megakles’ inscription, there may have been one priestess for both goddesses at any one time, and the chairs were two separate dedications at two separate times during the tenure of two different priestesses who each served both goddesses, with the phrase ‘in the priestesshood of’ reading as a dating formula.328 For example, Thucydides dates the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War to: ‘the forty-eighth year of the priestesshood of Chrysis, woman priest of Hera, at Argos’.329

A further votive, discussed in more detail below, concerns a third-century statue of the priestess Aristonoe dedicated to the two goddesses, Themis and Nemesis by Aristonoe’s son Hierokles:330

Hierokles, son of Hieropoios of Rhamnous, dedicated to Themis and Nemesis

326 IG ii2 4638a-b; SEG 34.193, 47.230-231; I.Rhamnous II 121, 122; V. Petrakos, O Δήμος του Ραμνούντος. Σύνοψη των ανασκαφών και των ερευνών Ι: Τοπογραφία; II: Oι Επιγραφές, 1999, Athens, 1913-1998, 121-122; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 73; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 108-109, pl. 48a-b; Petrakos, PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 125; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 159 no. 3; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, no. 40; Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 51, pl. v. 327 A. Wilhelm, 'Themis und Nemesis in Rhamnus,' Wiener Jahreshefte 32, 1940, 200-209. 328 Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 73; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 57. 329 Thuc. 2.2; cf. Hellanik. FGrH 323a, who uses the priestesses of Hera at Argos as chronological markers; J. B. Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton and Oxford, 2007, 57; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 73. 330 IG ii2 3462; I.Rhamnous II 133.

~266~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

[this statue of] his mother Aristonoe, priestess of Nemesis, daughter of Nikokratos of Rhamnous.331

The recognition of, and dedications to, Themis and Nemesis continued through the third century, and into the second,332 but after 100/99 all mention of Themis ends. For reasons unknown, her veneration at Rhamnous declined during the late Hellenistic and early Roman eras,333 so that by the time Pausanias was writing of his visit to Rhamnous it may have ceased altogether.

THE SANCTUARY PRIESTESSES

Words probably spoken by Melanippe in Euripides’ fragmentary play, Melanippe Desmotis, argue the importance of women in religious roles, especially those connected with ‘the Fates and Nameless Goddesses’:

Now as for dealings with the gods, which I consider of prime importance, we have a very great role in them. Women proclaim Loxias’ mind in Phoebus’ halls, and by Dodona’s holy foundations, beside the sacred oak, womenkind conveys the thoughts of Zeus to those Greeks who want to know it. Those rituals, too, which are performed for the Fates and the Nameless Goddesses are not open to men, but are promoted by women entirely. That is how the rights of women stand in dealings with the gods.334

At Rhamnous the goddesses were not nameless as were those spoken of by Melanippe, they were Nemesis and Themis, and were appropriately attended by priestesses of whom three can be named: the previously mentioned Kallisto, Pheidostrate, and Aristonoe. The names of the first two are inscribed on the aforementioned base of the Themis statue (figure 56) and on the two fourth- century stone chairs discovered by Gandy in situ (concluded from the exactly

331 Translation: author. 332 For example: SEG 41.90 (222/221); I.Rhamnous II 151(late second century), 150 (101/100); IG ii2 2869 (ca. 100); SEG 49.200 (ca. 100/99). 333 IG ii2 2869; SEG 49.200; Karanastassi, 'Wer ist die Frau Hinter Nemesis?', 131. 334Trans. Collard/Cropp F494.12-21 (TGrF 5.1 F494.12-21): ἃ δ’ εἰς θεοὺς αὖ - πρῶτα γὰρ κρίνω τάδε – μέρος μέγιστον ἔχομεν· ἐν Φοίβου τε γὰρ δόμοις προφητεύουσι Λοξίου φρένα γυναῖκες, ἀμφὶ δ’ ἁγνὰ Δωδώνη<ς> βάθρα φηγῷ παρ’ ἱερᾷ θῆλυ τὰ[ς] Διὸς φρένας γένος πορεύει τοῖς θέλουσιν Ἑλλάδος. ἃ δ’ εἴς τε Μοίρας τάς τ’ ἀνωνύμους θεὰς ἱερὰ τελεῖται, ταῦτ’ ἐν ἀνδράσιν μὲν οὐ<χ> ὅσια καθέστηκ’, ἐν γυναιξὶ δ’ αὔξεται ἅπαντα. ταύτῃ τἀν θεοῖς ἔχει δίκη θήλεια.

~267~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous matching grooves on the floor) on the front-porch of the small temple building (figure 57).335

The stone seats recall the votive statuette of the seated goddess depicted in figure 26 as the Rhamnous priestesses would have rested in their seats in a similar fashion. The special privilege of a dedicated seat336 would have given the priestess a prime position from which to view the spectacle of festivals, including almost certainly aspects of the Nemeseia festival (to be discussed)337 as the road immediately in front of the temple became a processional way which meandered down towards the town of Rhamnous.338

Figure 57: Small polygonal early fifth-century temple with two marble seats for the priestesses Theidostrate and Kallisto, and dedicated to Nemesis and Themis (photograph: author).

Although not known absolutely, it is confidently presumed the priestesshood at Rhamnous followed similar rules and formats to those at other Greek sanctuaries. For example: an adulteress would not have been eligible for a priestesshood;339 any aspiring priestess would have been required to be physically healthy and of sound body: ἀ πριαμένα ἔστω ὑγιὴς καὶ

335 IG ii2 4638a-b; SEG 34.193, 47.230-231; I.Rhamnous II 121, 122; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 148; Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 52, pl. v. 336 J. B. Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' in N. Kaltsas & A. Shapiro (eds), Worshipping Women: Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens, New York, 2008, 188. 337 Below pp. 279-287. 338 Athena’s priestess at Athens was similarly privileged to have a stone chair on the Parthenon’s porch from which to view her realm: Hdt. 5.72: ἡ δὲ ἱρείη ἐξαναστᾶσα ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου (‘the priestess rose from her throne’). 339 Dem. 59.85-86.

~268~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

ὁλόκλαρος,340 a stipulation similarly applicable to any offering made to the deity;341 the role was likely to have been hereditary and held by local women of high standing,342 and; it would have been held for life.343 Documented evidence of priestesses with life tenure include the priestess of Athena Nike,344 priestess of Athena Polias (Lysimache served for sixty-four years),345 the priestess of Demeter,346 and the priestess of Aphrodite Pandemos on Kos bought her priestesshood for life and paid for it in instalments.347 Chrysis, priestess of Hera, served for more than fifty-six years but had to flee from a fire she accidentally started.348 The longevity of priestesses’ tenure enabled Hellanikos to use them as a chronological dating system, for example, the priestesses of Hera at Argos.349 The benefit of life tenure ensured priestesses became expertly proficient and highly experienced in their duties.

Virginity, occasionally obligatory in a priestess,350 was not a prerequisite for the Rhamnous priestesses, as an inscription inscribed on the base of a third- century statue of the priestess Aristonoe (figure 58) dedicated by her son

340 Pl. Laws 759c; this topic is discussed in relation to Kos, by: Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 74; M. P. J. Dillon, 'Post-Nuptial Sacrifices on Kos (Serge, ED 178) and Ancient Greek Marriage Rites,' ZPE 124, 1999, 65. 341 For example, from Andania in the Peloponnese: LSCG 65.70 (first century). 342 The distinction between priestesses from aristocratic families and those publicly elected is discussed in: Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 76. 343 Meiggs & Lewis 44; Euamera, priestess of Artemis at Athens held her position for life: IG ii2 2874; Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 188-189; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 87; A. Kosmopoulou, 'Working Women: Female Professionals on Classical Attic Gravestones,' ABSA 96, 2001, 293, n. 125; U. Kron, 'Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?,' in P. Hellström & B. Alroth (eds), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World, Uppsala, 1996, 140, 181; Burkert, Greek Religion, 96. A detailed discussion on hereditary priestesses is found in: J. A. Turner, Hiereiai: Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece, Dissertation, University of California Press, Santa Barbara, 1983, 232-308. 344 IG i3 35, ca. 448; Meiggs & Lewis 44; R. Garland, 'Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens,' ABSA 79, 1984, 90. 345 Garland, 'Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens'. Evidence for Lysimache: Pliny NH 34.76; cf. IG ii2 3453, SEG 30.140. 346 Garland, 'Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens', 100. 347 Iscr. di Cos ED 178.7-8; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 75. 348 Hellanik. FGrH 323a; Thucydides, who had read Hellanikos (Thuc. 1.97.2), notes that Chrysis had served as priestess for forty-eighth and a half years at the commencement of the Peloponnesian War: 2.2.1, 4.133.2-3. 349 Hellanik. FGrH 323a. 350 Plut. Mor. 435d, 438c; Paus. 2.10.4, 33.2; Paus. 7.19.1, 26.5; Paus. 8.5.11-13, 8.13.1, 5. A discussion on virgin priestesses is found in: Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 75, 77; Turner, Hiereiai, 181-205.

~269~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Hierokles, confirms.351 Chastity for the tenure of the office may have been stipulated, in which case the incumbents were possibly older women,352 but it is more likely the priestesses were able to carry out their religious duties whilst still married.353 Contrary to the practice in places like Miletos, its colonies, the Aegean islands, and other eastern Greek settlements, where a priestesshood could be purchased,354 there is no evidence for this practice on the mainland.

Priestess Aristonoe’ portrait statue (figure 58) has been dated to the third century, but argued by Dillon as stylistically replicating late Classical dress style and sculptural traditions.355 The statue was a private dedication to Nemesis and Themis by the priestess’ son, Hierokles, in tribute to his mother. The dedication reads:356

351 IG ii2 3462; B. E. Goff, Citizen Bacchae: Women's Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 2004, 150; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 77. Several cults permitted the priestess to be married, for example: Hyp. F199 (Artemis Brauronia); SEG 16.160 (Eleusis); SEG 32.115.10-11 (IG ii2 775+803) (cult of Athenian Agauros); IG ii2 1316.7 (Mother of the Gods cult); Lysimache, Priestess of Athena Polias had children: Pliny NH 34.76, cf. IG ii2 3453, SEG 30.140. 352 Chastity or otherwise in various cults is discussed in: Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 77-78; Turner, Hiereiai, 206-214; cf. Kron, 'Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?,' 140. Chastity in older woman was thought natural since the Greeks considered these women to be past such desires: ‘[Demeter] looked like an old crone, debarred from motherhood and the blessings of garland-loving Aphrodite’: Hom. Hymn Dem. 2.101-102. Other centres where the priestess is described as ‘old’ include: Paus. 2.10.4 (Sikyon); Paus. 6.20.2 (Elis); Paus. 7.25.13 (Achaia); Aischyl. Eum. 38 (Delphi); cf. Diod. 16.26.6. 353 See the discussion on married women as priestesses in: Turner, Hiereiai, 215-224. 354 A selection of documentary evidence is found in: LSCG 175 (Antimachaia), 160-161 (Kos); LSS 77 (Khios); LSA 23 (Erythrai), 40 (Mykale), 44 (Miletos); Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 188-189; Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 50-55; the sales of priesthoods on Kos is discussed in: R. Parker & D. Obbink, 'Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II,' Chiron 31, 2001, 229-252; R. Parker & D. Obbink, 'Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I,' Chiron 30, 2000, 415-449 (a sanctuary to Adrasteia and Nemesis, and the sale of two priestesshoods); Dillon, 'Post-Nuptial Sacrifices on Kos', 64-65; Turner, Hiereiai, 141-173, appendix 4 (pp. 421-423) provides a table of prices paid for priesthoods. 355 S. Dillon, The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World, Cambridge, 2010, 108. 356 NAMA 232; I.Rhamnous I 288 fig. 201, II 108-109 no. 133; ThesCRA v 2a: 29 no. 126 pl.3; O. Pilz, 'The Profits of Self-Representation: Statues of Female Cult Personnel in the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Periods,' in M. Horster & A. Klöckner (eds), Cities and Priests: Cult Personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial Period, Berlin, 2013, 161-162; Ma, Statues and Cities, 170-171, 286-287, fig.5.4; Papazarkadas, Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, 153, no. 258; Dillon, The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World, 1-2, 14-15, 45, 75-77, 106-108, figs 1, 46, 47; R. von den Hoff, 'Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens Between the Sixth and the First Centuries BC,' in K. Trampedach & B. Dignas (eds), Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Washington DC, 2008, 130 fig. 10; Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 146, 145 fig. 5.14; Kaltsas, Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, 274, no. 574; J. C. Eule, Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien: Weibliche Gewandstatuen in ihrem Antiken Kontext, Istanbul, 2001, 42, 142, 185 no. 57, 215

~270~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Θέμιδι καὶ Νεμέσει Ἱεροκλῆς Ἱεροποιοῦ Ῥαμνούσιος ἀνέθηκε τὴν μητέρα Ἀριστονόην Νικοκράτου Ῥαμνουσίου ἱέρειαν Νεμέσεως.357

Hierokles, son of Hieropoios of Rhamnous, dedicated to Themis and Nemesis [this statue of] his mother Aristonoe, priestess of Nemesis, daughter of Nikokratos of Rhamnous.358

The statue and inscribed base were found inside the doorway of the small ‘temple’ building during the 1890 excavations by the Society of the Dilettanti under Gandy’s direction.359 She stands 1.62 metres high in a frontal position, with her left knee slightly bend as she shifts her weight onto the right leg. She wears a chiton with himation, and her hair is styled with a middle parting and wavy tresses that are rolled back and over a band, a tainia, that is tied around her head Figure 58: Marble statue of the in a way that conceals the tainia except priestess Aristonoe; by Khairestratos; ca. third century; NAMA 232; where the hair is parted. The statue was (photograph: author). originally discovered intact with just the fingers of the left hand missing, but the right forearm and hand with phiale were subsequently lost.360 Corresponding to the view that the Rhamnous priestesses may have been women of more mature years, Aristonoe is a matronly woman past the first

fig. 63; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 103, 109-110 pl. 46b, 47b; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 148; Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 114. 357 IG ii2 3462; I.Rhamnous II 133; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 155 no. 44, pl. 60.4. 358 Translation: author. 359 The team dug the ground beneath and around Aristonoe’s statue and recorded fragments of bone, bronze, spearheads, and small lachrymal vases of uncertain date, all subsequently lost: Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 151; Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 51. 360 Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 146; J. G. Frazer, Pausanias's Description of Greece: Translated with a Commentary, vol. 2, London, 1898, 453.

~271~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous bloom of youth with a double chin and wrinkle folds around her neck, she is slightly portly and has ‘bags’ under her eyes.361

Little is known of the statue’s dedicant, Hierokles, his father Hieropoios, or his mother Aristonoe, but they were possibly descendants of another Hierokles living in the fourth century. This earlier Hierokles had a family peribolos sited next to the road leading from the sanctuary down towards the town of Rhamnous with several inscribed family grave markers.362 Archaeologists have confirmed the peribolos contained fifteen cremations stretching over four generations, which is more than those named on the grave inscriptions.363 Yet as Parker rightly cautions it can never be stated absolutely that all persons interned have been uncovered, or that an inscribed list is complete.364

Although possibly an over-interpretation, it is noted that the ἱερός root in the names of Ἱεροκλῆς and Ἱεροποιός translates as ‘manifesting divine power’,365 with the name Ἱεροποιός having the added meaning of ‘overseer of temples and sacred rites’.366 Consequently, Ἱερός may have been a deliberate inclusion by a proud family who traditionally held hereditary priestly roles from one generation to another.367 This theory has tenuous support from the discovery, immediately in front of Hierokles’ peribolos from where it may have originated, of a fragmentary fourth-century funereal marble lekythos.368 It depicts individuals with religious paraphernalia making their final farewells to

361 Cf. also the image of the older priestess on the Rhamnous grave-stele in figure 60. 362 Monuments: I.Rhamnous I 387-399, 397 figs 293-294, 389-391, 397; NAMA 866. Inscriptions: IG ii2 13102a (I.Rhamnous II 273); IG ii2 11707; SEG 30.215 (I.Rhamnous II 270); SEG 30.218a (I.Rhamnous II 271); SEG 30.221 (I.Rhamnous II 274); SEG 31 206 (I.Rhamnous II 275); SEG 30.216 (I.Rhamnous II 277); W. E. Closterman, 'Family Ideology and Family History: The Function of Funerary Markers in Classical Attic Peribolos Tombs,' AJA 111, no. 4, 2007, 640-642, and further references found there; Hildebrandt, Die attischen Namenstelen, 396, pl. 27 cat. 60, pl. 137. 363 Hildebrandt, Die attischen Namenstelen, 396. 364 Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 25-26. 365 LSJ9 822, cols 1-2 s.v. ἱερός: ‘filled with or manifesting divine power’. 366 LSJ9 822, col. 1, s.v. ἱεροποιός: ‘overseer of temples and sacred rites’; [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 54.6; Develin, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C., 17. 367 The Hierokles family tree can be found in: S. C. Humphreys, 'Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens,' JHS 100, 1980, 118, Table 2. 368 Rhamnous Museum nos 376, 143; Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 192; Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 234; Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 26 fig. 1; C. Clairmont, Classical Attic Tombstones, 7 vols, Kilchberg, 1993, vol. 3, 390b; Humphreys, 'Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens', 24 table 2, 25.

~272~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous a seated man who is shaking hands with a standing male figure dressed in the long ungirded tunic of a priest, and to the right a female dressed in a chiton with cloak holding a temple key, identifying her as a kleidouchos who was entrusted with the deity’s domain and its treasures.369 If, as I surmise, the lekythos originated from Hierokles’ peribolos it would indicate this family’s religious associations date back to at least the fourth century, and those interned within the peribolos are the predecessors of the same Hierokles who dedicated a portrait statue of his priestess mother, Aristonoe, in the third century.

In a patriarchal society such as ancient Greece, and Attika in particular where the highest honour that could be bestowed on a woman was to be neither praised nor censured or indeed even spoken about at all,370 a priestesshood was the only public office which gave her an authoritorial voice and to which she could aspire. Priestesshood gave her equal standing in leadership roles with her male counterparts elsewhere, and it was an office which brought public esteem as well as unique privileges such as designated theatre seats,371 and on rare occasions, the provision of a house.372 The priestess performed a valued and important role and acted as a link between the people and the gods373 in a manner which led Plato to say of priests generally: ‘they are supposed to be interpreters of the gods’, and ‘priests know how to give the gods, by means of sacrifices, the gifts that please them from us, and by prayers to ask for us the gain of good things from them’.374 Despite this, the role of a priestess was not pastoral in the modern-day sense, and the spiritual well-being of those who worshipped and sacrificed at the temple was not her concern. Her duties

369 Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 93, 234; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 80-82; Burkert, Greek Religion, 97. 370 Thuc. 2.45. 371 Burkert, Greek Religion, 97. A Roman era inscribed seat in the theatre of Dionysos at Athens, sixteen rows from the front, is reserved for a ‘priestess of Nemesis in Rhamnous’: IG ii2 5143; SEG 36.276; Petrakos, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος,' 325. A front row seat reserved for a ‘priest of Nemesis Ourania’ is not thought to have been connected with the sanctuary at Rhamnous: IG ii2 5070; I.Rhamnous Ι 154; Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 193 no. 72; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 94. 372 The priestesses at Delphi and Eleusis enjoyed this privilege: IG ii2 1672.17-18, 74, 127, 293; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 78. 373 Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 193. 374 Pl. St. 290c-d.

~273~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous would have included, but not limited to: leading processions, offering prayers, tending altar fires, pouring libations, adorning sacrificial animals, overseeing or performing the sacrifices, distribution and dispensing the sacrificial meat, conducting purification rites, guardianship of the sacred articles, keeping an inventory of the dedicated offerings from worshippers, and especially the care of the cult statue.375 Remuneration for her services may have been monetary, for example Myrrhine, the priestess of Athena Nike, received fifty drachmas a year for her services plus extra benefits from the sacrifices.376 Or possibly she received no actual monetary payment but was rewarded in kind with meat and pelts from the sacrificed animals, grain, fruit, cakes, wine, oil, and honey.377

At several cult centres the priestesses had an assistant or assistants to help her in her duties. The priestess of Demeter at Phigalia in Arkadia had the help of three female ‘sacrifices’ the youngest of whom, most likely a parthenos, was present with the priestess to aid in the sacrifices:

ἱέρεια δέ σφισίν ἐστιν ἡ δρῶσα, σὺν δὲ αὐτῇ καὶ τῶν ἱεροθυτῶν καλουμένων ὁ νεώτατος· οἱ δέ εἰσι τῶν ἀστῶν τρεῖς ἀριθμόν.378

They have a priestess who performs the rites, and with her is the youngest of their ‘sacrificers’, as they are called, who are citizens, three in number.

In Athens, Athena Polias had assistants known as the Κοσμώ and Τραπεζώ (or Τραπεζοφόρος),379 whose role presumably related to the care of the τράπεζα, or sacred table, possibly the altar itself, on which sacrifices were set out.380

375 Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 187-188; Goff, Citizen Bacchae, 62-63; R. Garland, 'Priests and Power in Classical Athens,' in M. Beard & J. North (eds), Pagan Priests: Religion annd Power in the Ancient World, London, 1990, 77-78; Garland, 'Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens', 75-76. 376 IG i2 24, 25; IG i3 35, 36; Meiggs & Lewis 44, 71; cf. epitaph to Myrrhine, priestess of Athena Nike: SEG 12.80. 377 Goff, Citizen Bacchae, 66-67; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 85; Kron, 'Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?,' 140-141; Garland, 'Priests and Power in Classical Athens,' 77; Burkert, Greek Religion, 96-97. 378 Paus. 8.42.12. 379 Lyk. F47 (Harp. s.v. Τραπεζοφόρος); Istros FGrH 334 F9 (Harp. s.v. Τραπεζοφόρος); Hesych. vol. 4, 66.1257 (Hansen) s.v. Τραπεζώ; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 84; Parker, Athenian Religion, 290; Garland, 'Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens', 93.

~274~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

I have argued that the sanctuary at Rhamnous had one life-serving incumbent priestess at any given time who attended both Themis and Nemesis, and that the sanctuary rituals followed those found elsewhere in the Greek world. Whether the priestess had help in her duties from an assistant is not known, but once the significance of the cult centre grew after both the Greek victory at Marathon and the establishment of the training centre for ephebes at the fort in the town below, it would be reasonable to presume that such assistance was forthcoming since her duties would have increased commensurately.

GRAVE STELAI FROM RHAMNOUS

The oldest grave-stele from Rhamnous dates to the sixth century. It is inscribed with just one word, the name of the deceased: Σέλιθος, together with three incised strokes on either side.381

Another stele, discovered inside the small building within the sanctuary by Gandy in 1812, can be dated to the fourth century judging from its stylized capital. Figure 59 depicts his finely worked drawing (with obvious reconstructive artwork) of this stele.382 It shows a standing man farewelling a seated woman, presumably his Figure 59: Restored grave- stele from Rhamnous; fourth mother or his wife. Unfortunately it has never century (sketch: Gandy).

380 IG ii2 1245.6, 1534.163, 1933.2. 381 SEG 48.86; V. Petrakos, PAAH 153, 1998 [2000], 32; Petrakos, Έργον 45, 1998 [1999], 16; G. Touchais, S. Huber, Y. Varalis, et al., 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1998,' BCH 123, no. 2, 1999, 664. A point of interest is that the greatest number of Attic funereal-stelai outside Athens have been found at Rhamnous, eighty- two thus far. There are some individual graves but most are family groups dating to the fourth century with inscriptions limited to names and family relationships: Euphranor (8 burials, 3 generations), Pytharchos (6 burials, 3 generations), Athenodoros and Dromakles (5 burials, 2 generations), Diogeiton (8 burials, 5 generations), Phanokrates (7 burials, 2 generations), Hierokles (15 cremations, 4 generations), Mnesitheos (at least 1 burial), Diophantides (NA), and Lysippos and Mnesikrateia (3 burials, 2 generations): Osborne, Athens and Athenian Democracy, 153-155; Hildebrandt, Die attischen Namenstelen, 394-396, pls 132-142. 382 Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 151; Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 80 no. 63; J. H. Wright, 'Summary of Periodicals,' The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 7, no. 3, 1891, 344; Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, Chapter vii pl. v.

~275~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous been seen since, although Petrakos believes Gandy sent it with numerous other remains from Rhamnous to the British Museum, despite its firm denial in 1908.383 Whether the stele was inscribed is unknown.

One valuable discovery is the restored fourth-century grave-stele of a priestess(figure 60), shown as a kleidouchos with a temple key being held in an upright position in her left hand and resting against her shoulder.384 The large Hymettian marble fragment measures 337cms high by 350cms wide, and was found immediately below the fifth-century temple retaining wall.

The priestess is an older woman who stands with her right knee slightly bent, her head turned to the right as she looks down towards the ground which now holds her. A tainia is tied around her head, and she wears a sleeved chiton with a himation draped over her left shoulder, which is then caught up around the waist and arranged over her left forearm. The temple key, the tainia, the manner in which her himation is worn with a thick twist of fabric around the waist, Figure 60: Grave-stele for a priestess; from 385 Rhamnous; ca. 380-370; NAMA 2309; (source: all identify her as a priestess who, museum). would have been in the service of

383 Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 53 no. 136; W. R. Lethaby, Greek Buildings Represented by Fragments in the British Museum, London, 1908, 176-178. 384 NAMA 2309; J. B. Grossman, Funerary Sculpture (The Athenian Agora 35), Princeton, New Jersey, 2013, 95 no. 51, n. 147; Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 191-192, 210 no. 87; Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 232, fig. 8.6, 350 no. 31, pl. 21; Dillon, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, 80; Kosmopoulou, 'Working Women: Female Professionals on Classical Attic Gravestones', 297; A. Scholl, Die attischen Bildfeldstelen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu den kleinformatigen Grabreliefs im spätklassischen Athen, Berlin, 1996, 277 no. 206, pl. 38, 2; Clairmont, Classical Attic Tombstones, vol. 1, 310-311, no. 1.316; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 40-41, pl. 11b. 385 Connelly, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens,' 191; Connelly, Portrait of a Priestess, 232; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 40-41.

~276~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Nemesis.386 Her name, which would have been inscribed on the now broken upper part of the stele, is lost and thus unknown, and as such she stands as the representative of all priestesses who served at the sanctuary.

Although not grave-stelai, inscribed altar votives might be dedicated as a form of personal piety and homage. The statue in figure 61 from Nemesis’ temple,387 has an inscription on the base which concludes with the assumption that the un-named deity is known by all:

Λυσικλείδης ἀνέθηκ- εν Ἐπανδρίδο ὑὸς ἀπ<π> αρχὴν τόνδε θε(ᾶ)ι τῆι- δε, ἣ τόδ’ (ἔ)χει τέμενος.388

Lysikleides, son of Epandrides, dedicated a first gift to this goddess here who owns this sanctuary here.389

Presumably, since Nemesis was the primary Figure 61: Altar votive statuette dedicated to the deity; late fifth deity at Rhamnous the dedicator felt no necessity century; NAMA no. 199 (photograph: author). to include her name.

All that remains of a final votive offering from the sanctuary is its large fifth- century marble base. The dedicated statue the base once supported has long since been lost, and all that remains of its fragmented inscription, is:

[– – – –]Μ[– – – – [Νεμέσ]ε̣ι ἀνέθε[σαν]390

386 Kosmopoulou, 'Working Women: Female Professionals on Classical Attic Gravestones', 297; Mantēs, Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, 41; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 149. 387 School of Agorakritos. N. Bookidis, 'The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Terracotta Sculpture,' Corinth 18, no. 5, 2010, 4, 25, 29, 156, 184. The statue may represent Neanias, a local hero, or perhaps the youth’s right hand held a statuette of Neanias. Neanias is also depicted on the base of Nemesis’ statue at Rhamnous, discussed above pp. 255-259. 388 IG i3 1021; IG i2 828; I.Rhamnous II 88; CEG 1 320; Lazzarini, no. 643; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 151, no.36. 389 H. S. Versnel, Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden, 2011, 94; Petrakos, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, 81-82 no. 199, fig. 62.

~277~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

That it was a dedication to Nemesis is confirmed, but nothing more is known of either the nature of the statue that stood upon it or the name of the dedicant.

THE NEMESEIA

The Nemeseia was an annual festival held at Rhamnous and as its name suggests was associated with, and connected to, the goddess Nemesis. It is included here, even though the majority of evidence is Hellenistic and thus outside the chronological sphere of this thesis, because the festival is pertinent for the way in which it exemplifies the changing roles of the goddess over time. It demonstrates how the worship of a largely agrarian goddess, as she was prior to the sixth century, developed over the centuries until finally she not only had her own temple, cult statue, and cult personnel, but also a festival named for her where she and her priestesses presided.

Literary, epigraphic, and iconographic evidence dating from the fourth to the first century confirms a festival so named, but what is less certain is the festival’s precise purpose or format, although there are a few ambiguous clues. Ancient indications variously point to a festival to honour the dead, an agonistic event involving the Attic epheboi stationed at Rhamnous during their second year of training, or possibly a combination of both.

A festival for the dead under the auspices of Nemesis would be a tidy extension of her role as guardian of the wronged dead and as the protector of graves, previously discussed,391 a supposition advanced by Petrakos.392 With such a connection the festival may have originally been a means of appeasing the dead for any funereal ritual oversight, in an attempt to avoid any retribution from Nemesis;393 or, perhaps the festival, together with sacrifices and libations, served ‘to placate those who had come to a violent end’;394 or, possibly it was a way of averting Nemesis’ wrath and calming the dead who might wish to bring

390 SEG 26.270; I.Rhamnous II 90; D. J. Greagan, 'Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments,' The Athenian Agora 18, 2011, 318, n. 214. 391 Above, pp. 142-146, 151. 392 Petrakos, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', 273. 393 A. Baumeister, Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums zur Erläuterung des Lebens der Griechen und Römer in Religion, Kunst und Sitte, vol. 2, München, 1887, 1008. 394 R. Garland, Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks, 2nd edn, Westport, CT, 2009, 269.

~278~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous vengeance upon the living for some personal outrage inflicted during the deceased lifetime.395 I would further postulate that it may even have originated as a sort of harvest festival some time in ca. the seventh or sixth century, given Nemesis’ agrarian origins at Rhamnous, and that this developed over time to incorporate her role among the dead, until eventually it included agonistic games for the benefit of the ephebes stationed at Rhamnous. All or none of these suppositions may be correct for very little is known about the Nemeseia, and what is known only increases speculative argument.

Demosthenes, writing in the mid fourth century, provides the earliest literary reference for the Nemeseia as a festival honouring the dead in a speech before a jury against Spoudias concerning a property and dowry dispute. A witness, the unnamed brother-in-law of Spoudias, argues that his wife but not Spoudias’ gave a large contribution of one mna of silver (one hundred drachmai,396 about a third of a year’s wages for the average worker in the mid fifth century) for the Nemeseia to commemorate her dead father:

τὸ δὲ τελευταῖον εἰσενεγκούσης τῆς ἐμῆς γυναικὸς εἰς τὰ Νεμέσεια τῷ πατρὶ μνᾶν ἀργυρίου καὶ προαναλωσάσης, οὐδὲ ταύτης ἀξιοῖ συμβαλέσθαι τὸ μέρος.

And finally, although my wife advanced a mna of silver and expended it on her father’s behalf at the Nemeseia, he [the defendant] refuses to contribute his [wife’s] share even of this.397

The Suda, referring to the Demosthenes’ passage, explains that the Nemeseia was:

μήποτε ἑορτή τις Νεμέσεως, καθ’ ἥν τοῖς κατοιχομένοις ἐπετέλουν τὰ νομιζόμενα. Νεμέσια οὖν ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς νεκροῖς γινομένη πανήγυρις, ἐπεὴ ἡ νέμεσις ἐπὶ τῶν νεκρῶν τέτακται.

Perhaps (μήποτε) a particular festival of Nemesis, at which they used to perform the customary rites for the dead. So the Nemeseia was the celebration held for the dead, since Nemesis is assigned to the dead.398

395 Johnston, Restless Dead, 46. 396 [Arist.] Ath. Pol. 10.2; LSJ9 1138, col. 2, s.v. νμᾶ. 397 Dem. 41.11; cf. Johnston, Restless Dead, 46, n. 29; Parker, Athenian Religion, 246-247, n. 101, cf. 254, n. 126. (Translation: author.) 398 Suda, s.v. Νεμέσια (nu 159). Cf: Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 476, s.v. Nemesia.

~279~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

The word μήποτε indicates the Suda authors acknowledged the possibility of such a festival although they knew very little else about it. Hornum’s translation of this passage has μήποτε as a negation for the festival, i.e. ‘There was never a feast of Nemesis, at which they celebrated the customary things for the deceased.’399 An analysis of the word μήποτε reveals it has the potential to be ambiguous since it is construed as ‘never’ in early writers such as Homer, Hesiod and Aischylos,400 but as ‘perhaps’ in later authors, such as Aristotle, Arrian, Apollodoros Dyskolos,401 and the Suda. Consequently, the later interpretation of ‘perhaps’ is preferred to that of Hornum’s ‘never’. Although not actually voiced, Hornum’s reading infers support for Parker’s theory that Demosthenes’ Nemeseia festival might not have been known by this name but was a textual corruption of the word ‘Genesia’ a confirmed Attic festival of the dead;402 a theory rejected by Johnston,403 but considered feasibly by Friend.404 For the current discussion I believe Demosthenes knew the religious festivals and their names, and was referring to a celebration that honoured the dead.

The lexicographers, Photios (ninth-century AD) and Harpokration (first-second century AD), and the philologist Bekker (1785-1871), all mention the Nemeseia as a commemoration of the dead. Whether they were influenced by Demosthenes or whether they had access to other contemporary sources is not known:

Νεμέσεια: Δημοσθένης ἐν τῷ κατὰ Σπουδίου. μήποτε ἑορτή τις ἦν Νεμέσεως, καθ’ ἣν τοῖς κατοιχομένοις ἐπετέλουν τὰ νομιζόμενα.405

399 Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 151. 400 Hom. Il. 9.133, 275, 455; Hes. WD 86; Aischyl. Eu. 882, 977, Choe. 182, Suppl. 617; LSJ9 1129, col. 1, s.v. μήποτε. 401 Arist. EN X 1.3.1; Arr. Epict. 3.22.80; Apoll. Dys. de Pron. 18; LSJ9 1129, col. 1, s.v. μήποτε. 402 Parker, Athenian Religion, 246-247, n. 101, cf. 254, n. 126. A detailed discussion together with further references on the Genesia is found in: F. Jacoby, 'ΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ: A Forgotten Festival of the Dead,' CQ 38, no. 3/4, 1944, 65-75. If Parker’s theory is valid he could similarly have argued that ‘Nemeseia’ was a textual corruption of ‘Nekusia’ another festival of the dead: LSJ9 1166, col. 2, s.v. νεκύσια. 403 Johnston, Restless Dead, 46, n.29. 404 Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' 102. 405 Harp. s.v. Νεμέσεια.

~280~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Νεμεσία: ἡ ἐπὶ τοῖς νεκροῖς γενομένη πανήγυρις· ἐπεὶ ἡ Νέμεσις ἐπὶ τῶν νεκρῶν τέτακται.406

Νεμέσεια: πανήγυρις τις ἐπὶ τοῖς νεκροῖς ἄγομένη, ἐπεὶ ἡ Νέμεσις ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποθανόντων τέτακται.407

The similarity between the tenth-century AD Suda passage and these earlier extracts confirms them as sources from which the Suda drew. Worth discussion is the word πανήγυρις, which is used by Photios, Bekker, and the Suda in their description of the Nemeseia as a festival celebrated by ‘an assembly of people in honour of a god’.408 However, the word has seemingly been misinterpreted by Friend and Johnston who translate it as a description of the festival as going ‘all night’ (i.e. a παννυχεύω),409 with Friend stating: ‘the scholiast to the passage and the lexicographers define it as a night long commemoration of the dead’,410 which is incorrect. The word παννυχεύω as an all-night festival in connection with the Nemeseia was not used by the lexicographers, but it was mentioned in an unpublished second-century stele fragment from Rhamnous.411 The stele honours Euxitheos, strategos in 184/3 who had, as Petrakos comments: γιὰ τὴ μέριμνά του γιὰ τὸν καλύτερο ἑορτασμὸ τῶν Νεμεσείων, τὰ ὁποῖα στὸ ψήφισμα ὀνομάζονται γιὰ πρώτη φορά, παννυχίς (‘taken care for the better celebration of the Nemeseia which the decree, for the first time, named as an all-night festival’).412 This inscription continues with an account of the epheboi participating in torch races at the celebrations of the Diogeneia and the Ptolemaia and the winners receiving prizes. (Torch races were run to celebrate the bringing of fire to sacrificial altars.)413 Although the lexicographers did not describe the Nemeseia as an all-night festival, the Rhamnous inscription confirms it began to be celebrated in this manner ca. the second century. Also to be noted is that,

406 Phot. Lex. s.v. Νεμεσία. 407 Anecd. Bekk., vol. 1, 282.32, s.v. Νεμέσεια. 408 LSJ9 1297, col. 2, s.v. πανήγυρις: ‘a national assembly in honour of a national god’, ‘to hold such festivals, keep holy-days’. 409 LSJ9 1298, col. 2, s.v. παννυχεύω: ‘celebrate a night festival, keep vigil’. 410 Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' 102; cf. Johnston, Restless Dead, 46. 411 SEG 48.125; Petrakos, PAAH 153, 1998 [2000], 36; Petrakos, Έργον 45, 1998 [1999], 16, who does not quote the Greek; A. Chaniotis & I. Mylonopoulos, 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1999,' Kernos 15, 2002, 396, which incorrectly quotes SEG 48.129 instead of 48.125. 412 Translation: author. 413 Greagan, 'Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments', 70.

~281~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous contrary to Parker’s assertion of the παννυχίς as a predominately female festival,414 the three festivals named in the Rhamnous inscription, i.e. the Nemeseia, the Diogeneia, and the Ptolemaia,415 were competitive agonistic all- night festivals in which the male epheboi participated.416 Further evidence confirming male participation at the παννυχίς is found in a passage of Athenaios: ‘those that stay awake ἐν ταῖς παννυχίσιν will ‘kiss any woman he wishes of those who are there’.417

The earliest indirect attestation for the Nemeseia as an agonistic festival dates to the fourth century, with the third century providing firm and specific epigraphical evidence. The fourth-century evidence comprises two votive herms from Rhamnous. The first, dated to 333/332, is an inscribed rounded votive base now attached to a male hip-herm dressed in chiton and khlamys that commemorates a victory in the ephebic torch race event (λαμπάδι νικήσαντες) at Rhamnous. The inscription lists forty-six names from the phyle of Erechtheis (i.e. not from Rhamnous which belonged to the Trittys of Aiantis),418 who have made this dedication to a deity whose name is now lost.419 Another fourth-century votive herm from Rhamnous is made up of two uninscribed adjoining fragments depicting victorious torch race athletes approaching three goddesses credibly identified, though not verified, as Nike,

414 Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 166, n. 42. 415 The Diogeneia was a festival at Athens in honour of Diogenes the Macedonian: LSJ9 432, col. 1, s.v. Διογένεια, τά, IG ii2 1028.14; the Ptolemaia was a festival held in several Greek cities: LSJ9 1548, col. 2, s.v. Πτολεμαῖα, τά; (Athens), IG ii2 891.14; cf. SEG 49.200, an inscription on a stele found within Rhamnous fort which honours three epheboi who were victorious in the torch races of the Diogeneia and the Ptolemaia at Athens, ca. 100, and includes a dedication to Themis and Nemesis. 416 Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' 106. For the παννυχις at the Panathenaia, see: IG ii2 334 line 30; SEG 36.152. 417 Athen. 668c; 418 Traill, Demos and Trittys, 89, 109, 115, 138; Traill, 'Diakris, the Inland Trittys of Leontis', 103; Traill, The Political Organization of Attica, 12. 419 NAMA 313 (herm); inscription: IG ii2 3105+SEG 31.162, 39.185; IG ii2 4594a; I.Rhamnous II 98+100; Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' 98; J. J. Sosin, 'An Endowed Peace,' Museum Helveticum 61, 2004, 3; J. D. Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley, 1998, 42; Parker, Athenian Religion, 246, 254 n. 126; Palagia & Lewis, 'The Ephebes of Erechtheis', 333-339; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 161-162 no. 1, pl. 100; Petrakos, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', 68-69 no. 21; J. K. Davies, 'Demosthenes on Liturgies: A Note,' JHS 87, 1967, 40; Pouilloux, La Forteresse de Rhamnonte, 111 no. 2 bis. Not found in: C. J. Schwenk, Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws & Decrees of 'The Lykourgan Era' 338-322 B.C., Chicago, 1985.

~282~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

Themis and Nemesis.420 Unfortunately the festival’s name has not survived, or never existed, on either of these votive herms but the specific mention of the Nemeseia on later inscriptions in identical contexts presupposes that these two were associated with the same festival.

The third century provides definitive evidence for the Nemeseia, with the most significant a stele that mentions a ‘Great Nemeseia’. This is the sole extant use of the term and nothing is known about why this festival was so unique that it was singled out as ‘Great’. I suggest that since the Nemeseia festival was not confined to Rhamnous, with evidence affirming its celebration in other centres, for example, a decree from Athens dated 187/6: γινομένων δὲ καὶ τῶν Νεμεσί[ων - - - -, and a possible restoration of Ν̣[εμεσίων] in an Attic inscription dated 337/334,421 that it was most likely an annual event held in various cities but that these cities all gathered together every four years, logically at Rhamnous, with their teams to hold combined games at the Great Nemeseia. A parallel is drawn with the Lesser and Greater Panathenaic games, where the former is an annual event and the latter a festival held every four years.422 Similarly, the Lesser and Greater Eleusinian mysteries,423 although these may have both been held annually. The celebrations at the Nemeseia (from ca. second century onwards), the Panathenaic, and the Eleusinian mysteries, all held παννυχις festivals which, for the latter two at least, included both males and females.

The Great Nemeseia inscription honours the Macedonian ruler Antigonos Gonatas, and suggests sacrifices were made at the Great Nemeseia which was

420 BM 1953,0530.1 + Rhamnous 530 (ex NAMA 2331 + Rhamnous 267, 457 and fragments of additional pieces); Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' 102; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 95, fig. 11; Palagia & Lewis, 'The Ephebes of Erechtheis', 340-344; Petrakos, PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 162 no. 2, pl. 101; B. Ashmole, 'Torch-Racing at Rhamnus,' AJA 66, no. 3, 1962, 233-234, pl. 59 1-3; cf. this votive with Rhamnous 531 (ex NAMA 2332) which appears to depict the same subject matter, and mentioned in: Palagia & Lewis, 'The Ephebes of Erechtheis', 340. 421 SEG 21.435 line 24 (187/6); SEG 18.13 line 8 (336/334), which would indicate polis games called the Nemeseia from at least this date. 422 Thuc. 6.56.2 (Greater); Pl. Euthyphr. 6c (Greater); Pl. Tim. 21a (Lesser); Suda s.v. Παναθήναια (pi 152) (Greater and Lesser); OCD3 1104 s.v Panathenaia (Greater and Lesser). 423 IG i3 6B lines 36-40; IG i3 6C lines 10-15; Plut. Demetr. 26.1.

~283~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous celebrated on the 19th Hekatombaion together with athletic contests.424 As convenient as the inscription appears for confirmation of sacrifices, athletic contests, and date of the Great Nemeseia, it is observed that the wording is ambiguous as to whether these events were all held together on the 19th Hekatombaion, or whether they were held separately:425

[Ἐ]λπίνικος Μνησίππου Ῥαμνούσιος εἶπεν· ἐπειδὴ ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀντίγονο- ς καὶ σωτὴρ τοῦ δήμου, διατελεῖ εὐερ̣- <γ>ετῶν τὸν δῆμον τὸν Ἀθηναίων κ[α]- ὶ διὰ ταῦτα αὐτὸν ὁ δῆμος ἐτίμησεν (τι) τιμαῖς ἰσοθέοις, τύχει ἀγαθεῖ, δεδόχθαι [Ῥ]αμνουσίοις θύειν αὐτῶι τεῖ ἐνάτει ἐπὶ δέκα τοῦ Ἑκατονβαιῶνος, τῶν μεγάλ- ων Νεμεσίων τῶι γυμνικῶι ἀγῶνι καὶ στεφανηφορεῖν, πόρον δὲ ὑπάρχ[ε]- [ιν] τοῖς δημόταις εἰς τὴν θυσίαν τ[ὸ γε]- [νό]μενον αὐτοῖς ἀγοραστικόν· τ[ῆς θυ]- σίας ἐπιμελῖσθαι τὸν δήμ[αρχον κ]- [αὶ τὸ]ν ταμίαν τὸν ἀεὶ καθι[στάμε]- [νον· ἀ]ναγράψαι δὲ τόδε [τὸ ψήφισμα] [ἐν στήλει λιθ]ίνει καὶ στ[ῆσαι οὗ] [ἂν δοκῆι τῶι] β<α>σιλε[ῖ Ἀντιγόνωι] [------]ΕΙΛΙΗ[------] [------]ΛΙ.ΙΑΡ[------] [------]ΕΙΣΙΣ[------]

Elpinikos son of Mnēsippos, of Rhamnous, proposed: since Antigonos, King and Saviour of the people, continues doing good services to the people of Athens, and because of these the people have paid him godlike honours, for good fortune, the Rhamnousians have decided to sacrifice to him on the 19th Hekatombaion, and to crown him at the athletic contests of the Great Nemesia, and to raise resources for the sacrifice from their fellow-demesmen, from their commercial profit; the demarch and the treasurer in office at the time should have responsibility for the sacrifice; and this decree should be inscribed on a stone stele and set up beside the altar of king Antigonos …426

424 SEG 41.75 lines 8-9, 42.115, 46.159; I.Rhamnous II 7 lines 8-9; Stafford, ''The People to the Goddess Livia'', 212-213; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 94-96; Mikalson, Religion in Hellenistic Athens, 156, 160; Parker, Athenian Religion, 254, n. 126; Petrakos, PAAH 144, 1989 [1992], 31-34 no. 15, pl. 12b. 425 SEG 41.75; Friend, 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens,' 103; Parker, Polytheism and Society at Athens, 476; Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 96. 426 Trans. Stafford, Worshipping Virtues, 95-96.

~284~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

What is certain is that Antigonos was to be crowned at the athletic contests of the Great Nemeseia, and he was to have a sacrifice made to him on the 19th Hekatombaion; what is not clear is whether these events were to occur on the same day. Stafford’s translation quoted above has been amended by her in a later publication to align better with the conclusion that the events were conducted on the same day:

… the Rhamnousians have decided to sacrifice to him on the 19th Hekatombaion, at the athletic contests of the Great Nemesia, and to wear crowns, and to raise resources for their fellow-demesmen for the sacrifice, that accruing from the market tax …427

A further third-century stele, dated 235/234, honours the garrison commander, Dikaiarchos of Thria, and this time there is clear confirmation of sacrifices made at the Nemeseia. The proposer is the same Elpinikos:

ἔδωκεν δὲ καὶ ἱερεῖα εἰς τὴν θυ- σίαν τῶν Νεμεσίων καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, ἐγλειπου- [σ]ῶν τῶν θυσιῶν διὰ τὸν πόλεμον, ὅπως ἔχει καλῶς τὰ πρὸς [τ]ὰς θεὰς Ῥαμνουσίοις, …428

and he also gave offerings towards the sacrifice for the Nemeseia and the king from his own resources, since the sacrifices had been abandoned because of the war, in order that it be well with the goddesses [Nemesis and Themis] for the Rhamnousians …429

With the names of the goddesses, Nemesis and Themis, restored, specific meaning and purpose is given to the festival as a celebration to again honour the goddesses after a period of neglect so that the deities will be placated and all will be well with the inhabitants of Rhamnous.

Lack of detailed extant contemporary evidence hinders a definitive understanding of the Nemeseia. Whether it was a combined celebration of the dead with athletics for the epheboi, a theory supported by Dietrich,430 or whether, as suggested by Takati, Petrakos, Fisher, and Herter,431 it was

427 Stafford, ''The People to the Goddess Livia'', 213. 428 SEG 25.155 lines 27-30; I.Rhamnous II 17 lines 27-30. 429 Translation: author. 430 Dietrich, Death, Fate and the Gods, 166-167. 431 I.Rhamnous I, 275-276, 294-295; A. B. Takati, 'Nemesis, Nemeseis, and the Gladiatorial Games at Smyrna,' Mnemosyne 62, 2009, 642; Fisher, Hybris, 301; Herter, 'Nemesis,' col. 2352.

~285~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous exclusively an athletic festival without reference to the dead, is not known. In my opinion, the Nemeseia may have originated as a harvest festival in line with Nemesis’ Archaic agrarian nature, but it later became a festival to celebrate and honour both the dead and Nemesis as their champion. With the later influx of Attic epheboi the festival was extended to incorporate appropriate athletic events such as torch races to better entertain these youths, until eventually this variation dominated. As such, and despite Hornum’s views to the contrary, Nemesis’ well-documented later association with gladiatorial games throughout the Roman world432 may possibly have had its origins in the Nemeseia.

CONCLUSION

While Rhamnous is not the only sanctuary of Nemesis, it is the most important one, with evidence of an extensive cult and organised priestesshood. It has a significant major temple with ancillary buildings, together with another building conjectured to have originally been a temple but which later became a treasury. The main temple went through three successive building phases: this and its size indicates the importance of her cult not just locally but for the Athenian state as a whole.

This major site has produced a rich archaeological record which sheds crucial light on the nature of Nemesis’ cult and ritual. Of especial significance are the large number of high-quality funereal loutrophoroi shards mostly dating to the sixth century, but including examples from the late seventh century. These reflect a chthonic role for the goddess, with the quantity suggesting this was a significant role in these centuries. The fifth century forward saw a sharp decline in the number of loutrophoroi, a date which chronologically corresponds to the perceived aid she afforded the Greeks in the events of 490 and the battle of Marathon, and is seen as an indication she was becoming a more potent deity who increasingly concerned herself with punishment for the hybristic.

432 A comprehensive examination of this topic is found in: Hornum, Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, 43-90.

~286~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous

A significant archaeological discovery from Rhamnous is the sixth-century perirrhanterion dedicated to Nemesis and Themis which establishes the combined worship of these two goddesses from at least this date. The miniature votive wheel of the same date, although it does not name the deity to whom it is dedicated can logically be concluded to have been Nemesis. My discussion on the large number of votive wheels found throughout the Greek world of a similar date and dedicated to various deities with no connection to retribution establishes that attempts to connect this votive wheel, at this early stage in the history of the Rhamnous cult, to retributive punishment and torture, as suggested by Faraone are invalid, especially when his argument is based on the discovery of a single votive wheel at Rhamnous.

The helmet dedicated to Nemesis by the Rhamnousians on the island of Lemnos, dated by Petrakos to ca. 499, would have been made in a military context. I agree with Petrakos in that it was a thanksgiving offering made by the Rhamnousians who formed part of the combined Athenian contingent who had won a victory over Lemnos. The dedication of the helmet to Nemesis would not have been made with a sense of future retribution towards the Lemnians, but in the belief that the goddess had actively supported them as their champion. Yet, the goddess’s retributive quality would begin to evolve over the following years until it culminated with her assistance in the defeat of the hybristic Persians intent on invading and occupying Greece. This retributive quality now became, not only more prominent, but also a more definitive aspect of Nemesis in her campaign against injustice. It is from this period forward that Nemesis increasingly concerned herself with punishment for acts of consciously enacted deeds of hybris, i.e. a hybris/nemesis dichotomy, and her new focus transformed her from a largely local goddess into an Athenian one, and from there to panhellenic status.

Nemesis’ fifth-century temple was built ca. 436-432, and replaced the late sixth-century temple that had more than likely been destroyed by the advancing Persian forces in 480. This new temple was larger and more magnificent, thereby reflecting her new found status post Persian war – she was now important and potent throughout Attika. Inside the temple her

~287~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous magnificent and almost twice life-size statue stood on a base carved with relief figures depicting her mythology. As with other larger than life cult statues she would have awed worshippers. In her hands she held two cult attributes, an apple branch and a phiale depicting negro heads which was very possibly identical to the Panagyurishte phiale and reinforced the assertion of Nemesis’ newer attribute of retribution was wide-ranging and reached to the ends of the earth.

As for the statue base itself, we are told by Pausanias that the relief sculptures are figures taken from the myth of Helen being introduced to her mother Nemesis by her foster mother Leda, in the company of some of the protagonists from the Trojan war. Helen’s presentation to Nemesis is an affirmation that Attika had usurped Helen from Sparta where she was revered. Now claimed by Rhamnous she and her mother Nemesis will bring revenge on Sparta for their current aggression against Athens. Aiding them will be those local heroes depicted on the statue base, Hippeus, Neanias, and Epochos, whom I have interpreted as allegorical representations of: the horsemen of the Athenian cavalry (Ἱππεύς), the young men of the Athenian infantry (Νεανίας), and the sailors of the Athenian navy (Ἔποχος), i.e. all the armed Attic forces. The base is a clear representation of Rhamnousian Nemesis who brings retributive justice to the hybristic, be they Trojan, Persian, Spartan, or indeed any foe of Attika.

Themis was worshipped at Rhamnous alongside Nemesis. The two goddesses acted as a complementary pair who balanced each others attributes: Themis the goddess of Justice and Law and the personification of Right Order, with Nemesis, goddess of Retribution and avenger of Themis’ transgressors. The deities were served by a succession of priestesses, some with her own throne seat on the porch of the smaller temple, and who were honoured with inscribed grave stelai upon death. Nemesis’ cult was clearly important enough to justify its own priestess with many ritual duties, including a special role at the Nemeseia festival.

Temple, cult statue, cult personnel, and festival all signify the ultimate transformation of nemesis as an emotion experienced by mortals and divinities,

~288~ Cult Centre at Rhamnous to a specific deity acting in her own persona, and empowered to do so, in order to deliver retributive justice. The site of Nemesis’ temple at Rhamnous and the archaeological discoveries found there bring all aspects together: the myth is reflected in the archaeology, and the archaeology compliments the myth.

~289~

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

[ἔστι θε]ὸς Νέμεσις· [πρός τὰ δίκ]αια βλέπε.

There is a goddess Nemesis Observe righteousness!1 SEG 30.1480

Through an examination of the available evidence namely, literary, iconographic, epigraphic, and archaeological, the chronological and thematic analysis undertaken in this thesis has sought to ascertain how it was that an intangible emotional abstract concept of ‘righteous indignation’, later developing into ‘divine retribution’, became a personification who was subsequently worshipped as a powerful and potent deity with a role to punish the hybristic and the violators of the customary laws pertaining to society, i.e. themis. My diachronic analysis has further sought to reveal how it was that this goddess, whose original role at Rhamnous was as a defender of rural order through the fair allocation of pastures, developed to not only adopt these later retributive qualities, but was able to simultaneously adapt to become a more complete chthonic deity with a reputation for avenging the dead.

Such a study is not without its methodological problems. In common with any specific study within the genre of ancient history the challenges have, for the literary evidence, included the limited contemporary sources which, for the eighth and seventh centuries, are reliant almost exclusively on the works of Homer, Hesiod, and the fragmentary Kypria. The later literary evidence from the dramatists, historians, and comedians supplements what is known about Nemesis, although this has naturally been manipulated by genre and the literary purposes of each author. Epigraphy, as a source, is invaluable but its fragmentary nature can lead to debatable, even contradictory, readings – for example, the fourth-century Megakles’ inscription on the base of the Themis statue which I discussed in line with its modern-day variant interpretations.2 The challenge presented by the archaeological discoveries at Nemesis’

1 From Roman Iulia in Phrygia. (Translation: author.) 2 Above pp. 261-265.

~ 290 ~ Conclusion principal cult centre at Rhamnous has been to decide why it was that she was ever worshipped there at all: what was it that made Rhamnous so important to be chosen as the place for a sanctuary dedicated to a retributive deity?

In order to resolve these issues, I have undertaken a close textual reading of the early literary evidence, in particular Homer, Hesiod and the Kypria, which has established that Nemesis, the goddess of the Archaic and Classical periods, developed from an abstract concept. Through my exhaustive study, particularly of Homer and his use of nemesis-words (presented in Appendix 1), it has been established that nemesis was an emotion originally felt by witnesses of shameful behaviour that was consciously performed, but that it could also be felt by oneself at reprehensible personally enacted deeds. Consequently, as an abstract emotion, nemesis could be experienced subjectively or objectively. In particular, while the Thersites’ episode has been examined countless times in many languages, beginning with Eustathios in the sixth-century AD, I situate and contextualize this episode within the framework of nemesis studies. This has resulted in my original conclusion which argues that the nemesis spoken of by Homer in this episode is the embodiment of the collective nemesis felt by the Achaians towards their own audacious behaviour and their verbal insults against their basileus. In other words, I reason that Thersites is not a person, and nor is he a soldier, for indeed his very deformities preclude him from such a role, and as such he could never have been at Troy among the fighting Achaian forces and boasting of his exploits.3 This is a new conclusion which has not previously been addressed in the scholarship which I develop from an interpretation of Thersites as the embodiment of the root of his name, θέρσος, i.e. the over-confidence or brazen audacity of the common Achaian soldiers and the fear they had for this collective emotion, once unleashed. This linguistic analysis of the etymological derivation of the name, together with a tight analysis of the grammatical structure of the relevant passage, especially of νεμέσσηθέν as an aorist in the passive voice within its sentence, has enabled me to argue for the validity of this new interpretation.

3 Discussed above pp. 34-43.

~291~ Conclusion

As an abstract concept I discuss nemesis in relation to its development in Homer. Homeric nemesis could be invoked by violations of the correct societal standards of behaviour assigned to people and situations, and where it is able to take on a range of nuances: from the relatively mild sense of bashfulness or awe shown by Telemachos in the presence of an elder; to the reaction of the common Achaian soldiers who instinctively feel it when witnessing their unchecked arrogance and brazen audacity; to the justified anger felt by Odysseus against Penelope’s suitors for their violent excesses, and the gods who threaten nemesis against Achilles for his violation of Hektor’s body.4 I conclude that these different nuances can often only be detected through an analysis of Homer’s use of various word combinations. For example, nemesis expressed as an emotion within an individual’s thumos or, where the abstract is described as being felt within the physical ‘heart’, the kȇr, gives added strength and potency to the sentiment being expressed or experienced.5 Consequently, to understand better the emotional strength of the nemesis intended by Homer it is not only necessary to undertake a close reading of the context, but also to study the grammatical structure of the word within its sentence.

My discussion on Hesiod exposes an additional dimension of the abstract: a deep moral consciousness that originally dwelt within mankind’s psyche but which he finds lacking in that corrupt age of mankind he termed the iron genos. It is Hesiod who first personifies and deifies Nemesis, and as I have sought to demonstrate, it is the point at which mankind rejects all moral consciousness, including the values inherent in those abstract concepts of nemesis and aidōs, that these moral guardians, already personified, leave the earth to its own evil machinations and depart for the realm of the gods, whereupon they achieve deification.6 I have argued that Hesiod leaves a moral and didactic lesson for all ages of mankind, since his iron genos may have been at some point in the past, it may be our present, or it may be still yet to come. The conclusion drawn from the lesson of Hesiod’s N/nemesis, is that this moral

4 Discussed above: p. 33 (Telemachos), pp. 34-43 (Thersites), pp. 58-66 (Odysseus and the suitors), pp. 54-58 (gods’ threatened nemesis against Achilles). 5 Above pp. 43-50 (thumos); pp. 46-47 (kȇr). 6 Discussed above pp. 86-87.

~292~ Conclusion guardian is relevant in every age, and that the point at which society rejects all that is good and moral and chooses evil and depravity in its place is a point of no return, for at that very instant every spark of decency will be extinguished, redemption will be beyond hope, evil will perpetuate, and the world will become a moral graveyard strewn with the detritus of ethical concepts destroyed by evil intent.

My treatment of the fragmentary Kypria first analyses the extended mythology that surrounds Nemesis found there, and how it was that the goddess developed to become ultimately a fully formed retributive deity, a moral judge and punisher of human excesses wherever found in order to restore natural order and balance on the earth. I argue that to implement his plan to punish mankind for impiety Zeus consciously and wantonly violated Nemesis in order to produce, not only Helen as his agent of destruction, but also to generate within Nemesis an extreme retributive essence that would be spawned from those Homeric interpretations of nemesis – her righteous indignation, her blame, her shame, and her anger – to enable these resultant emotive forces to emerge with intensity, with resentment, and to transform into a new incarnation, Nemesis as Divine Retribution.7 Nemesis now emerged as a more concrete persona, and in this form she became judge and punisher of excesses so that natural order and balance could be restored. It was in this intensified form that the fifth-century playwrights, especially the tragedians, exploited her to dramatic effect as a punisher to be feared.

Although Nemesis’ chthonic characteristics can be dated to the late seventh century from the archaeological discoveries at Rhamnous, it is only in the fifth century that this aspect of the goddess is evident in the extant literary sources.8 Tragedy is an appropriate medium to draw out this aspect of Nemesis, and the tragedians use it by expounding Nemesis’ chthonic role as the champion and avenger of those now dead but who had been wronged in life, with Aischylos saying of her that she ‘exacts the penalty for the wrath of the dead’.9

7 Above pp. 97-102 (Zeus’ plan); pp. 103-110 (rape of Nemesis). 8 Discussed above pp. 142-151 (tragedians); pp. 194-200 (archaeology). 9 Aischyl., Phrygians F266.4 (Sommerstein).

~293~ Conclusion

In the historical sources, where the presence or absence of a hybris/nemesis dichotomy as cause and effect has been discussed, I conclude that insofar as N/nemesis existed in the Kroisos logos, it was the moment Kroisos articulated his belief that he was the most fortunate of men that his words became a direct challenge to Nemesis as the punisher of boastful and unbridled speech. Polykrates suffered similarly, but was, in addition, guilty of hybris. I have argued that although Polykrates discarded a ring in an attempt to bring some misfortune into his constantly fortunate life so that the gods’ phthonos would be placated, he was not contrite. The meagre choice of this sacrifice, and the manner of its execution merely served to intensify the gods’ anger since they saw his ineffectual attempts to bring balance to his life as insulting, and in this he was guilty of an unarticulated hybris by committing an assault on the honour of another (the gods).10 I argue that Herodotos purposely used Kroisos and Polykrates as two examples of the inescapable fate that results from human conceit; and how blindness to the dangers of self-important and arrogant thoughts, words, and actions, will at some time in future result in punishment and ruin.11

Fifth-century comedy does not reflect Nemesis’ reputation for retribution and punishment as found in the tragedies. In Kratinos’ fragmentary play, Nemesis, profanity is rife and the goddess’s mythical story as related in the Kypria is turned into a parody full of satirical mockery and sexual innuendo. Although the plot itself is only broadly known, it has been confidently concluded that Perikles and Aspasia are the main protagonists where, by means of innuendo and double-entendre, they are satirized and ridiculed.12 The explicit nature of the play is, by today’s standards, obscene and vulgar, and in my discussion I argue that in assigning the goddess’ name to such a play demonstrates a more light-hearted approach to religious subjects had begun to take hold in the literary sources of the fifth century, if it was not already present.

My iconographical studies in the thesis were not solely utilised to illustrate the literary evidence, but represented an independent enquiry into and analysis of

10 Fisher, Hybris, 1. 11 Above pp. 169-179 (Kroisos); pp. 179-184 (Polykrates). 12 Above pp. 153-167.

~294~ Conclusion what this artistic evidence can reveal in its own right in regards to the study of Nemesis. One example is my discussion on the Berlin amphoriskos which, apart from Nemesis’ reconstructed cult statue and its base, is the only known artistic representation of the goddess, but where, had she not been labelled, it would have been impossible to identify her since iconographically she looks much like any other generic Classical era female. My study of this amphoriskos presents the various arguments of previous scholars, and provides my own original analysis of the figures represented there, together with my discussion on what their presence adds to the story being told in the scene as a whole. Since the names or fragments of names belonging to the figures are invisible to the naked eye, I have consulted detailed photographs made with specialist enhancing techniques to aid in my discussion of this vessel. These photographs, together with Immerwahr’s book on Attic scripts, has enabled a competent discussion of what remains of the letter fragments but which, because of their degree of fragmentation still defies a definitive conclusion. Consequently, although no absolute decision is reached, my discussion has resulted in proposed conjectural alternatives not previously considered, which has widened the debate over both the identification of the figures and the interpretation of the scene as a whole as it relates to Nemesis.

Furthermore, in a detailed and analytical examination, with full discussions of the relevant material evidence, I have identified some key problems and issues relating to additional artefacts, with many of these having been studied by me in situ or in relevant museums. More significantly, while I have acknowledged and presented the findings and opinions of the previous scholarship, my focused analysis has led not only to the supplementation of, or to arguments against, existing ideas, but has also advanced new and original interpretations validated within the context of my studies of Nemesis as a whole. For example, by studying the inscribed miniature votive wheel from Rhamnous, not as a stand alone object, but by contextualizing it within a study of votive wheels from sanctuaries from throughout the Greek world, I have argued against Faraone’s interpretation of this wheel as proof of a connection between Nemesis and judicial torture and punishment in the sixth century, since the numerous votive wheels found in temples of other deities with no connection

~295~ Conclusion to punishment, as catalogued in this thesis, negate his argument. Although the wheel did come to represent Nemesis’ punishing aspect ca. late Hellenistic period, this single sixth-century find at Rhamnous does not connect her with this attribute at this early date. Consequently, I have argued that this wheel should be seen for what it is and nothing more – a votive offering to the deity, either as a demonstration of piety, or for the dedicant’s future prosperity.13 In other examples, I have offered interpretational variances on the frieze-scene on Nemesis’ statue base at Rhamnous, and my presentation of archaeological evidence for Nemesis’ chthonic nature evident at Rhamnous from at least the seventh century forward, all of which has significantly contributed to and developed a fuller understanding of this goddess.

Although the archaeological material confirms the area was continuously inhabited from at least the Early Helladic period, the earliest documented evidence for the worship of Nemesis is an inscribed sixth-century fragmented perirrhanterion and a bronze helmet of a similar or slightly later date.14 Petrakos has determined Nemesis was originally an agrarian goddess who concerned herself with agriculture. From these beginnings I argue that since crops originate from beneath the earth and livestock feed on the produce of the earth, that this is the credible origin of her later more multifaceted chthonic attributes. I content that from this genesis her agricultural and chthonic role developed and began to overlap into areas such as the dead buried within the earth, an attribute that is clearly evident in the seventh and sixth-century funereal loutrophoroi shards found at Rhamnous. From this connection her chthonic role expanded further until ultimately she came to be seen as a champion and avenger of the wronged dead, a role which amalgamated her original association with the earth together with her later retributive qualities, i.e. Nemesis was able to balance her original agrarian role as the fair allocator of the earth with her attribute of avenging the dead that lay within that earth by acting on their behalf in allocating retributive punishment towards those who had wronged them.

13 Discussed above pp. 203-216. 14 Above pp. 202-203 (perirrhanterion), 216-223 (helmet).

~296~ Conclusion

The Greek victory at Marathon in 490, where Nemesis was credited with having played a seminal role in the defeat of the enemy through her retributive punishment of the hybristic Persians, is argued as the motive behind the building of her new fifth-century temple, cult statue with carved base, and for the flourishing of her sanctuary and the nearby town. I have argued that the relief scene on the statue base was not only aesthetically pleasing but also an Attic political propaganda tool. The scene depicts the introduction of Helen to her true mother Nemesis by her step-mother Leda in the company of numerous Trojan War personages, but it is also an implicit metaphor of an Athenian usurpation of Helen from Sparta as Spartan Leda hands her over to Attic Nemesis, a tacit representation of Sparta’s emasculation by Athens during a time of mutual hostilities, the Peloponnesian War. The Trojan War inference tells of Rhamnousian Nemesis who will bring retributive justice to all those guilty of hybris, be they Trojan, Persian, or Spartan. I further argue that aiding Nemesis in her mission to keep Attika safe will be those local heroes depicted on the frieze, Hippeus, Neanias, and Epochos, interpreted here for the first time as allegorical representations of the horsemen of the Athenian cavalry (Ἱππεύς), the young men of the Athenian infantry (Νεανίας), and the sailors of the Athenian navy (Ἔποχος), i.e. all the Athenian armed forces stand perpetually at the ready to protect Attika.

These new literary and iconographic analyses and interpretations are all the more important as there is no full-length monograph treatment of Nemesis in any modern European language. As such, this thesis is a substantial and significant contribution to the scholarship, not only on detailed points concerning Nemesis, her origins, attitude towards, and cult worship, but the goddess overall. This holistic treatment of the sources, with new interpretations advanced, reveals a Nemesis with more complex facets than hitherto recognized.

In this thesis I have argued for the development of nemesis from an abstract concept of ‘righteous indignation’ in Homer and Hesiod, to a representation of ‘divine retribution’ in the Kypria, into a specific concrete cult deity with the usual apparatus of worship attendant upon being a Greek goddess from the

~297~ Conclusion fifth century forward. Nemesis was the maintainer and restorer of good order and balance, and the distributor of what is due, attributes which extended to both the living and to the dead. She became the punisher of both the hybristic and the violators of the customary laws pertaining to society, i.e. themis. And, in the lives of individuals she would be appealed to whenever they thought events in their lives had run contrary to good order and balance.

As an abstract concept nemesis is still relevant, although its meaning has taken on a new nuance. Today the word is used almost exclusively as a noun, for everything from names of ships,15 movie titles,16 board-games, books and plays,17 music, and as the name of a roller-coaster.18 These reflect the modern interpretation of an opponent or rival who cannot, without difficulty, be overcome, or as something that cannot be conquered: meanings not evident in antiquity. Although these aspects are not discussed and are outside the chronological scope of this thesis, they are mentioned here to illustrate the enduring nature of what was originally an abstract concept interpreted as an emotion of righteous indignation with moral significance in an age of heroes, but which transformed through an act of violence into divine retribution, and how these interpretational nuances altered over time until finally today they represent a powerful force that cannot be surmounted without fearless tenacity: demonstrating a chronological progressive development through to the modern era which could warrant future study.

For the goddess Nemesis, and the principles she embodies, I have argued that her relevance remains timeless: she is the guardian of order, of balance, of moderation in all things – attributes as pertinent in Archaic and Classical Greece as they are now. She is a reminder that should mankind or individuals abandon these moral values for a path of wickedness and immorality then retributive justice will assuredly bring punishment and ruin.

15 For example: HMS Nemesis (name of several Royal Navy ships); USS Nemesis (U.S. Navy ship); Nemesis (British warship of the East India Company); OPV Nemesis, an offshore patrol vessel of the Australian Water Police. 16 The name was used in the Star Trek series. 17 Authors that have used the title include Agatha Christie, Isaac Asimov, and Alfred Nobel. 18 At Alton Towers, England.

~298~

APPENDIX 1

FORMS OF NEMESIS FOUND IN HOMER’S ILIAD AND ODYSSEY

Loeb Translation Possible Grammatical Page Constructions

(Grammatical abbreviations are not listed since these are commonly known.)

Verb νεμεσ(σ)άω

ILIAD

1 2.223 ἐκπάγλως κοτέοντο νεμέσσηθέν τ’ With him were the Achaians aor ind pass 3rd pl epic ionic 37, 39, 40, ἐνὶ θυμῷ exceedingly angry, and indignant in unaugmented 40 n. 154, their hearts. 42, 45, 291

2 4.413 οὐ γὰρ ἐγὼ νεμεσῶ Ἀγαμέμνονι I do not fault Agamemnon pres imperat mid/pass 2nd sg contr 22, 34 pres ind/subj act 1st sg attic epic doric ionic contr imperf ind mid/pass 2nd sg homeric ionic contr unaugmented

3 4.507 νεμέσησε δ’ Ἀπόλλων Περγάμου Apollo looking down from aor ind act 3rd sg attic ionic 51 ἐκκατιδών, Τρώεσσι δὲ κέκλετ’ Pergamοs had indignation and unaugmented ἀῦσας called with a shout to the Trojans

4 8.198 ὣς ἔφατ’ εὐχόμενος, νεμέσησε δὲ So he spoke boastfully, and queenly aor ind act 3rd sg attic ionic 52 πότνια Ἥρη Hera was indignant unaugmented

~ 299 ~ Appendix 1

5 10.115 εἴ πέρ μοι νεμεσήσεαι even if you should be angry with me aor subj mid 2nd sg attic epic ionic 43 short subj fut ind mid 2nd sg attic epic ionic

6 10.129 οὕτως οὔ τίς οἱ νεμεσήσεται οὐδ’ So will no man be indignant at him aor subj mid 3rd sg attic epic ionic 43 ἀπιθήσει Ἀργείων or disobey him of all the Argives short subj fut ind mid 3rd sg attic ionic

7 10.145 διογενὲς Λαερτιάδη πολυμήχαν’ son of Laertes, Odysseus of many pres imperat act 2nd sg contr. - Ὀδυσσεῦ μὴ νεμέσα wiles, do not be indignant imperf ind act 3rd sg homeric ionic contr unaugmented

8 11.5431 Ζεὺς γάρ οἱ νεμέσασχ’ ὅτ’ ἀμείνονι For Zeus was indignant with him, imperf ind act 3rd sg - φωτὶ μάχοιτο when he would fight with a better man

9 13.16 Διὶ δὲ κρατερῶς ἐνεμέσσα and against Zeus he was mightily imperf ind act 3rd sg epic ionic 47, 52 indignant contr.

10 13.119 ὑμῖν δὲ νεμεσσῶμαι περὶ κῆρι but with you I am exceedingly angry pres subj mid/pass 1st sg attic epic 46-47, 48, at heart doric ionic contr 51 pres ind mid/pass 1st sg epic ionic contr

11 13.293 ἀλλ’ ἄγε μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα But come, no longer let us loiter aor subj mid 2nd sg attic ionic 48 νηπύτιοι ὣς ἐσταότες, μή πού τις here and talk in this way like aor subj act 3rd sg attic ionic ὑπερφιάλως νεμεσήσῃ children, lest perhaps some man fut ind mid 2nd sg attic ionic reproach us excessively

1 Although quoted by Aristotle who attributes it to Homer, this line is not found in any extant copies of the Iliad: Arist. Rh. 1387a.

~300~ Appendix 1

12 13.353 Διὶ δὲ κρατερῶς ἐνεμέσσα and against Zeus was he mightily imperf ind act 3rd sg epic ionic 47, 52 indignant contr.

13 15.103 πᾶσιν δὲ νεμεσσηθεῖσα μετηύδα but her forehead above her dark aor part pass fem nom sg ionic 53 brows relaxed not and moved with aor part pass fem voc sg ionic indignation

14 15.115 μὴ νῦν μοι νεμεσήσετ’ Ὀλύμπια Do not blame me now, you who aor subj mid 3rd sg attic epic ionic 53 δώματ’ ἔχοντες have dwellings on Olympus short subj fut ind mid 3rd sg attic ionic

15 15.211 ἀλλ’ ἤ τοι νῦν μέν κε νεμεσσηθεὶς But in fact I will yield for now, aor part pass masc nom sg ionic 50, 53 ὑποείξω despite my indignation aor part pass masc voc sg ionic

16 15.227 ὅττι πάροιθε νεμεσσηθεὶς ὑπόειξε he yielded to my hands despite his aor part pass masc nom sg ionic - χεῖρας ἐμάς indignation aor part pass masc voc sg ionic

17 16.22 ὦ Ἀχιλεῦ Πηλῆος υἱὲ, μέγα φέρτατ’ Achilles, son of Peleus, far the pres imperat act 2nd sg contr: - Ἀχαιῶν μὴ νεμέσα mightiest of the Achaians, be not imperf ind act 3rd sg homeric ionic indignant contr unaugmented

18 16.544 ἀλλά φίλοι πάρστητε, νεμεσσήθητε But friends, take your stand beside aor imperat pass 2nd pl ionic 46 δὲ θυμῷ him, and fear disgrace at heart unaugmented

19 17.93 μή τίς μοι Δαναῶν νεμεσήσεται ὅς I fear that many a Danaan may find aor subj mid 3rd sg attic epic ionic 22 n. 74, κεν ἴδηται fault with me, whoever sees it short subj 75 fut ind mid 3rd sg attic ionic

20 17.100 τώ μ’ οὔ τις Δαναῶν νεμεσήσεται ὅς Therefore will no man of the aor subj mid 3rd sg attic epic ionic - κεν ἴδηται Danaans find fault with me short subj fut ind mid 3rd sg attic ionic

~301~ Appendix 1

21 23.494 καὶ δ’ ἄλλῳ νεμεσᾶτον ὅτις τοιαῦτά You would be indignant with pres imperat act 2nd dual contr. 23 γε ῥέζοι anyone else who acted like this pres ind/subj act 2nd/3rd dual contr. imperf ind act 2nd dual homeric ionic contr unaugmented

22 24.53 οὐ μήν οἱ τό γε κάλλιον οὐδέ τ’ Let him beware lest we grow angry aor subj pass 1st epic doric ionic 55, 143 ἄμεινον· μὴ ἀγαθῷ περ ἐόντι with him, valiant though he is; for in aeolic νεμεσσηθέωμέν οἱ ἡμεῖς his fury he disfigures the mute earth

ODYSSEY

23 1.119 βῆ δ’ ἰθὺς προθύροιο, νεμεσσήθη δ’ for in his heart he counted it shame aor ind pass 3rd sg ionic 46, 62 ἐνὶ θυμῷ ξεῖνον δηθὰ θύρῃσιν that a stranger should stand long at unaugmented ἐφεστάμεν the gates

25 1.158 ἦ καί μοι νεμεσήσεαι ὅττι κεν εἴπω Will you be angry with me for the aor subj mid 2nd sg attic epic ionic 62 word that I shall say short subj

24 1.228 νεμεσσήσαιτό κεν ἀνὴρ αἴσχεα Angered would a man be at seeing aor opt mid 3rd sg ionic 62 πόλλ’ ὁρόων all these shameful acts

26 2.64 νεμεσσήθητε καὶ αὐτοί, ἄλλους τ’ Be ashamed yourselves, and feel aor imp pass 2nd pl ionic 59 αἰδέσθητε περικτίονας ἀνθρώπους, shame before your neighbors who unaugmented οἳ περιναιετάουσι dwell round about

27 2.101 μή τίς μοι κατὰ δῆμον Ἀχαιιάδων for fear any of the Achaian women aor subj mid 2nd sg attic ionic - νεμεσήσῃ in the land should cast blame upon aor subj act 3rd sg attic ionic me fut ind mid 2nd sg attic ionic

~302~ Appendix 1

28 4.158 ἀλλὰ σαόφρων ἐστί, νεμεσσᾶται δ’ he is of prudent mind and feels pres subj mid/pass 3rd sg epic 46 ἐνὶ θυμῷ ὧδ’ ἐλθὼν τὸ πρῶτον shame at heart thus on his first ionic contr pres ind mid/pass 3rd ἐπεσβολίας ἀναφαίνειν ἄντα σέθεν, coming to make a show of forward sg epic ionic contr τοῦ νῶι θεοῦ ὣς τερπόμεθ’ αὐδῇ words in the presence of you, in whose voice we both take delight as in a god’s

29 4.195 νεμεσσῶμαί γε μὲν οὐδὲν κλαίειν ὅς I count it indeed no blame to weep pres subj mid/pass 1st sg attic epic - κε θάνῃσι βροτῶν καὶ πότμον for any mortal who has died and met doric ionic contr ἐπίσπῃ his fate pres ind mid/pass 1st sg epic ionic contr

30 6.286 καὶ δ’ ἄλλῃ νεμεσῶ, ἥ τις τοιαῦτά I, too, would blame another maiden pres imperat mid/pass 2nd sg contr 22 who should do likewise pres subj act 1st sg attic epic doric ionic contr pres ind act 1st sg attic epic doric ionic contr imperf ind mid/pass 2nd sg homeric ionic contr unaugmented

31 14.284 ἦ μέν μοι μάλα πολλοὶ ἐπήισσον But he warded them off, and had pres subj mid/pass 3rd sg epic 55 n. 224, μελίῃσιν, ἱέμενοι κτεῖναι – δὴ γὰρ regard for the wrath of Zeus, the ionic contr pres ind mid/pass 3rd 64 n. 274 κεχολώατο λίμν - ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ κεῖνος stranger’s god, who above all others sg epic ionic contr ἔρυκε, Διὸς δ’ ὠπίζετο μῆνιν feels indignation at evil deeds ξεινίου, ὅς τε μάλιστα νεμεσσᾶται κακὰ ἔργα

32 15.69 νεμεσσῶμαι δὲ καὶ ἄλλῳ ἀνδρὶ I should blame another, who, as pres subj mid/pass 1st sg attic epic 23 n. 80 ξεινοδόκῳ, ὅς κ’ ἔξοχα μὲν host, loves too greatly or hates too doric ionic contr φιλέῃσιν, ἔξοχα δ’ ἐχθαίρῃσιν greatly; better is due measure in all pres ind mid/pass 1st sg epic ionic things contr

~303~ Appendix 1

33 17.481 ὥς ἔφαθ’, οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες So he spoke but they all were filled imperf ind act 3rd pl homeric ionic 48, 61 ὑπερφιάλως νεμέσησαν with exceeding indignation unaugmented aor ind act 3rd pl attic ionic unaugmented

34 18.227 μῆτερ ἐμή, τὸ μὲν οὔ σε νεμεσσῶμαι My mother, I do not blame you for pres subj mid/pass 1st sg attic epic 48 κεχολῶσθαι being angry doric ionic contr pres ind mid/pass 1st sg epic ionic contr

35 19.121 μή τίς μοι δμῳῶν νεμεσήσεται, ἠὲ I do not wish one of your maids or aor subj mid 3rd sg attic epic ionic - σύ γ’ αὐτή your own self to be vexed with me short subj fut ind mid 3rd sg attic ionic

36 19.146 μή τίς μοι κατὰ δῆμον Ἀχαιιάδων for fear anyone of the Achaian aor subj mid 2nd sg attic ionic - νεμεσήσῃ women in the land should cast aor subj act 3rd sg attic ionic blame upon me fut ind mid 2nd sg attic ionic

37 19.264 νεμεσσῶμαί γε μὲν οὐδέν I count it indeed no blame in you pres subj mid/pass 1st sg attic epic - doric ionic contr pres ind mid/pass 1st sg epic ionic contr

38 21.147 ἀτασθαλίαι δέ οἱ οἴῳ ἐχθραὶ ἔσαν, acts of wanton folly were hateful to pres imperat act 2nd sg epic ionic 61 πᾶσιν δὲ νεμέσσα μνηστήρεσσιν him alone, and he was full of contr imperf ind act 3nrd sg epic indignation at all the suitors ionic contr unaugmented

39 21.169 νεμεσσῶμαι δέ τ’ ἀκούων I am angered to hear pres subj mid/pass 1st sg attic epic 62 doric ionic contr pres ind mid/pass 1st sg epic ionic contr

~304~ Appendix 1

40 21.285 ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες So he spoke, and they all became imperf ind act 3rd pl homeric ionic 48 ὑπερφιάλως νεμέσησαν, δείσαντες exceedingly angry, fearing that he unaugmented μὴ τόξον ἐύξοον ἐντανύσειεν might string the polished bow aor ind act 3rd pl attic ionic unaugmented

41 23.213 αὐτὰρ μὴ νῦν μοι τόδε χώεο μηδὲ But do not now be angry with me pres imperat act 2nd sg epic ionic 48 νεμέσσα for this, nor full of indignation contr imperf ind act 3nrd sg epic ionic contr unaugmented

42 24.136 μή τίς μοι κατὰ δῆμον Ἀχαιιάδων for fear any of the Achaian women aor subj mid 2nd sg attic ionic - νεμεσήσῃ in the land should cast blame upon aor subj act 3rd sg attic ionic me fut ind mid 2nd sg attic ionic

Verb νεμεσίζομαι

ILIAD

43 2.296 τὼ οὐ νεμεσίζομ’ Ἀχαιοὺς ἀσχαλάαν so I do not blame the Achaians for pres ind mid/pass 1st sg - παρὰ νηυσὶ κορωνίσιν becoming impatient beside their beaked ships

44 5.757 Ζεῦ πάτερ, οὐ νεμεσίζῃ Ἄρῃ τάδε Father Zeus, are you not indignant at pres subj mid/pass 2nd sg 52 καρτερὰ ἕργα Ares for these violent deeds

45 5.872 Ζεῦ πάτερ, οὐ νεμεσίζῃ ὁρῶν τάδε Father Zeus, are you not indignant at pres subj mid/pass 2nd sg 52 καρτερὰ ἔργα seeing these violent deeds

46 8.407 Ἥρῃ δ’ οὔ τι τόσον νεμεσίζομαι But against Hera have I not so great pres ind mid/pass 1st sg 52 οὐδὲ χολοῦμαι indignation nor wrath

~305~ Appendix 1

47 8.421 Ἥρῃ δ’ οὔ τι τόσον νεμεσίζεται οὐδὲ But against Hera he has not such pres imperat mid/pass 3rd sg 52 n. 212 χολοῦται great indignation or wrath

48 17.254 ἀλλά τις αὐτὸς ἴτω, νεμεσιζέσθω δ’ But let every man go out himself, and pres imperat mid/pass 3rd sg 46 ἑνὶ θυμῷ Πάτροκλον Τρῳῇσι κυσὶν be indignant at heart that Patroklos μέλπηθρα γενέσθαι should become the sport of the dogs of Troy

ODYSSEY

49 1.263 ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν οὔ οἱ δῶκεν, ἐπεί ῥα But he did not give it to him, for he imperf ind mid/pass 3rd sg - θεοὺς νεμεσίζετο αἰὲν ἐόντας stood in awe of the gods that are homeric ionic unaugmented forever

50 2.138 ὑμέτερος δ’ εἰ μὲν θυμὸς νεμεσίζεται And for you, if your own conscience pres ind mid/pass 3rd sg 50 αὐτῶν is offended at these things

51 2.239 νῦν δ’ ἄλλῳ δήμῳ νεμεσίζομαι it is with the rest of the people that I pres ind mid/pass 1st sg 60 am indignant

Noun νέμεσις

ILIAD

52 3.156 οὐ νέμεσις Τρῶας καὶ ἐυκνήμιδας It is not shame that Trojans and well- fem nom sg 22, 67 Ἀχαιοὺς τοιῇδ’ ἀμφὶ γυναικὶ πολὺν greaved Achaians should for such a χρόνον ἄλγεα πάσχειν woman long suffer woes

~306~ Appendix 1

53 6.335 οὔ τοι ἐγὼ Τρώων τόσσον χόλῳ οὐδὲ Not so much because of wrath and fem dat sg epic doric ionic aeolic - νεμέσσι ἤμην ἐν θαλάμῳ indignation against the Trojans sat I contr in my chamber

54 6.351 ἀνδρὸς ἔπειτ’ ὤφελλον ἀμείνονος I wish that I had been wife to a better fem acc sg 69, 112 n. εἶναι ἄκοιτις, ὃς ᾔδη νέμεσίν τε καὶ man, who could feel the indignation 506 αἴσχεα πόλλ’ ἀνθρώπων of his fellows and their many revilings

55 13.122 ἀλλ’ ἐν φρεσὶ θέσθε ἕκαστος αἰδῶ But take in your hearts, each man of fem acc sg 27, 47 καὶ νέμεσιν you, fear of shame and reproach

56 14.80 οὐ γάρ τις νέμεσις φυγέειν κακόν, For it is no shame to flee from ruin, fem nom sg 28, 43 οὐδ’ ἀνὰ νύκτα even by night

ODYSSEY

57 1.350 τούτῳ δ’ οὐ νέμεσις Δαναῶν κακὸν With this man no one can be angry if fem nom sg 22 n. 75 οἶτον ἀείδειν he sings the evil doom of the Danaans

58 2.136 νέμεσις δέ μοι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων and I shall have blame, too, from fem nom sg 27 ἔσσεται men.

59 20.330 οὔ τις νέμεσις μενέμεν τ’ ἦν there was no ground for blame that fem nom sg - ἰσχέμεναί you waited

60 22.40 ὦ κύνες, … οὔτε θεοὺς δείσαντες, οἳ You dogs, … having no fear of the fem acc sg 61 οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν, οὔτε τιν’ gods, who hold broad heaven, or that ἀνθρώπων νέμεσιν κατόπισθεν any indignation of men would follow ἔσεσθαι

~307~ Appendix 1

Adjective νεμεσητός

ILIAD

61 3.410 κεῖσε δ’ ἐγὼν οὐκ εἶμι – νεμεσσητὸν There I will not go – it would be masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic 70, 74 δέ κεν εἴη – κείνου πορσανέουσα shameful – to share that man’s be λέχος

62 9.523 πρὶν δ’ οὔ τι νεμεσσητὸν though before now no man could masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic 48 κεχολῶσθαι blame you for being angry

63 11.649 αἰδοῖος νεμεσητὸς ὅ με τροέηκε Respected and to be dreaded is he masc nom sg 33 πυθέσθαι who sent me out to learn

64 14.336 νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη that would be a shameful thing masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic 54

65 19.182 οὐ μὲν γάρ τι νεμεσσητὸν βασιλῆα for in no way is it blame for a king masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic 48 ἄνδρ’ ἀπαρέσσασθαι, ὅτι τις to make amends to another, when he πρότερος χαλεπήνῃ is the first to grow angry

66 24.463 νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη it would be a shameful thing that an masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic 54 ἀθάνατον θεὸν ὧδε βροτοὺς immortal god should thus openly be ἀγαπαζέμεν ἄντην entertained by mortals

ODYSSEY

67 22.59 πρὶν δ’ οὔ τι νεμεσσητὸν but till then no one could blame you masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic 48 κεχολῶσθαι for being wrathful

68 22.489 νεμεσσητὸν δέ κεν εἴη that would be a cause for blame masc acc: neut/voc/acc sg poetic -

~308~ Appendix 1

FORMS OF NEMESIS FOUND IN HESIOD

Loeb Translation Possible Grammatical Page Constructions

Works and Days

1 197-200 καὶ τότε δὴ πρὸς Ὄλυμπον ἀπὸ χθονὸς Then indeed will Reverence and fem nom sg of the 84 εὐρυοδείης λευκοῖσιν φάρεσσι καλυψαμένω Indignation cover their beautiful personified noun Νέμεσις χρόα καλὸν ἀθανάτων μετὰ φῦλον ἴτον skin with white mantles, leave προλιπόντ’ ἀνθρώπους Αἰδὼς καὶ Νέμεσις human beings behind and go from the broad-pathed earth to the race of the immortals, to Olympus

2 302-303 Λιμὸς γάρ τοι πάμπαν ἀεργῷ σύμφορος For famine is ever the companion of pres ind/subj act 3rd pl 77 ἀνδρί, τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεμεσῶσι καὶ ἀνέρες a man who does not work; and gods from the verb νεμεσάω and men feel resentment against that man

3 740-741 ὃς ποταμὸν διαβῇ κακότητ’ ἰδὲ χεῖρας Whoever crosses a river, unwashed pres ind/subj act 3rd pl 77 ἄνιπτος, τῷ δὲ θεοὶ νεμεσῶσι καὶ ἄλγεα in evil and in his hands, against him from the verb νεμεσάω δῶκαν ὀπίσσω the gods feel resentment

4 756 θεός νύ τε καὶ τὰ νεμεσσᾷ For a god feels resentment against pres ind/subj act 3rd pl 77 this too from the verb νεμεσάω

~309~ Appendix 1

Theogony

5 223 τίκτε δὲ καὶ Νέμεσιν πῆμα θνητοῖσι Deadly Night gave birth to Nemesis fem acc sg of the 81, 100 βροτοῖσι Νὺξ ὀλοή (Indignation) too, a woe for mortal personified noun Νέμεσις human beings

Catalogue of Women

6 F21.2-3 ὁ μέντοι Ἡσίοδος οὔτε Λήδας οὔτε Νεμέσεως But Hesiod says that Helen was fem gen sg from the 108 n. 483 δίδωσι τὴν Ἑλένην, ἀλλὰ θυγατρὸς Ὠκεανοῦ born neither from Leda nor from personified noun Νέμεσις καὶ Διός Indignation but from a daughter of Ocean and from Zeus

7 F41.27 ἀνθανάτων τ]ε θεῶν νέμ[εσιν θνη]τῶν τ’ The indignation of the immortal] fem acc sg from the noun 77 ἀνθρώπων gods and of mortal human beings νέμεσις

8 F154b.8 [.... …. ..νέ]μεσίς τ’ ἀ[νθρώπων The nemesis of men fem nom sg from the noun 77 νέμεσις

9 F155.82 νέμεσίν τ’ ἀπ[ο]θεῖτο καὶ αἰδῶ and set aside indignation and shame fem acc sg from the noun 77 νέμεσις

10 F10.90 Ζ̣[εὺς δὲ ἰδὼν νεμ]έ̣σ̣ησεν ἀπ’ αἰγλήεντ̣ος Zeus seeing this] from Olympus, aor ind act 3rd sg from the 77 Ὀλύ̣μ̣π̣[ου felt nemesis verb νεμεσάω

~310~

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adkins, A. W. H., Merit and Responsibility, Oxford, OUP, 1960. ———, 'Values, Goals, and Emotions in the Iliad', CPh 77, no. 4, 1982, 292-326. Alexandridou, A., The Early Black-Figured Pottery of Attika in Context (c. 630-570 BCE). Monumenta Graeca et Romana 17, Fossey, J. M. (ed.), Brill, 2011. Algrain, I., 'Entre naissance et renaissance. Réﬂexions sur le symbolisme de l’œuf dans le monde grec aux époques archaïque et classique', Annales d'Histoire de l'Art & d'Archeologie 35, 2013, 51-62. Allen, T. W. & Monro, D. B., Homeri Opera, vol. 5, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1908. Alroth, B., 'Visiting Gods - Who and Why?', in Linders, T. & Nordquist, G. (eds), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, Uppsala, Academia Ubsaliensis, 1987, 9-19. Amandry, P., 'Review: Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène, Lilly B. Ghali-Kahil', AJA 62, no. 3, 1958, 335-339. Anderson, M. J., The Fall of Troy in Early Greek Poetry and Art, Oxford, OUP, 1997. Anthen, C., The First Three Books of Homer's Iliad, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1844. Arafat, K. W., Classical Zeus: A Study in Art and Literature, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990. Arnott, W. G., Birds in the Ancient World from A-Z, Oxford, Routledge, 2007. Arrington, N. T., 'Topographic Semantics: The Location of the Athenian Public Cemetery and its Significance for the Nascent Democracy', Hesperia 79, no. 4, 2010, 499-539. Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. & Corcella, A., A Commentary on Herodotus: Books I-IV, Murray, O. (ed.), Oxford, OUP, 2007. Ashmole, B., 'Torch-Racing at Rhamnus', AJA 66, no. 3, 1962, 233-234. Athanassakis, A. N., Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Shield, 2nd edn, 2004, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1983. Athanassakis, A. N. & Wolkow, B. F., The Orphic Hymns, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 2013. Avramidou, A., The Codrus Painter: Iconography and Reception of Athenian Vases in the Age of Pericles, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 2011. Badian, E., 'The Peace of Callias', JHS 107, 1987, 1-39. de Bakker, M., 'Herodotus' Proteus: Myth, History, Enquiry and Storytelling', in Baragwanath, E. & de Bakker, M. (eds), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus' Histories, Oxford, OUP, 2012. Bakola, E., Cratinus and the Art of Comedy, Oxford, OUP, 2010. Barker, E. L. J., 'Momos Advises Zeus: Changing Representations of 'Cypria' Fragment 1', in Cingano, E. & Milano, L. (eds), Papers on Ancient Literatures: Greece, Rome and the Near East, Padova, S.A.R.G.O.N., 2008, 33-74.

~ 311 ~ Bibliography

Barnouw, J., Odysseus, Hero of Practical Intelligence, Lanham, University Press of America, 2004. Barringer, J. M., The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Cambridge, CUP, 2015. Bassett, S. E., 'Achilles' Treatment of Hector's Body', TAPA 64, 1933, 41-65. Bather, A. G., 'The Bronze Fragments of the Acropolis', JHS 13, 1892, 124-130. Baumeister, A., Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums zur Erläuterung des Lebens der Griechen und Römer in Religion, Kunst und Sitte, vol. 2, München, R. Oldenbourg, 1887. Beazley, J. D., Etruscan Vase Painting, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947. ———, Some Attic Vases in the Cyprus Museum, revised 1989 edn, Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1948. Bell, R. H., 'Homer's Humour: laughter in the Iliad', Humanitas 20, no. 1-2, 2007, 96-117. Bendlin, A., 'Purity and Pollution', in Ogden, D. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, Blackwell, 2007. Benson, J. L., Horse, Bird and Man: the Origins of Greek Painting, Amherst, University of Massachusetts Press, 1970. Bernabé, A. (ed.), Poetarum Epicorum Graecorum Testimonia et Fragmenta, vol. I, Leipzig, Teubner, 1987, corr. 1996. Bethe, E., Homer, Dichtung und Sage, vol. II, Leipzig, Teubner, 1922. Beye, C. R., The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Epic Tradition, London, MacMillan & Co, 1968. Bieber, M., The History of Greek and Roman Theater, 2nd edn, Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 1961. Biles, Z. P., 'Intertextual Biography in the Rivalry of Cratinus and Aristophanes', AJPh 123, no. 2, 2002, 169-204. Blegen, C., Troy and the Trojans, London, Thames & Hudson, 1963. Blok, J., 'Perikles' Citizenship Law: A New Perspective', Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 58, no. 2, 2009, 141-170. Blondell, R., '“Bitch that I Am”: Self-Blame and Self-Assertion in the Iliad ', TAPA 140, 2010, 1-32. Blümner, H., The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks, trans. Zimmern, A., New York, Cassell, 1893. Boardman, J., Athenian Red Figure Vases, The Archaic Period, London, Thames & Hudson, 1975. ———, Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period, London, Thames & Hudson, 1985. ———, Athenian Red-Figure Vases: The Classical Period, London, Thames & Hudson, 1989. Boedeker, D., 'Protesilaus and the end of Herodotos' Histories', Classical Antiquity 7, no. 1, 1988, 30-48. Boersma, J. S., Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., Groningin, Wolters- Noordhoff, 1970.

~312~ Bibliography

Böhr, E., 'A Rare Bird on Greek Vases: The Wryneck', in Oakley, J. H., Coulson, W. D. E., et al. (eds), Athenian Potters and Painters, Oxford, Oxbow, 1997, 109-123. Bol, P., Antike Bronzetechnik: Kunst und Handwerk antiker Erzbildner, München, C.H. Beck, 1985. Bol, R., Amazones Volneratae, Mainz, P. von Zabern, 1997. Bonanno, D., '"She Suddered on Her Throne and Made High Olympus Quake." Causes, Effects and Meanings of the Divine Nemesis in Homer', Mythos 9, 2014, 93-111. Bookidis, N., 'The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Terracotta Sculpture', Corinth 18, no. 5, 2010, iii-vii, 1-319. Borg, B. E., Der Logos des Mythos: Allegorien und Personifikationen in der Frühen griechischen Kunst, München, Wilheim Fink, 2002. von Bothmer, D., Ancient Art from New York Private Collections: Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, December, 17, 1959-February 28, 1960, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1961. ———, 'A Gold Libation Bowl', Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21, no. 4, 1962, 154- 166. ———, 'Greek Vase Painting', Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 31, no. 1, 1972, 2+10- 68. ———, Notable Acquisitions, 1965-1975: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1975. ———, 'Der Euphronioskrater in New York', AA, 1976, 485-512. ———, Greek Vase Painting, New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987. Bousquet, J., 'Delphes et les Asclepiades', BCH 80, 1956, 579-593. Boutsikas, E., Astronomy and Ancient Greek Cult: An application of archaeoastronomy to Greek religious architecture, cosmologies and landscapes, PhD Thesis, University of Leicester Press, Leicester, 2007. Bouzek, J., 'Die Anfänge des griechisch-geometrischen Symbolguts', Eirene 8, 1970, 97-122. Bowie, A., 'Myth and Ritual in the Rival of Aristophanes', in Harvey, D. & Wilkins, J. (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London, Duckworth, 2000, 317-339. Brann, E. T. H., 'Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery: Mid 8th to Late 7th Century B.C.', The Athenian Agora VIII, 1962, 1-134. Bremmer, J. N., 'Zeus' Own Country: Cult and Myth in the Pride of Hallicarnassus', in Dill, U. & Walde, C. (eds), Antike Mythen: Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2009, 292-312. Brigger, E., 'Roman Adaptations of Classical Cult Statues: the Case of Nemesis of Rhamnous', Mediterranean Archaeology 15, 2002, 73-79. Brising, H., Antik Konst i Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, Cedarquists Grafiska Aktiebolag, 1911. Broderson, K. (ed.), Das Lied von der Welt: Dionysios von Alexandria, 'Orbis terrae descriptio', Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1994.

~313~ Bibliography

Broneer, O., 'Excavations at Isthmia, 1954', Hesperia 24, no. 2, 110-141. Burgess, J. S., 'The Non-Homeric Cypria', TAPhA 126, 1996, 77-99. Burgess, J. S., The Tradition of the Trojan War in Homer and the Epic Cycle, Baltimore & London, John Hopkins University Press, 2001. ———, 'Kyprias, the "Kypria", and Multiformity', Phoenix 56, no. 3/4, 2002, 234-245. Burkert, W., Greek Religion, Archaic and Classical, trans. Raffan, J., Oxford, Blackwell, 1985. ———, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, trans. Pinder, M. E. & Burkert, W., Cambridge MA, HUP, 1995. ———, 'From Epiphany to Cult Statue: Early Greek Theos', in Lloyd, A. B. (ed.), What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, Swansea, Classical Press of Wales, 1997, 15-34. ———, 'Hesiod in Context: Abstractions and Divinities in an Aegean-Eastern Koiné', in Stafford, E. & Herrin, J. (eds), Personification in the Greek World: From Antiquity to Byzantium, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2005, 3-20. Buxton, R. G. A., Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: A Study of Peitho, Cambridge, CUP, 1982. Cahn, H. A., 'Morra: Drei Silene Beim Knobeln', in Froning, H., Hölscher, T., et al. (eds), Kotinos, Festschrift für E. Simon, Mainz, P. von Zabern, 1992, 214-217. Cairns, D. L., 'Mixing with Men and Nausicaa's Nemesis', CQ 40, no. 1, 1990, 263-266. ———, Aidos: The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature, Oxford, OUP, 1993. ———, 'Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big', JHS 116, 1996, 1-32. ———, 'Ethics, ethology, terminology: Iliadic anger and the cross-cultural study of emotion', in Braund, S. & Most, G. W. (eds), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Yale Classical Studies, vol. XXXII, Cambridge, CUP, 2003, 11-49. Camp, J. M., The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2001. Campbell, D. A. (ed.), Greek Lyric, vol. 5, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 1993. Capps, E., 'The "Nemesis" of the Younger Cratinus', HSPh 15, 1904, 61-75. Carapanos, C., Dodone et ses Ruines, Paris, Hachette, 1878. Carawan, E., 'Pericles the Younger and the Citizenship Law', CJ 103, no. 4, 2008, 383-406. Carcopino, J., Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. Lorimer, E. O., Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1941. Cargill, J., Athenian Settlements of the Fourth Century BC, Leiden, Brill, 1995. Carnoy, A. J., 'The Moral Deities of Iran and India and Their Origins', American Journal of Theology 21, no. 1, 1917, 58-78. Carpenter, T. H., 'Prolegomenon to the Study of Apulian Red-Figure Pottery', AJA 113, no. 1, 2009, 27-38. Carpenter, T. H., Mannick, T. & Mendoca, M., Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena, 2nd edn, Oxford, 1990.

~314~ Bibliography

Carpino, A., 'The Delivery of Helen's Egg: An Examination of an Etruscan Relief Mirror', EtrStud 3, 1996, 33-44. Cartledge, P., After Thermopylae: The Oath of Plataea and the End of the Greco-Persian Wars, Oxford, OUP, 2013. Caskey, L. D., 'Recent Acquisitions of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston', AJA 40, no. 3, 1936, 306-313. Castleden, R., Mycenae: Life in Bronze Age Greece, Oxford, Routledge, 2005. Castriota, D., Myth, Ethos, and Actuality: Official Art in Fifth-Century B.C. Athens, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Caswell, C. P., A Study of Thumos in Early Greek Epic, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1990. Catling, H. W., 'Archaeology in Greece 1983-1984', Archaeological Reports, no. 30, 3-70. ———, 'Archaeology in Greece 1984-1985', Archaeological Reports, no. 31, 3-69. ———, 'Archaeology in Greece 1985-1986', Archaeological Reports, no. 32, 3-101. ———, 'Archaeology in Greece 1988-1989', Archaeological Reports, no. 35, 3-116. Cawkwell, G. L., 'The Peace Between Athens and Persia', Phoenix 51, no. 2, 1997, 115-130. Chadwick, J., The Mycenaean World, Cambridge, CUP, 1976. Chaniotis, A. & Mylonopoulos, I., 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1999', Kernos 15, 2002, 331-414. ———, 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 2001', Kernos 17, 2004, 187-249. Chaniotis, A., Mylonopoulos, I. & Stavrianopoulou, E., 'Epigraphic Bulletin for Greek Religion 1996', Kernos 12, 1999, 207-292. Chiasson, C. C., 'The Herodotean Solon', GRBS 27, 1986, 249-262. ———, 'Herodotus’ Use of Attic Tragedy in the Lydian Logos', Classical Antiquity 22, no. 1, 2003, 5-35. ———, 'Myth, Ritual, and Authorial Control in Herodotus' Story of Cleobis and Biton', AJPh 126, no. 1, 2005, 41-64. Clader, L. L., Helen: The Evolution from Divine to Heroic in Greek Epic Tradition, Leiden, Brill, E. J., 1976. Clairmont, C., Classical Attic Tombstones, 7 vols, Kilchberg, Akanthus, 1993. Clarke, M., 'The Wisdom of Thales and the Problem of the Word ΙΕΡΟΣ', CQ 45, no. 2, 1995, 296-317. ———, Flesh and Spirit in the Songs of Homer, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1999. Closterman, W. E., 'Family Ideology and Family History: The Function of Funerary Markers in Classical Attic Peribolos Tombs', AJA 111, no. 4, 2007, 633-652. Cohen, B., 'Polyxena's Dropped Hydria: The Epic Cycle and the Iconography of Gravity', in Avramidou, A. & Demetriou, D. (eds), Approaching the Ancient Artifact: Representation, Narrative, and Function, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2014, 15-29. Cohen, D., 'Sexuality, Violence, and the Athenian Law of 'Hubris'', G&R 38, no. 2, 1991, 171- 188.

~315~ Bibliography

Cohen, I. M., 'Herodotus and the Story of Gyges', Fabula 45, 2004, 55-68. Combellack, F. M., 'Speakers and Scepters in Homer', CJ 43, no. 4, 1948, 209-217. Condos, T., Star Myth of the Greeks and Romans: A Sourcebook, trans. Condos, T., Grand Rapids, Phanes, 1977. Connelly, J. B., Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2007. ———, 'In Divine Affairs - the Greatest Part: Women and Priesthoods in Classical Athens', in Kaltsas, N. & Shapiro, A. (eds), Worshipping Women: Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens, New York, Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, 2008, 186-241. Connor, W. R., The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens, Indianopolis, Hackett, 1992. Consigny, S. P., Gorgias: Sophist and Artist, South Carolina, University of South Carolina Press, 2001. Cook, A. B., 'Greek Votive Offerings', Folklore 14, no. 3, 1903, 260-291. ———, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 1, Cambridge, CUP, 1914. ———, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2, part i, Cambridge, CUP, 1925. ———, Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion, vol. 2, part ii, Cambridge, CUP, 1925. Cook, J. M. & Boardman, J., 'Archaeology in Greece, 1953', JHS 74, 1954, 142-169. Cornford, F. M., From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins of Western Speculation, London, Edwin Arnold, 1912. Damisch, H., The Judgement of Paris, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996. Daux, G., 'Le Calendrier de Thorikos au Musee J. Paul Getty', L’Antiquité Classique 52, 1983, 150-174. Davidson, G. R., 'The Minor Objects', Corinth 12, 1952, iii-vii+ix-xii+1+3-366. Davies, J. K., 'Demosthenes on Liturgies: A Note', JHS 87, 1967, 33-40. Davies, M., 'Prolegomena and Paralegomena to a New Edition (with Commentary) of the Fragments of Early Greek Epic', Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 2, 1986, 91-111. ——— (ed.), Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. ———, 'The Date of the Epic Cycle', Glotta 67, 1989, 89-100. ———, The Greek Epic Cycle, Bristol, Bristol Classical Press, 1989. Dawkins, R. M., 'The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta', JHS Suppl. 5, 1929, iii-420. von den Hoff, R., 'Images and Prestige of Cult Personnel in Athens Between the Sixth and the First Centuries BC', in Trampedach, K. & Dignas, B. (eds), Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Officials from Homer to Heliodorus, Washington DC, Center for Hellenic Studies, 2008, 107-141. Denoyelle, M., 'Comedy Vases from Magna Graeca', in Hart, M. L. (ed.), The Art of Early Greek Theater, Los Angeles, Paul Getty Museum, 2010, 105-121. Deonna, W., Le Mobilier Délien - Rouelles: Exploration Archéologique de Délos, vol. XVIII, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1938.

~316~ Bibliography

Despinis, G. I., 'Discovery of the Scattered Fragments and Recognition of the Type of Agorakritos' Statue of Nemesis', AAA 3, 1970, 407-413. ———, Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη ἔργου τοῦ Ἀγορακρίτου, Athens, Ερμής, 1971. ———, 'Neues zu einem alten Fund', Athenische Mitteilungen 109, 1994, 173-198. Devambez, P., 'Bulletin archéologique: Céramique, Peinture, Mosaïque', REG 59-60, no. 279- 283, 1946, 419-446. Develin, R., Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C., Cambridge, CUP, 1989. Dickey, E., Ancient Greek Scholarship, Oxford, OUP, 2007. Dickie, M. W., 'Dike as a moral term in Homer and Hesiod', CPh 73, no. 2, 1978, 91-101. Dietrich, B. C., Death, Fate and the Gods: The Development of a Religious Idea in Greek Popular Belief and in Homer, London, Athlone, 1965. ———, 'From Knossos to Homer', in Lloyd, A. B. (ed.), What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales, 1997, 1-13. Dillon, M. P. J., 'The Lakedaimonian Dedication to Olympian Zeus: The Date of Meiggs & Lewis 22 (SEG 11, 1203A)', ZPE 107, 1995, 60-68. ———, 'Post-Nuptial Sacrifices on Kos (Serge, ED 178) and Ancient Greek Marriage Rites', ZPE 124, 1999, 63-80. ———, The Ancient Greeks In Their Own Words, Stroud, Sutton, 2002. ———, Girls and Women in Classical Greek Religion, London, Routledge, 2002. Dillon, S., The Female Portrait Statue in the Greek World, Cambridge, CUP, 2010. Dinsmoor Jr., W. B., 'Rhamnountine Fantasies', Hesperia 30, no. 2, 1961, 179-204. ———, 'Anchoring Two Floating Temples', Hesperia 51, no. 4, 1982, 410-453. Dinsmoor Sr., W. B., 'Archaeology and Astronomy', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 80, no. 1, 1939, 95-173. ———, 'The Temple of Ares at Athens', Hesperia 9, no. 1, 1940, 1-52. ———, 'Observations on the Hephaisteion', Hesperia Supplements 5, 1941, 1-171. ———, The Architecture of Ancient Greece: an Account of its Historic Development, New York, Biblo and Tannen, 1973. Dipla, A., 'Eros the mediator: Persuasion and seduction in pursuit, courting and wedding scenes', MAA 6, no. 2, 2006, 19035. Dodds, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1951. Dowden, K., 'The Epic Tradition in Greece', in Fowler, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Homer, Cambridge, CUP, 2004, 188-205. Drews, R., The End of the Bronze Age: changes in warfare and the catastrophe of ca. 1200 B.C., Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 1993. Dunst, G., 'Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaetie aus Samos', MDAI(A) 87, 1972, 99-163.

~317~ Bibliography

Ebbott, M., 'The Wrath of Helen: Self-Blame and Nemesis in the Iliad', in Nagy, G. (ed.), Greek Literature, Homer and Hesiod as Prototypes of Greek Literature, vol. 2, New York, Routledge, 2001, 235-252. Edmonds, J. M. (ed.), Elegy and Iambus, vol. 1, London, Heinemann, 1931. Edwards, C. M., 'Tyche at Corinth', Hesperia 59, no. 3, 1990, 529-542. Ehrhardt, W., 'Versuch einer Deutung des Kultbildes der Nemesis von Rhamnus', AntK 40, 1997, 29-39. Eule, J. C., Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien: Weibliche Gewandstatuen in ihrem Antiken Kontext, Istanbul, Tarih, Arkeoloji, Sanat ve Kültür Mirasini Koruma Vakfi, 2001. Evans, J. A. S., Herodotus, Explorer of the Past, Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 1991. Evelyn-White, H. G., Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica, London, Heinemann, 1914. Faraone, C. A., 'The Wheel, the Whip and Other Implements of Torture: Erotic Magic in Pindar Pythian 4.213-19', CJ 89, no. 1, 1993, 1-19. ———, Ancient Greek Love Magic, Harvard, HUP, 1999. ———, 'Thumos as masculine ideal and social pathology in ancient Greek magical spells', in Braund, S. & Most, G. W. (eds), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Yale Classical Studies, vol. XXXII, Cambridge, CUP, 2003, 144-162. Faraone, C. A. & Obbink, D. (eds), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, Oxford, OUP, 1991. Farnell, L. R., The Cults of The Greek States, 3 vols, vol. II, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896. Feldman, A., 'The Apotheosis of Thersites', CJ 42, no. 4, 1947, 219-220. Felsch, R. C. S., 'Further Stamped Roof Tiles from Central Greece, Attica, and the Peloponnese', Hesperia 59, no. 1, 1990, 301-323. Ferrari, G., Figures of Speech: Men and Maidens in Ancient Greece, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2002. Figueira, T. J., 'Colonisation in the Classical Period', in Tsetskhladze, G. R. (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 2, Leiden, Brill, 2008, 427-523. Figueira, T. J. & Nagy, G. (eds), Theognis of Megara: Poetry and the Polis, Maryland and London, John Hopkins University Press, 1985. Fine, J. V. A., The Ancient Greeks, Cambridge MA, HUP, 1983. Finglass, P. J. (ed.), Sophocles: Electra, Cambridge, CUP, 2007. Finley, M. I., Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens, 500-200 B.C.: The Horos- Inscriptions, New Brunswick, Rutgers, 1951. ———, The World of Odysseus, 2nd edn, London, Chatto & Windus, 1977. Fisher, N. R. E., ''Hybris' and Dishonour I', G&R 23, no. 2, 1976, 177-193. ———, ''Hybris' and Dishonour: II', G&R 26, no. 1, 1979, 32-47. ———, Hybris, Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 1992.

~318~ Bibliography

———, 'Popular Morality in Herodotus', in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., et al. (eds), Brill's Companion to Herodotus, Leiden, Brill, 2002. Fittschen, K., Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den Griechen, Berlin, Hessling, 1969. Flagge, I., Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Greifen, Sankt Augustin, Hans Richarz, 1975. Fornara, C. W. (ed.), Archaic Times to the end of the Peloponnesian War, 2nd edn, Cambridge, CUP, 1983. Fornara, C. W. & Samons, L. J., Athens from Cleisthenes to Pericles, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1991. Foucart, G. B., 'Personification', Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics ix, 1917, 781-803. Fränkel, H., 'Zwei Archaische Inschriften', Arch. Zeit. 40, 1882, 383-390. ———, Early Greek Poetry and Philosophy, trans. Hadas, M. & Willis, J., Oxford, Blackwell, 1975. Franklin, J., 'Cyprus, Greek Epic, and Kypriaka: Why Cyprus Matters', in Maurey, Y., Seroussi, E., et al. (eds), Yuval. Studies of the Jewish Music Research Centre: Sounds from the Past: The Near East and the Mediterranean, vol. 8, Jerusalem, de Gruyter, 2010, 213-247. Frazer, J. G., Pausanias's Description of Greece: Translated with a Commentary, vol. 2, London, MacMillan & Co, 1898. Friend, J. L., 'The Nemesia in Lycurgan Athens', in Bodel, J. & Dimitrova, N. M. (eds), Ancient Documents and Their Contexts: The First North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (2011), Leiden, Brill, 2014, 98-110. Friis Johansen, K., The Attic Grave-Reliefs of the Classical Period: an essay in interpretation, Copenhagen, Ejnar Munksgaard, 1951. ———, The Iliad in Early Greek Art, Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1967. Froning, H., Marmorschmuckreliefs mit griechischen Mythen im I. Jh. v. Chr., Mainz, Zabern, 1981. Fullerton, M. D., 'The Archaistic Perirrhanteria of Attica', Hesperia 55, 1986, 207-217. ———, Greek Sculpture, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2016. Furtwängler, A. & Reichhold, K., Griechische Vasenmalerei, München, F. Bruckmann A.-G., 1904-1932. Gain, D. B. (ed.), The Aratus Ascribed to Germanicus Caesar, London, Athlone Press, 1976. Gammie, J. G., 'Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiography or Conventional Portraiture?', JNES 45, no. 3, 1986, 171-195. Gantz, T., Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1993. Garland, R., 'Religious Authority in Archaic and Classical Athens', ABSA 79, 1984, 75-123. ———, 'The Well-Ordered Corpse: An Investigation into the Motives behind Greek Funerary Legislation', BICS 36, no. 1, 1989, 1-15. ———, 'Priests and Power in Classical Athens', in Beard, M. & North, J. (eds), Pagan Priests: Religion annd Power in the Ancient World, London, Duckworth, 1990, 75-91.

~319~ Bibliography

———, Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks, 2nd edn, Westport, CT, Greenwood, 2009. Gastaldi, E. C., 'Cleruchie? Non cleruchie? Alcune riflessioni sugli insediamenti extraterritoriali di Atene,' paper presented at: 'In ricordo di Dino Ambaglio', Università di Pavia 2009. ———, 'Lemnos e il V secolo', in Lemno: dai Tirreni agli Ateniesi. Problemi storici, archeologici, topografici e linguistici (Napoli, 4 maggi 2011), ASAtene 88, Series III, vol. 10, 2012, 135-147. Gerber, D. E. (ed.), Greek Elegaic Poetry: From the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 1999. Ghali-Kahil, L. B., Les Enlèvements et le retour d'Hélène dans les textes et les documents figurés, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1955. Godolphin, F. R. B., 'The Nemesis of Cratinus', CPh 26, no. 4, 1931, 423-426. Goff, B. E., Citizen Bacchae: Women's Ritual Practice in Ancient Greece, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2004. Gomme, A. W., Andrews, A. & Dover, K. J., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols, vol. 4, Oxford, OUP, 1970. Gould, J., Herodotus, New York, St Martin's, 1989. Gow, A. S. F., 'ΙΥΓΞ, ΡΟΜΒΟΣ, Rhombus, Turbo', JHS 54, 1934, 1-13. Graham, A. J., Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, 2nd edn, Manchester, MUP, 1999. Graver, M. M., 'Dog-Helen and Homeric Insult', Classical Antiquity 14, no. 1, 1995, 41-61. Graves, R., The Greek Myths, revised edn, 1992, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1955. Graziosi, B., Inventing Homer: the early reception of epic, Cambridge, MA, CUP, 2002. Greagan, D. J., 'Inscriptions: The Dedicatory Monuments', The Athenian Agora 18, 2011, 1- 425. Green, J. R., 'Comic Cuts: Snippets of Action on the Greek Comic Stage', BICS 45, 2001, 37- 64. Griffin, J., 'The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer', JHS 97, 1977, 39-53. Grossman, J. B., Funerary Sculpture (The Athenian Agora 35), Princeton, New Jersey, The American School of Classics at Athens, 2013. Grotius, H. (ed.), L.C. Valckenaer: Euripidis Tragoedia Phoenissae, Leiden, Academy, 1802. de Grummond, N. T., Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2006. Guarducci, M., Epigrafia Greca, 4 vols, vol. 1, Rome, Instituto Poligrafico Dello Stato, 1967. Gulizio, J., Pluta, K. & Palaima, T. G., 'Religion in the Room of the Chariot Tablets', in Hägg, R. & Laffineur, R. (eds), Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Belgium, Université de Liège, 2001, 453-461. Güterbock, H. G., 'The Hittite Version of the Hurrian Kumarbi Myths: Oriental Forerunners of Hesiod', AJA 52, 1948, 123-134. Güterbock, H. G., Mellink, M. J. & Vermeule, E., 'The Hittites and the Aegean World', AJA 87, 1983, 133-143.

~320~ Bibliography

Hamdorf, F. W., Griechische Kultpersonifikationen der Vorhellenistischen Zeit, Mainz, P. von Zabern, 1964. Hammond, M., The Iliad: A New Prose Translation, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1988. Hampe, R. & Simon, E., The Birth of Greek Art: from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period, London, Thames & Hudson, 1981. Harding, P. (ed.), The Story of Athens: The Fragments of the Local Chronicles of Attika, Oxford, Routledge, 2008. Harris, D., The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995. Harris, W. V., 'The Rage of Women', in Braund, S. & Most, G. W. (eds), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, Yale Classical Studies, vol. XXXII, Cambridge, CUP, 2003, 121-143. Harrison, E. B., 'The Shoulder Cord of Themis', in Höckmann, U. & Krug, A. (eds), Festschrift für Frank Brommer, Meinz, P. von Zabern, 1977, 155-161. Harrison, J. E., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 2nd edn, Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 1908. ———, Themis, London, Merlin, 1912. Harrison, T., 'Herodotus and the Certainty of Divine Retribution', in Lloyd, A. B. (ed.), What is a God? Studies in the Nature of Greek Divinity, Swansea, Classical Press of Wales, 1997, 101-122. ———, Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus, Oxford, OUP, 2000. ———, 'The Cause of Things', in Konstan, D. & Rutter, N. K. (eds), Envy, Spite and Jealousy: The Rivalrous Emotions in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2003, 144-163. Hart, J., Herodotus and Greek History, London, Croom Helm, 1982. Hatzi, G. E. (ed.), The Archaeological Museum of Olympia, Athens, John S. Latsis, 2008. Heath, M., 'Aristophanes and His Rivals', G&R 37, no. 2, 1990, 143-158. Henderson, J., The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd edn, New York, OUP, 1991. ———, 'Pherekrates and the Women of Old Comedy', in Harvey, D. & Wilkins, J. (eds), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London, Duckworth, 2000, 135-150. ———, 'Pursuing Nemesis: Cratinus and Mythological Comedy', in Marshall, C. W. & Kovacs, G. (eds), No Laughing Matter: Studies in Athenian Comedy, London, Bristol Classical Press, 2012, 1-12. Henry, M. M., Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition, Oxford, OUP, 1995. Herter, H., 'Nemesis', in Pauly, A. (ed.), Paulys-Wissowa Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. xvi, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1935, 2338-2380. Hildebrandt, F., Die attischen Namenstelen: Untersuchungen zu Stelen des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Berlin, Frank & Timme, 2006.

~321~ Bibliography

Hodge, A. T. & Tomlinson, R. A., 'Some notes on the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', AJA 73, no. 2, 1969, 185-192. Hoffman, H., Sotades: Symbols of Immortality on Greek Vases, Oxford, OUP, 1997. Holmberg, I., 'The Creation of the Ancient Greek Epic Cycle', Oral Tradition 13, no. 2, 1998, 456-478. Holoka, J. P., '"Looking Darkly" (): Reflections on Status and Decorum in Homer', TAPhA 113, 1983, 1-16. Hölscher, F., 'Kultbild', in ThesCRA, vol. iv, Los Angeles, Paul Getty Museum, 2005, 52-65. Hopper, R. J., 'A Note on Aristophanes, Lysistrata 665-70', CQ 10, no. 2, 1960, 242-247. Hornum, M. B., Nemesis, The Roman State, and the Games, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1993. ———, 'Nemesis Trampling the Enemy: A Previously Unrecognized Example', in Hartswick, K. J. & Sturgeon, M. C. (eds), Στέφανος: Studies in Honor of Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998, 131-138. How, W. W. & Wells, J., A Commentary on Herodotus, 2 vols, Oxford, OUP, 1928. Humphreys, S. C., 'Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens', JHS 100, 1980, 96-126. ———, The Strangeness of Gods: Historical Perspectives on the Interpretation of Athenian Religion, Oxford, OUP, 2004. Hurwit, J. M., The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeology from the Neolithic to the Present, Cambridge, CUP, 1999. ———, 'Reading the Chigi Vase', Hesperia 71, no. 1, 2002, 1-22. Huxley, G. L., 'A Problem in the Kypria', GRBS 8, 1967, 25-27. ———, Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 1969. Ifrah, G., The Universal History of Numbers, trans. Bellos, D., Harding, E. F., et al., New York, John Wiley, 2000. Immerwahr, H. R., 'Historical Action in Herodotus', TAPA 86, 1954, 16-45. ———, 'Aspects of Historical Causation in Herodotus', TAPA 87, 1956, 241-280. ———, Form and Thought in Herodotus, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1966. ———, Attic Script: A Survey, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990. Isager, S., 'The Pride of Halikarnassos: Editio princeps of an inscription from Salmakis', ZPE 123, 1998, 1-23. Jackson, A. H., 'Hoplites and the Gods: The Dedication of Captured Arms and Armour', in Hanson, V. D. (ed.), Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience, London and New York, Routledge, 1993, 228-250. Jackson, P., The Transformations of Helen: Indo-European Myth and the Roots of the Trojan Cycle, Dettelbach, J.H. Röll, 2006. Jacobsthal, P., 'A Sybarite Himation', JHS 58, 1938, 205-216. Jacoby, F., 'ΓΕΝΕΣΙΑ: A Forgotten Festival of the Dead', CQ 38, no. 3/4, 1944, 65-75. Jaeger, W., Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans. Highet, G., vol. 1, 1965 edn, New York, OUP, 1939.

~322~ Bibliography

Jameson, M. H., 'The Leasing of Land in Rhamnous', Hesperia Supplements 19, 1982, 66-74. Janko, R., Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns: Diachronic Development in Epic Diction, Cambridge, CUP, 1982. Jastrow, M., The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, Ginn & Company, 1898. Haarer, P. & Toth, I. (eds), The Anne Jeffery Archive, 'Poinikastas: Epigraphic Sources for Early Greek Writing', CSAD, Oxford. Jeffery, L. H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, revised edn, Oxford, OUP, 1990. Johnston, I. C., The Ironies of War: An Introduction to Homer's Iliad, New York, University Press of America, 1988. Johnston, S. I., 'The Song of the Iynx: Magic and Rhetoric in Pythian 4', TAPA 125, 1995, 177-206. ———, Restless Dead: Encounters Between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999. Jones, N. F., The Associations of Classical Athens: The Response to Democracy, Oxford, OUP, 1999. Jones, P., Homer’s Iliad: A Commentary on Three Translations, London, Bristol Classical Press, 2003. de Jong, I. J. F., 'The Helen Logos and Herodotus' Fingerprint', in Baragwanath, E. & de Bakker, M. (eds), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus' Histories, Oxford, OUP, 2012, 127-142. Jung, M., Marathon und Plataiai: Zwei Perserschlachten als >Lieux de Mémoire< im Antiken Griechenland, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Kader, I. (ed.), Penelope Rekonstruiert: Geschichte und Deutung einer Frauenfigur; Sonderausstellung des Museums für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, München, 9. Oktober 2006 bis 15. Januar 2007, München, 2007. Kajava, M., 'Livia and Rhamnous', Arctos 34, 2000, 39-61. Kallipolitis, V. G., 'Η βάση του αγάλματος της Ραμνουσίας Νεμέσεως', AEph 117, 1978, 1- 90, Pls. 1-32. Kaltsas, N., Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, trans. Hardy, D., Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, 2002. Kamerbeek, J. C. (ed.), Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments Commentaries, Vol. V, Elektra, Cambridge, CUP, 1974. Kaposhina, S. I., 'A Sarmatian Royal Burial at Novocherkassk', Antiquity 37, 1963, 256-258. Käppel, L., 'P.Oxy. 56, 3829,' in Catalogue of Paraliterary Papyri, Research Unit Greek Studies, K.U. Leuven, 1989. Karanastassi, P., 'Wer ist die Frau hinter Nemesis? (Studien zur Statuenbasis der Nemesis von Rhamnus)', MDAI(A) 109, 1994, 121-131. Karanika, A., Voices at Work: Women, Performance, and Labor in Ancient Greece, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 2014. Karouzou, S., National Archaeological Museum: Collection of Sculptures, Athens, Department of Antiquities and Restoration, 1968.

~323~ Bibliography

Kaster, R. A., 'Invidia, νέμεσις, φθόνος and the Roman Emotional Economy', in Konstan, D. & Rutter, N. K. (eds), Envy, Spite and Jealousy, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2003, 253-276. Kearns, E., 'The Heroes of Attica', BICS Supplement 57, 1989, 1-207. Keen, A. G., 'Grain for Athens: the Importance of the Hellespontine Route in Athenian Foreign Policy before the Peloponnesian War', in Oliver, G. J., Brock, R., et al. (eds), The Sea in Antiquity, British Archaeological Reports International Series, vol. 899, Oxford, 2000, 63-73. Kent, J. H., 'A Garrison Inscription from Rhamnous', Hesperia 10, no. 4, 1941, 342-350. Kershaw, S. P., Personification in the Hellenistic World: Tyche, Kairos, Nemesis, Dissertation, Bristol University Press, 1986. Kindt, J., 'Delphic Oracle Stories and the Beginning of Historiography: Herodotus’ Croesus Logos', CPh 101, no. 1, 2006, 34-51. Kinkel, G., Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, vol. 1, Leipzig, Teubner, 1877. Kirk, G. S., The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. 1, Cambridge, CUP, 1985. Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E. & Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, 2nd edn, Cambridge, CUP, 2002. Kjellberg, E., Studien zu den Attischen Reliefs des V. Jahrhunderts v. Chr, Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1926. Knittlmayer, B., 'Kultbild und Heiligtum der Nemesis von Rhamnous am Beginn des peloponnesischen Krieges', JDAI 114, 1999, 1-18. Konstan, D., 'Nemesis and Phthonos', in Bakewell, G. W. & Sickinger, J. P. (eds), Gestures: Essays in Ancient History, Literature, and Philosophy presented to Alan L. Boegehold, Oxford, Oxbow, 2003, 74-87. ———, The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2006. Kontis, I. D., 'Dyo Archaikai Epigraphai ek Kamirou', Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 27-29, 1949-1951, 347-349. Kontoleon, N. M., 'The Gold Treasure of Panagurischte', Balkan Studies 3, no. 1, 1962, 185- 200. Kosmopoulou, A., 'Working Women: Female Professionals on Classical Attic Gravestones', ABSA 96, 2001, 281-319. ———, The Iconography of Sculptured Statue Bases in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 2002. Krenz, P., 'The Athenian Treaty in Theopompus F 153', Phoenix 63, no. 3/4, 2009, 231-238. Kreuzer, B., 'The Exaleiptron in Attica and Boeotia: Early Black-Figure Workshops Reconsidered (Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Université libre de Bruxelles, 27-29 April 2006)', in Tsingarida, A. (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases (7th-4th Centuries B.C.), Brussels, CReA Patrimoine, 2009, 17-30. Kron, U., 'Zur Schale des Kodros-Malers in Basel: Eine Interpretatio Attica', in Schmidt, M. (ed.), Kanon: Festschrift Ernst Berger zum 60. Geburtstag am 26 Februar 1988

~324~ Bibliography

gewidmet (AK), vol. 15, Basel, Vereinigung der Freunde Antiker Kunst, 1988, 291- 304. ———, 'Priesthoods, Dedications and Euergetism: What Part Did Religion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?', in Hellström, P. & Alroth, B. (eds), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World, Uppsala, 1996, 139-182. Kunze, E., 'Eine Waffenweihung der Athener in Olympia', in Bruns, G. (ed.), Festschrift für Carl Weickert, Berlin, Gebr. Mann, 1955, 7-21. de la Genière, J., 'Une roue à oiseaux du Cabinet des Médailles', REA 60, 1958, 27-35. Lambert, S. D., 'The Sacrificial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis: A Revised Text', ZPE 130, 2000, 43-70. ———, 'Another Look at the Sacrificial Calendar of the Marathonian Tetrapolis,' paper presented at: 'Feasting and Polis Institutions', Utrecht, 16-18 January 2014. ———, 'Notes on Inscriptions of the Marathonian Tetrapolis', Attic Inscriptions Online 1, 2014, 1-12. Lambert, W. G. & Walcot, P., 'A New Babylonian Theogony and Hesiod', Kadmos 4, 1965, 64-72. Lamberton, R., Hesiod, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1988. Lancellotti, M. G., Attis between Myth and History: King Priest and God, Leiden, Brill, 2002. Lang, M. L., Herodotean Narrative and Discourse, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 1984. Langdon, M. K., 'A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos', Hesperia Supplements 16, 1976, i-xi, 1-117, pls. 1-28. Lateiner, D., 'A Note on the Perils of Prosperity in Herodotus', RhM 125, 1982, 97-101. Lattimore, R., The Iliad of Homer, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1961. ———, The Odyssey of Homer, New York, Harper Collins, 1991. Leaf, W. (ed.), The Iliad: Edited with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices, vol. 2, London, MacMillan & Co., 1888. ——— (ed.), The Iliad: Edited with Apparatus Criticus, Prolegomena, Notes, and Appendices, vol. 1, 2nd edn, London, MacMillan & Co., 1900. Leake, W. M., 'On the Demi of Attica', in Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. 1, London, J. Murray, 1829. ———, Travels in Northern Greece, vol. II, London, J. Rodwell, 1835. Lerat, L., Les Locriens de l’Ouest, 2 vols, vol. 1, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1952. Lerat, L. & Chamoux, F., 'Voyage en Locride Occidentale: Octobre - Novembre 1946', BCH 71-72, 1947/1948, 47-80. Lethaby, W. R., Greek Buildings Represented by Fragments in the British Museum, London, B. T. Batsford, 1908. Levin, D. N., 'Croesus as an Ideal Tragic Hero', CB 36, 1960, 33-34. Lewis, D. M., 'Temple Inventories in Ancient Greece', in Vickers, M. (ed.), Pots and Pans: A Colloquium on Precious Metals and Ceramics in the Muslim, Chinese, and Greco- Roman Worlds, Oxford, OUP, 1986, 71-81.

~325~ Bibliography

———, Selected Papers in Greek and Near Eastern History, Cambridge, CUP, 1997. Lewis, S., The Athenian Woman: an iconographical handbook, London, Routledge, 2002. Lezzi-Hafter, A., Der Eretria-Maler, Werke und Weggefährten, Mainz, P. von Zabern, 1988. ———, 'Wheel without Chariot - A Motif in Attic Vase Painting', in Oakley, J. H. & Palagia, O. (eds), Athenian Potters and Painters, vol. ii, Oxford, Oxbow, 2009. Lilibaki-Akamati, M., Adamatis, I. M., Chrysostomou, A., et al. (eds), The Archaeological Museum of Pella, Athens, John S. Latsis, 2011. Lilja, S., Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry, Helsinki, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1976. Linders, T., 'The Treasurers of the Other Gods in Athens and their Functions', Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 62, 1975. ———, 'Gods, Gifts, Society', in Linders, T. & Nordquist, G. (eds), Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, Uppsala, Boreas, 1987, 115-122. Ling, R., 'A Relief from Duke Street, Aldgate, now in the Museum of London', Britannia 24, 1993, 7-12. Littlewood, A. R., 'The symbolism of the Apple in Greek and Roman Literature', HSPh 72, 1968, 147-182. Llewellyn-Jones, L., Aphrodite's Tortoise: The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece, Swansea, Classical Press of Wales, 2003. Lloyd-Jones, H., 'Stasinus and the Cypria', Στασῖνος 4, 1973, 115-122. ———, 'The Pride of Halicarnassus', ZPE 124, 1999, 1-14. Long, A. A., 'Morals and Values in Homer', JHS 90, 1970, 121-139. Long, T., Repetition and Variation in the Short Stories of Herodotus, Frankfurt am Main, Athenäum, 1987. Loraux, N., The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City, Cambridge MA, CUP, 1986. ———, The Experiences of Tiresias, trans. Wissing, P., Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 1995. ———, 'Aspasie, l'étrangère, l'intellectuelle', Clio: Histoire, Femmes et Societes 13, 2001, 17-42. Lordkipanidze, O., Phasis: The River and City of Colchis, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000. Lowry, E. R., Thersites: A Study in Comic Shame, New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1991. Luppe, W., 'Die 'Nemesis' des Kratinos: Mythos und politischer Hintergrund', Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Halle 23, no. 4, 1974, 49-60. ———, 'Zeus und Nemesis in den Kyprien: Die Verwandlungssage nach Pseudo-Apollodor und Philodem', Philologus 118, 1974, 193-202. Lupu, E., 'SEG XXXIII 147: Attika. Thorikos. Sacrificial Calendar 380-375 or 440-430/430- 420(?) B.C.', in Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 115-149.

~326~ Bibliography

Luraghi, N., 'Becoming Messenian', JHS 122, 2002, 45-69. Ma, J., Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford, OUP, 2013. MacDowell, D. M., ''Hybris' in Athens', G&R 23, no. 1, 1976, 14-31. MacLeod, L., Dolos & Dike in Sophokles' Electra, Leiden, Brill, 2001. Mantēs, A. G., Προβλήματα της εικονογραφίας των ιερειών και των ιερέων στην αρχαία Eλληνική τέχνη, Athens, Achaeological Receipts Fund, 1990. Marks, J., 'The Junction between the Kypria and the Iliad', Phoenix 56, no. 1/2, 2002, 1-24. ———, 'The Ongoing Neikos: Thersites, Odysseus, and Achilleus', AJPh 126, no. 1, 2005, 1- 31. Matthews, V. J., Antimachus of Colophon: text and commentary, Leiden, Brill, 1996. McCabe, D. F. (ed.), Miletos Inscriptions: Texts and List, Princeton N J, The Princeton Project on the Inscriptions of Anatolia, 1984. McInerney, J., 'Pelasgians and Leleges: Using the Past to Understand the Present', in Ker, J. & Pieper, C. (eds), Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII, Leiden, Brill, 2014, 25-55. McLeod, W. E., 'An Ephebic Dedication from Rhamnous', Hesperia 28, no. 2, 1959, 121-126. Meiggs, R., 'The Political Implications of the Parthenon', G&R 10, Supplement, 1963, 36-45. ———, The Athenian Empire, Oxford, OUP, 1972. Merkelbach, R. & Stauber, J. (eds), Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Stuttgart, Teubner, 1998-2002. Metcalfe, R., Simpson Agonistes: A History of a Crime, Bloomington, iUniverse, 2012. Mette, H. J. (ed.), Die Fragmente der Tragödien des Aischylos, Berlin, Akademie, 1959. ——— (ed.), Der verloren Aischylos, Berlin, Akademie, 1963. Metzger, H., 'Ôon à figures rouges de la collection H. Stathatos', Mon. Piot XL, 1944, 69-86. ———, Les Representations dans la ceramique attique du IVe siècle, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1951. ———, 'Ôon à figures rouges', Collection Helene Stathatos III: Objets antiques et byzantins, 1963, 160-179. Mikalson, J. D., Religion in Hellenistic Athens, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998. ———, Herodotus and Religion in the Persian Wars, Chapel Hill and London, University of North Carolina Press, 2003. Miles, M. M., 'A Reconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous', Hesperia 58, no. 2, 1989, 133-249. ———, 'Burnt Temples in the Landscape of the Past', in Pieper, C. & Ker, J. (eds), Valuing the Past in the Greco-Roman World: Proceedings from the Penn-Leiden Colloquia on Ancient Values VII, Leiden, Brill, 2014, 111-145. Miller, M., 'The Herodotean Croesus', Klio: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 41, 1963, 58-94.

~327~ Bibliography

Milne, J. G., 'Relics of Graeco-Egyptian Schools', JHS 28, 1908, 121-132. Mingazzini, P., Greek Pottery Painting, trans. Sear, F. B., London, Hamlyn, 1969. Mokas, E., Ανγλοελληνικο Ελληνοανγλικο Λεξικο, Athens, Mokaphone, 1986. Moles, J., 'Herodotus Warns the Athenians', Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 9, 1996, 259-284. Mondi, R., 'The Ascension of Zeus and the Composition of Hesiod's Theogony', GRBS 25, 1984, 325-44. Monro, D. B., 'The Poems of the Epic Cycle', JHS 5, 1884, 1-41. Mora, F., Religione e religioni nelle Storie di Erodoto, Milan, Edizioni Universitarie Jaca, 1986. Moreno, A., Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC, Oxford, OUP, 2007. Morgan, C., 'Archaeology in Greece 2007-2008', Archaeological Reports 54, 1-114. ———, Early Greek States Beyond the Polis, London and New York, Routledge, 2003. Morris, I., Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge, CUP, 1992. Most, G. W., 'Alcman's 'Cosmogonic' Fragment (Fr. 5 Page, 81 Calame)', CQ 37, no. 1, 1987, 1-19. ———, 'Hesiod's Myth of the Five (or Three or Four) Races', PCPS, 1998, 104-127. ——— (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, Cambridge MA, HUP, 2006. Mueller, M., The Iliad, London, Allen & Unwin, 1984. Müller, C. (ed.), Geographici Graeci Minori, vol. 1, Paris, Didot, 1855. Munn, M., The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2006. Murray, A. T., 'Introduction', in The Iliad, 2nd edn, Cambridge MA, HUP, 1999. Murray, G., The Rise of the Greek Epic, 4th edn, London, OUP, 1934. ———, Five Stages of Greek Religion, expanded edn, London, Watts & Co., 1935. Nagy, G., The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1979. ———, Greek Mythology and Poetics, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 1990. ———, Pindar's Homer, Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 1990. ———, Greek Mythology and Poetics, New York, Cornell University Press, 1992. ———, 'Homeric Questions', TAPhA 122, 1992, 17-60. ———, Poetry as Performance, Cambridge, CUP, 1996. Neer, R., The Emergence of the Classical Style in Greek Sculpture, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2010. Neiiendam, K., The Art of Acting in Antiquity: Iconographical Studies in Classical, Hellenistic, and Byzantine Theatre, Denmark, Museum Tusculanum, 1992. Nelson, G. W., 'A Greek Votive Iynx-Wheel in Boston', AJA 44, no. 4, 1940, 443-456.

~328~ Bibliography

Neumann, G., Gesten und Gebärden in der griechischen Kunst, Berlin, 1965. Nevett, L. C., House and Society in the Ancient Greek World, Cambridge, CUP, 1999. Newton, C. T., Hicks, E. L. & Hirschfeld, G., The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1874-1916. Nilsson, M. P., 'Kultische Personifikationen', Eranos 50, 1952, 31-40. ———, Geschichte der griechischen Religion: Die Religion Griechenlands bis auf die griechische Weltherrschaft, vol. I, 3rd edn, München, C. H. Beck, 1967. Noegel, S. B., 'Greek Religion and the Ancient Near East', in Ogden, D. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, Blackwell, 2007, 21-37. Norwood, G., Greek Comedy, London, Methuen & Co, 1931. Noussia-Fantuzz, M., Solon the Athenian, the Poetic Fragments, Leiden, Brill, 2010. O'Brien, J. V., The Transformation of Hera: A Study of Ritual, Hero, and the Goddess in the Iliad, Maryland, Rowman & Littlefield, 1993. Oakley, J. H. & Palagia, O. (eds), Athenian Potters and Painters, vol. ii, Oxford, Oxbow, 2009. Oakley, J. H. & Sinos, R. H., The Wedding in Ancient Athens, Madison, Wisconsin, 1993. Ober, J., Fortress Attica: Defense of the Athenian Land Frontier, 404-322 B.C., Leiden, Brill, 1985. ———, Athenian Legacies: Essays on the Politics of Going On Together, Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 2005. Ogden, D., Greek Bastardy In the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ———, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook, Oxford, OUP, 2002. Olson, S. D., Broken Laughter: Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford, OUP, 2007. Orlandos, A. K., 'Note sur le sanctuaire de Némésis à Rhamnonte', BCH 48, 1924, 305-320. Ormand, K., 'Marriage, Identity, and the Tale of Mestra in the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women', AJPh 125, no. 3, 2004, 303-338. Osborne, M. J. & Byrne, S. G. (eds), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. 2, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994. Osborne, R., Classical Landscape with Figures, London, Sheridan House, 1987. ———, 'Law, the Democratic Citizen and the Representation of Women in Classical Athens', Past & Present 155, 1997, 3-33. ———, Athens and Athenian Democracy, Cambridge, CUP, 2010. Owens, R., Solon of Athens: Poet, Philosopher, Soldier, Statesman, Brighton and Eastbourne, Sussex Academic Press, 2010. Paga, J., 'Deme Theatres in Attika and the Trittys System', Hesperia 79, no. 3, 2010, 351-384. Page, D. L., History and the Homeric Iliad, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1959. ——— (ed.), Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1967.

~329~ Bibliography

Palagia, O., 'No Demokratia', The Archaeology of Athens and Attica under the Democracy, 1994, 113-122. ———, 'Meaning and Narrative Techniques in Statue-Bases of the Pheidian Circle', in Rutter, N. K. & Sparkes, B. A. (eds), Word and Image in Ancient Greece, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2000. ———, 'Πρόβληματα των Αγαλματικών βάσεων του Φειδιακού Κύκλου', Ἀριάδνη 9, 2003, 7-29. ———, 'Classical Athens', in Palagia, O. (ed.), Greek Sculpture: Function, Materials, and Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Cambridge NY, CUP, 2006, 119- 162. Palagia, O. & Lewis, D., 'The Ephebes of Erechtheis, 333/2 BC and Their Dedication', ABSA 84, 1989, 333-344, pls 48-49. Palaima, T. G., 'Sacrificial Feasting in the Linear B Documents', Hesperia 73, no. 2, 2004, 217-246. Pantelidou-Ghopha, M., 'Η Αττική στους προϊστορικούς χρόνους', Αρχαιολογια 39, 1991, 14- 20. Papazarkadas, N., Sacred and Public Land in Ancient Athens, Oxford, OUP, 2011. Parker, R., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983. ———, 'Athenian Religion Abroad', in Osborne, R. & Hornblower, S. (eds), Ritual, Finance, Politics: Athenian Democratic Accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, OUP, 1994, 339-346. ———, Athenian Religion: A History, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ———, Polytheism and Society at Athens, Oxford, OUP, 2005. Parker, R. & Obbink, D., 'Sales of Priesthoods on Cos I', Chiron 30, 2000, 415-449. ———, 'Sales of Priesthoods on Cos II', Chiron 31, 2001, 229-252. Parker, V., 'The Dates of the Messenian Wars', Chiron 21, 1991, 25-47. Parry, H., 'The Apologos of Odysseus: Lies, All Lies?', Phoenix 48, no. 1, 1994, 1-20. Payne, H. G. G., 'Archaeology in Greece, 1931-1932', JHS 52, 1932, 236-255. Peck, H. T. (ed.), Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1898. Pelling, C. B. R., 'Educating Croesus: Talking and Learning in Herodotus' Lydian Logos', Classical Antiquity 25, no. 1, 2006, 141-177. Pemberton, E. G., 'An Early Red-Figured Calyx-Krater from Ancient Corinth', Hesperia 57, no. 3, 1988, 227-235. Penrose, F. C., 'On the Results of an Examination of the Orientations of a Number of Greek Temples with a View to Connect these Angles with the Amplitudes of Certain Stars at the Time the Temples were Founded, and an Endeavour to Derive there from the Dates of their Foundation by Consideration of the Changes Produced upon the Right Ascension and Declination of the Stars by the Precession of the Equinoxes', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A 184, 1893, 805-834.

~330~ Bibliography

Perdrizet, P. F., 'The Game of Morra', JHS 18, 1898, 129-132. Perry, B. E., Aesopica, vol. 1, Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1952. Petrakos, V., O Δήμος του Ραμνούντος. Σύνοψη των ανασκαφών και των ερευνών Ι: Τοπογραφία; II: Oι Επιγραφές, 1999, Athens, Archaiologike Etaireia, 1913-1998. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 131, 1975 [1977], 5-35. ———, 'Νέες Ἔρευνες στὸν Ραμνούντα', AEph 118, 1979, 1-81. ———, 'La base de la Némésis d'Agoracrite', BCH 105, no. 1, 1981, 227-253. ———, National Museum: Sculpture - Bronzes - Vases, Clio, 1981. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 137, 1981 [1983], 120-140. ———, 'Ραμνούντα', Έργον 29, 1982 [1983], 34-36. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 138, 1982 [1984], 127-162. ———, 'Ἡ Ἐπιγραφικὰ τοῦ Ὀρωποῦ καὶ τοῦ Ραμνοῦτος', Praktika 8th Congress for Greek and Latin Epigraphy 1, 1983, 309-338. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 139, 1983 [1986], 109-130. ———, 'Ραμνούντα', Έργον 31, 1984 [1985], 53-56. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 140, 1984 [1988], 146-211. ———, 'Προβλήματα της βάσης του Aγάλματος της Νεμέσεως', Kyrieleis 2, 1986, 89-107. ———, 'Οἱ Ἀνασκαφὲς τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', AEph 126, 1987, 265-298. ———, 'Τὸ Νεμέσιον τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος', in Φίλια έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν δια τα 60 έτη του ανασκαφικού του έργου, vol. II, Archaeological Society at Athens, 1987, 295-326. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 144, 1989 [1992], 1-37. ———, 'Ραμνούντα', Έργον 37, 1990 [1991], 1-13. ———, Rhamnous, Athens, Archaeological Receipts Fund, 1991. ———, 'Περιηγηση στον Αρχαιολογικο χωρο του Ραμνουντος', Αρχαιολογια, no. 39, 1991, 45-61. ———, 'Το Ιερό της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', Αρχαιολογια, no. 39, 1991, 33-40. ———, 'Ραμνούντα', Έργον 41, 1994 [1995], 15-26. ———, 'Ραμνούντα', Έργον 45, 1998 [1999], 14-16. ———, 'Ανασκαφὴ Ραμνοῦντος', PAAH 153, 1998 [2000], 1-39. ———, Ὁ δῆμος τοῦ Ραμνοῦντος: Σύνοψη τῶν ἀνασκαφῶν καὶ τῶν ἐρευνῶν (1813-1998), II vols, Athens, Archaiologike Etaireia, 1999. ———, 'Ραμνούντα', Έργον 50, 2003 [2004], 12-15. Petrovidis, P., Νεον Ανγλεολληνικον Λεξικον, Athenai, Dimitrakos, 1947. Pfuhl, E., Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, München, F. Bruckmann A.-G, 1923. ———, Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting, trans. Beazley, J. D., 1955, London, Chatto & Windus, 1924.

~331~ Bibliography

———, Meisterwerke Griechischer Zeichnung und Malerei, München, F. Bruckmann A.-G, 1924. Pharr, C., Davidson, T. S. & Pharr, M. B., The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, New Jersey, The Lawbook Exchange, 2001. Picard, C., 'La Dispute de Coré sur un œuf funéraire attique de la Collection Stathatos', RA 6, no. 2, 1945, 134-135. Picon, C. A., Mertens, J. R., Milleker, E. J., et al., Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome, New York, Yale University Press, 2007. Pieters, J. T. M. F., Cratinus: Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Vroeg-Attische Comedie, Leiden, Brill, 1946. Pilz, O., 'The Profits of Self-Representation: Statues of Female Cult Personnel in the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Periods', in Horster, M. & Klöckner, A. (eds), Cities and Priests: Cult Personnel in Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands from the Hellenistic to the Imperial Period, Berlin, de Gruyter, 2013, 155-175. Pimpl, H., Perirrhanteria und Louteria: Entwicklung und Verwendung grosser Marmor- und Kalksteinbecken auf figürlichem und säulenartigem Untersatz in Griechenland, Berlin, Verlag Köster, 1997. Pipili, M., Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century B.C., Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1987. Pirenne-Delforge, V., Georgoudi, S. & Sourvinou-Inwood, C., 'Personnel de Culte: monde grec', in ThesCRA, vol. v 2a, Los Angeles, Paul Getty Museum, 2005, 1-65. Plommer, W. H., 'Three Attic Temples', ABSA 45, 1950, 66-112. Podlecki, A. J., Perikles and His Circle, London, Routledge, 1998. Pollard, J., Birds in Greek Life and Myth, London, Thames & Hudson, 1977. Porter, J. A., 'Tiptoeing Through the Corpses: Euripides' Electra, Apollonus, and the Bouphonia', GRBS 31, no. 3, 1990, 255-280. Posnansky, H., De Nemeseos Monumentis, Whitefish, Kessinger, 1888. Postlethwaite, N., 'Thersites in the 'Iliad'', G&R 35, no. 2, 1988, 123-136. Pouilloux, J., La Forteresse de Rhamnonte: Étude de Topographie et d'Histoire, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1954. Powell, A., The Greek World, London, Routledge, 1995. Powell, J. E., A Lexicon to Herodotus, 2nd edn, Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1960. Price, S. R. F., Religions of the Greeks, Cambridge, CUP, 1999. Pritchett, W. K., 'The Transfer of the Delian Treasury', Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 18, no. 1, 1969, 17-21. ———, The Greek State at War, vol. III, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979. Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.), Megale Hellas: storia e civilità della Magna Grecia, Milan, Scheiwiller, 1983. ——— (ed.), Magna Grecia: Vita religiosa e cultura letteraria, filosofica e scientifica, vol. III, Milan, Electa, 1988.

~332~ Bibliography

———, The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean, London, Thames & Hudson, 1996. Raaflaub, K. A., 'A Historian's Headache: How to Read 'Homeric Society'?', in Fisher, N. & van Wees, H. (eds), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, London, Duckworth, 1998. ———, 'Homer, the Trojan War, and History', The Classical World 91, no. 5, 1998, 386-403. Rankin, H. D., 'Thersites the Malcontent, a Discussion', Symbolae Osloenses 47, 1972, 36-60. Raubitschek, A. E., 'The Covenant of Plataea', TAPA 91, 1960, 178-183. Raubitschek, A. E. & Jeffery, L. H. (eds), Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis: a catalogue of the inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centuries B. C., Cambridge, MA, Archaeological Institute of America, 1949. Raubitschek, I. K., The Metal Objects (1952-1989), Princeton N J, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1998. Rausch, M., 'Miltiades, Athen und die „Rhamnusier auf Lemnos“ (IG I3 522bis)', Klio: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 81, no. 1, 1999, 7-17. Redfield, J. M., Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector, Durham & London, Duke University Press, 1994. Reece, S., The Stranger’s Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene, Michigan, University of Michigan Press, 1993. Reilly, J., 'Many Brides: "Mistress and Maid" on Athenian Lekythoi', Hesperia 58, no. 4, 1989, 411-444. Reinhardt, K., 'The Judgement of Paris', in Homer: German Scholarship in Translation, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1997, 170-192. Revermann, M., 'Cratinus' Διονυσαλέξανδρος and the Head of Pericles', JHS 117, 1997, 197- 200. ———, Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic Technique, and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy, Oxford, OUP, 2006. Richer, N., 'Aidōs at Sparta', in Hodkinson, S. & Powell, A. (eds), Sparta: New Perspectives, Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales, 2009, 91-116. Richter, G. M. A., Ancient Furniture: a history of Greek, Etruscan and Roman furniture, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1926. ———, 'Two Reconstructions of Greek Grave Monuments', AJA 45, no. 2, 1941, 159-163. ———, The Archaic Gravestones of Attica, London, Phaidon, 1961. de Ridder, A., Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l'Acropole d'Athènes, Paris, Bibliothèque des Écoles Franҫaises d'Athènes et de Rome, 1896. Ridgway, B. S., Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Princeton N J, Princeton University Press, 1981. ———, Prayers in Stone: Greek Architechtural Sculpture ca. 600-100 B.C.E., Berkeley, University of California Press, 1999. ———, Hellenistic Sculpture: Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C., III vols, vol. I, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press, 2001.

~333~ Bibliography

Roberts, E. S., 'Inscriptions from Dodona II', JHS 2, 1881, 102-121. Roberts, E. S. & Gardner, E. A. (eds), An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy: The Archaic Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet, Cambridge, The University Press, 1887. Robertson, M., A History of Greek Art, Cambridge, CUP, 1975. ———, A Shorter History of Greek Art, Cambridge, CUP, 1981. ———, The Art of Vase-Painting in Classical Athens, Cambridge, CUP, 1992. Robinson, E. W., Ancient Greek Democracy: readings and sources, Oxford, Wiley- Blackwell, 2003. de Romilly, J., 'La Vengeance Comme Explication Historique Dans L'oeuvre d'Herodote', REG 84, 1971, 314-337. ———, The Rise and Fall of States according to Greek Authors, Michigan, University of Michigan Press, 1977. Rose, C. B., The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy, Cambridge, CUP, 2014. Rosen, R. M., 'Plato Comicus and the Evolution of Greek Comedy', in Dobrov, G. W. (ed.), Beyond Aristophanes: Transition and Diversity in Greek Comedy, Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1995, 119-137. Rosenzweig, R., Worshipping Aphrodite: Art and Cult in Classical Athens, University of Michigan Press, 2004. Roßbach, O., 'Nemesis', in Roscher, W. H. (ed.), Ausführliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie, vol. 3, Leipzig, Teubner, 1897-1902. Rouse, W. H. D., Greek Votive Offerings: An Essay in the History of Greek Religion, Cambridge, CUP, 1902. Ruffell, I., 'A Total Write-Off: Aristophanes, Cratinus, and the Rhetoric of Comic Competition', CQ 52, no. 1, 2002, 138-163. Rutherford, R. B., Homer: Odyssey Books XIX and XX, Cambridge, CUP, 1992. Rutter, N. K., 'Sybaris Legend and Reality', G&R 17, no. 2, 1970, 168-176. Sabetai, V., The Washing Painter: A Contribution to the Wedding and Genre Iconography in the Second Half of the Fifth Century B.C., Dissertation, University of Cincinnati Press, Cincinnati, 1993. ———, 'Marker Vase or Burnt Offering? The Clay Loutrophoros in Context (Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Université libre de Bruxelles, 27-29 April 2006)', in Tsingarida, A. (ed.), Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases (7th-4th Centuties B.C.), Brussels, CReA Patrimoine, 2009, 291-306. ———, 'The Poetics of Maidenhood: Visual Constructs of Womanhood in Vase-Painting', in Schmidt, S. & Oakley, J. H. (eds), Hermeneutik der Bilder: Beiträge zur Ikonographie und Interpretation Griechischer Vasenmalerei, (Beihefte zum CVA Deutschland 4), München, C. H. Beck, 2009, 103-114. ———, 'The Wedding Vases of the Athenians: A View from Sanctuaries and Houses', Mètis 12, 2014, 51-79. Salomon, N., Le cleruchie di Atene: caratteri e funzione, Pisa, ETS, 1997.

~334~ Bibliography

Samons, L. J., 'Kimon, Kallias and Peace with Persia', Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 47, no. 2, 1998, 129-140. Sayce, A. H., Ancient Empires of the East: Herodotus I - III, Cambridge, CUP, 1883. Saϊd, S., 'Herodotus and Tragedy', in Bakker, E. J., de Jong, I. J. F., et al. (eds), Brill's Companion to Herodotus, Leiden, Brill, 2002, 117-148. Scaife, R., 'The Kypria and its Early Reception', Classical Antiquity 14, no. 1, 1995, 164-197. Schefold, K., Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen, Berlin und Leipzig, de Gruyter, 1934. ———, Myth and Legend in Early Greek Art, London, Thames & Hudson, 1966. ———, Die Gottersage in der Klassischen und Hellenistischen Kunst, München, Hirmer, 1981. ———, Gods and Heroes in Late Archaic Greek Art, trans. Griffiths, A., Cambridge, CUP, 1992. Schefold, K. & Jung, F., Die Sagen von den Argonauten von Theben und Troia in der klassischen und hellenistische Kunst, München, Hirmer, 1989. Scholl, A., Die attischen Bildfeldstelen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu den kleinformatigen Grabreliefs im spätklassischen Athen, Berlin, Gebr. Mann, 1996. Schultz, P., 'The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike', Hesperia 70, no. 1, 2001, 1-47. Schwab, K., 'Celebrations of Victory: The Metopes of the Parthenon', in Neils, J. (ed.), The Parthenon: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge, CUP, 2005, 159-197. Schwarzmaier, A., 'Wo ist Heimarmene? Eine neue Deutung des berühmten Amphoriskos in der Berliner Antikensammlung', AA, 2012 no. 1, 15-41. Schwenk, C. J., Athens in the Age of Alexander: The Dated Laws & Decrees of 'The Lykourgan Era' 338-322 B.C., Chicago, Ares, 1985. Scodel, R., 'Stupid, Pointless Wars', TAPA, no. 138, 2008, 219-235. Scott, M., 'Aidos and Nemesis in the Works of Homer, and their Relevance to Social or Co- operative Values', AClass 23, 1980, 13-35. Scully, S., Hesiod's Theogony, Oxford, OUP, 2015. Sebeok, T. A. & Brady, E., 'The Two Sons of Croesus: A Myth about Communication in Herodotus', QUCC 1, 1979, 7-22. Sekunda, N., Marathon 490 BC: The First Persian Invasion Of Greece, Oxford, Osprey, 2002. de Sélincourt, A., Herodotus: The Histories, rev. 1972 edn, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1954. Seltman, C. T., Athens, Its History and Coinage Before The Persian Invasion, Cambridge, CUP, 1924. Severyns, A., Recherches sur la chrestomathie de Proclos: le codex 239 de Photius, vol. i, Paris, Université de Liège, 1938. ———, Recherches sur la chrestomathie de Proclos: le codex 239 de Photius, vol. ii, Paris, Université de Liège, 1938. ———, Recherches sur la chrestomathie de Proclos: le codex 239 de Photius, vol. iv, Paris, l'Université de Liège, 1963.

~335~ Bibliography

Seymour, T. D., The First Three Books of Homer's Iliad: with Introduction, Commentary and Vocabulary, Boston, Ginn & Company, 1898. Shapiro, H. A., Personification of Abstract Concepts in Greek Art and Literature to the end of the Fifth Century B.C., Michigan, University Microfilms International, 1977. ———, 'Origins of Allegory in Greek Art', Boreas 9, 1986, 4-23. ———, Personifications in Greek Art: The Representations of Abstract Concepts 600-400 B.C., Zürich, Akanthus, 1993. ———, Myth into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece, London, Routledge, 1994. ———, 'The Judgment of Helen in Athenian Art', in Barringer, J. M. & Hurwit, J. M. (eds), Periklean Athens and its Legacy: Problems and Perspectives, Austin, University of Texas Press, 2005, 47-62. Shapiro Lapatin, K. D. S., 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous? Who's Who on the Nemesis Base: a Note', The 92nd Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America 95, no. 2, 1991, 285-339. ———, 'A Family Gathering at Rhamnous: Who's Who on the Nemesis Base', Hesperia 61, no. 1, 1992, 107-119. Shapiro, S. O., 'Herodotus and Solon', Classical Antiquity 15, no. 2, 1996, 348-364. Shaw, C. A., 'σκορπίος or σκῶρ πέος? A Sexual Joke in Archestratus' Hedypatheia', CQ 59, no. 2, 2009, 634-639. ———, '‘Genitalia of the Sea’: Seafood and Sexuality in Greek Comedy', Mnemosyne 67, no. 4, 2014, 554-576. Shear, L. T., Jr., 'The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits', Hesperia 62, no. 4, 1993, 383-482. ———, 'The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1989-1993', Hesperia 66, no. 4, 1997, 495-548. Shimron, B., 'Politics and Belief in Herodotus', Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 58, 1989, 1-126. Shipton, K. M. W., 'The Private Banks in Fourth-Century B. C. Athens: A Reappraisal', CQ 47, no. 2, 1997, 396-422. Sidell, E. J., A Methodology for the Identification of Archaeological Eggshells, vol. 10 Supplement, Philadelphia, MASCA, University of Pennsylvania, 1993. Silk, M. S., The Iliad, Cambridge, CUP, 1987. Simon, E., 'Der Goldschatz von Panágjuriste - eine Schöpfung der Alexanderzeit', AntK 3, no. 1, 1960, 3-29. ———, 'Neue Deutung zweier eleusinischer Denkmäler des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr.', AntK 9, no. 2, 1966, 72-92. ———, Führer durch die Antikenabteilung des Martin von Wagner Museums der Universität Würzburg, Mainz, P. von Zabern, 1975. ———, Festivals of Attica, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. Sirivianou, M. G. (ed.), The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. LVI76, London, Egypt Exploration Society, 1989. Skinner, M. B., 'Rhamnusia Virgo', Classical Antiquity 3, no. 1, 1984, 134-141.

~336~ Bibliography

Smith, A. C., Political Personifications in Classical Athenian Art, Dissertation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997. ———, 'The Politics of Weddings at Athens: an iconographic assessment', Leeds International Classics Studies 4, no. 1, 2005, 1-32. ———, Polis and Personification in Classical Athenian Art, Leiden, Brill, 2011. Snell, B., The Discovery of the Mind: The Greek Origins of European Thought, trans. Rosenmeyer, T. G., Oxford, Blackwell, 1953. ———, 'Gyges und Kroisos als Tragödien-Figuren', ZPE 12, 1973, 197-205. Snowden, F. M., Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience, Cambridge MA, HUP, 1970. Society of the Dilettanti, The Unedited Antiquities of Attika, 2nd edn, London, Priestly and Weale, 1833. Sokolowski, F., Lois sacrées des cités grecques: Suppliment, Paris, E. de Boccard, 1962. Solmsen, F., Hesiod and Aeschylus, New York, Cornell University Press, 1949. ———, 'The Two Near Eastern Sources of Hesiod', Hermes 117, 1989, 413-22. Sosin, J. J., 'An Endowed Peace', Museum Helveticum 61, 2004, 2-8. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., 'Reading' Greek Death: to the End of the Classical Period, Oxford, OUP, 1995. ———, Athenian Myths and Festivals: Agauros, Erechtheus, Plynteria, Panathenaia, Dionysia, Oxford, OUP, 2011. Stafford, E., 'A Wedding Scene? Notes on Akropolis 6471', JHS 117, 1997, 200-202. ———, 'Plutarch on Persuasion', in Pomeroy, S. (ed.), Plutarch's Advice to the Bride and Groom, and a Consolation to his Wife, New York, OUP, 1999, 162-172. ———, Worshipping Virtues: Personification and the Divine in Ancient Greece, London, Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd & The Classical Press of Wales, 2000. ———, 'Tibullus' Nemesis: Divine Retribution and the Poet', in Booth, J. & Maltby, R. (eds), What's in a Name? The Significance of Proper Names in Classical Latin literature, Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales, 2006, 33-48. ———, 'Personification in Greek Religious Thought and Practice', in Ogden, D. (ed.), A Companion to Greek Religion, Malden, Blackwell, 2007, 71-85. ———, ''The People to the Goddess Livia': Attic Nemesis and the Roman Imperial Cult', Kernos 26, 2013, 205-238. Stafford, E. J., Greek Cults of Deified Abstractions, PhD Thesis, University College London, 1998. Stanford, W. B., Homer: Odyssey Books I-XII, 2nd edn, London, MacMillan & Co., 1959. Stanton, G. R., Athenian Politics c. 800-500 B.C.: A Sourcebook, London, Routledge, 1990. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., The Origins of the Pelopponesian War, London, Duckworth, 1972. ———, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1981.

~337~ Bibliography

Stears, K. E., 'The Times They Are A'Changing: Developments in Fifth-Century Funerary Sculpture', in Oliver, G. J. (ed.), The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2000, 25-58. Stenger, J., 'Nemesis', in Cancik, H. & Schneider, H. (eds), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, vol. 8, Stuttgart, J.B. Metzler, 2000. Stimilli, D., The Face of Immortality: Physiognomy and Criticism, New York, State University of New York Press, 2005. Stone, T., Zeus: A Journey Through Greece in the Footsteps of a God, New York, Bloomsbury, 2008. Storey, I. C., 'Old Comedy on Vases', in Fragments of Old Comedy, vol. III, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 2011. Storey, I. C. & Allan, A., A Guide to Ancient Greek Drama, Oxford, Blackwell, 2005. Strauss Clay, J., 'What the Muses Sang: Theogony 1–115', GRBS 29, 1988, 323-333. ———, Hesiod's Cosmos, Cambridge, CUP, 2003. Stroud, R. S., 'The Athenian Grain-Law Tax of 374/3 BC', Hesperia Supplement 29, 1998, 1- 140. Strubbe, J. H. M., '"Cursed Be He That Moves My Bones"', in Faraone, C. A. & Obbink, D. (eds), Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic & Religion, New York and Oxford, OUP, 1991. Stuurman, S., 'The Voice of Thersites: Reflections on the Origins of the Idea of Equality', JHI 65, no. 2, 2004, 171-189. Sutton, R. F., Jr., 'Nuptial Eros: The Visual Discourse of Marriage in Classical Athens', JWAG 55/56, 1997/1998, 27-48. Suzuki, M., Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1989. Swaddling, J., The Ancient Olympic Games, London, British Museum, 1980. Swindler, M. H., Ancient Painting, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1929. Takati, A. B., 'Nemesis, Nemeseis, and the Gladiatorial Games at Smyrna', Mnemosyne 62, 2009, 639-648. Taplin, O., Comic Angels: And Other Approaches to Greek Drama Through Vase-Paintings, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993. Tavenner, E., 'Iynx and Rhombus', TAPA 64, 1933, 109-127. Teggart, F. J., 'The Argument of Hesiod's Works and Days', JHI 8, no. 1, 1947, 45-77. Thalmann, W. G., 'Thersites: Comedy, Scapegoats, and Heroic Ideology in the Iliad', TAPhA 118, 1988, 1-28. Theocharaki-Tsitoura, E., 'Η Κεραμική του Ιερού της Νέμεσης στον Ραμνούντα', Αρχαιολογια, no. 39, 1991, 41-43. Thompson, D. W., A Glossary of Greek Birds, London, OUP, 1936. Thomson, J. A. K., The Art of the Logos, London, Allen & Unwin, 1935. Threatte, L., The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, 2 vols, vol. 2, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1996.

~338~ Bibliography

Tod, M. N. (ed.), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions from 403 to 328 BC, vol. 2, 2nd edn, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962. Touchais, G., 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1982', BCH 107, 1983, 745-838. ———, 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1984', BCH 109, 1985, 759-862. Touchais, G., Huber, S., Varalis, Y., et al., 'Chronique des Fouilles et Découvertes Archéologiques en Grèce en 1998', BCH 123, no. 2, 1999, 635-848. Traill, J. S., The Political Organization of Attica: A Study of the Demes, Trittyes, and Phylai, and their Representation in the Athenian Council, Princeton N J, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1974. ———, 'Diakris, the Inland Trittys of Leontis', Hesperia 47, no. 1, 1978, 89-109. ———, Demos and Trittys: Epigraphical and Topographical Studies in the Organization of Attica, Toronto, Athenians Victoria College, 1986. ———, Persons of Ancient Athens, vol. 14, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1995. Travis, R., 'The Spectation of Gyges in P.Oxy. 2382 and Herodotus Book 1', Classical Antiquity 19, no. 2, 2000, 330-359. Travlos, J., 'Rhamnous', in Deutsches Archaologisches Institut: Bildlexikon zur topographie des antiken Attika, Tübingen, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, 1988, 388-403. Trendall, A. D., Phlyax Vases, 2nd edn, London, BICS, 1967. ———, Red figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily: A Handbook, New York, Thames & Hudson, 1989. Trendall, A. D. & Cambitoglou, A., The Red-Figure Vases of Apulia, vol. 1, Oxford, OUP, 1978. Trendall, A. D. & Webster, T. B. L., Illustrations of Greek Drama, London, Phaidon, 1971. Tsonchev, D., 'The Gold Treasure of Panagiurishte', Archaeology 8, 1955, 218-227. Turner, J. A., Hiereiai: Acquisition of Feminine Priesthoods in Ancient Greece, Dissertation, University of California Press, Santa Barbara, 1983. Turpin, J.-C., 'L’expression αἰδώς καὶ νέμεσιν et les “actes de langage”', REG 93, 1980, 352- 367. Tylor, E. B., Primative Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom, 2 vols, vol. 1, 6th edn, 1920, London, John Murray, 1871. Valavanis, P. D., Παναθηηναϊκοί αμφορείς απο την Ερέτρια: Συμβολή στην αττική αγγειογραφία του 4ου π.Χ. αι., Athens, Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία, 1991. van den Eijnde, F., Cult and Society in Early Athens: Archaeological and Anthropological Approaches to State Formation and Group Participation in Attica 1000-600 BCE, Dissertation, Utrecht University Press, Netherlands, 2010. van den Veen, J. E., 'The Lord of the Ring: Narrative Technique in Herodotus' Story of Polycrates' Ring', Mnemosyne 46, no. 4, 1993, 432-457.

~339~ Bibliography van Straten, F., 'Gifts for the Gods', in Versnel, H. S. (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden, Brill, 1981, 65-104. ———, 'Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries', in Schachter, A. (ed.), Le Sanctuaire Grec, vol. xxxvii, Geneva, Fondation Hardt, 1992, 248-284. van Wees, H., 'The Homeric Way of War: The 'Iliad' and the Hoplite Phalanx', G&R 41, 1994, 1-18, 131-55. Vanderpool, E., 'Newsletter from Greece', AJA 59, no. 3, 1955, 223-229. Vandiver, E., 'Strangers are from Zeus: Homeric Xenia at the Courts of Proteus and Croesus', in Baragwanath, E. & de Bakker, M. (eds), Myth, Truth, and Narrative in Herodotus' Histories, Oxford, OUP, 2012, 143-166. Ventris, M. & Chadwick, J., Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd edn, Cambridge, CUP, 1973. Verdenius, W. J., A Commentary on Hesiod: Works and Days, vv.1-382, Leiden, Brill, 1985. Vermeule, E., Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979. Vernant, J.-P., Myth and thought among the Greeks, trans. Lloyd, J. & Fort, J., New York, Zone, 1996. ———, 'A "Beautiful Death" and the Disfigured Corpse in Homeric Epic', in Cairns, D. L. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Homer's Iliad, Oxford, OUP, 2001, 311-341. Versnel, H. S., Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology, Leiden, Brill, 2011. Vickers, M., Pericles on Stage: Political Comedy in Aristophanes' Early Plays, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1977. Vollgraff, G., 'Ad Titulos Argivos', Mnemosyne 58, no. 1/2, 1930, 20-40. Wackernagel, J., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1916. Wade-Gery, H. T., 'Kynaithos', in Bailey, C. (ed.), Greek Poetry and Life: Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray on his Seventieth Birthday, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1936, 56-78. ———, 'Miltiades', JHS 71, 1951, 212-221. de Waele, J. A. K. E., 'The Design of the Temple of Nemesis', Stips Votiva: Papers Presented to C.M. Stibbe, 1991, 249-264. Walbank, M. B., 'Leases of Sacred Properties in Attica, Part I', Hesperia 52, no. 1, 1983, 100- 135. Walcot, P., Hesiod and the Near East, Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1966. Walker, S., 'Women and Housing in Classical Greece: the Archaeological Evidence', in Cameron, A. & Kuhrt, A. (eds), Images of Women in Antiquity, London, Croom Helm, 1983, 81-91. Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the Bronzes, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, London, Printed by order of the Trustees, 1899.

~340~ Bibliography

Welcker, F. G., Der epische Cyclus: oder Die homerischen Dichter, vol. 2, Bonn, Eduard Weber, 1849. ———, Der epische Cyclus: oder Die homerischen Dichter, vol. 1, Bonn, Eduard Weber, 1865. West, M. L., 'Three Presocratic Cosmologies', CQ 13, no. 2, 1963, 154-176. ——— (ed.), Hesiod: Theogony, Oxford, OUP, 1966. ———, 'Alcman and Pythagoras', CQ 17, no. 1, 1967, 1-15. ——— (ed.), Hesiod: Works and Days, Oxford, OUP, 1978. ———, 'Hesiod's Titans', JHS 105, 1985, 174-175. ———, The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek Poetry and Myth, Oxford, OUP, 1997. ——— (ed.), Greek Epic Fragments: from the seventh to the fifth centuries BC, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 2003. Whitley, J., 'Archaeology in Greece 2003-2004', Archaeological Reports, no. 50, 1-92. Whitman, C. H., Homer and the Heroic Tradition, Cambridge, MA, HUP, 1958. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v., Homerische Untersuchungen, Berlin, Weidmannsche, 1884. ———, 'Lesefrüchte', Hermes 64, no. 4, 1929, 458-490. Wilhelm, A., 'Themis und Nemesis in Rhamnus', Wiener Jahreshefte 32, 1940, 200-209. Winter, N. A., 'News Letter from Greece 1982', AJA 88, no. 1, 1984, 51-58. Wolters, P., Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, vol. 1, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1940. Woodford, S., Images of Myths in Classical Antiquity, New York, CUP, 2002. Woodford, S. & Loudon, M., 'Two Trojan Themes: The Iconography of Ajax carrying the body of Achilles and of Aeneas carrying Anchises in Black-Figure Vase Painting', AJA 84, no. 1, 1980, 25-40. Woodhead, A. G., The Study of Greek Inscriptions, 2nd edn, London, Bristol Classical Press, 1992. Wright, J. H., 'Summary of Periodicals', The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 7, no. 3, 1891, 342-370. Wright, M., 'Comedy and the Trojan War', CJ 57, no. 2, 2007, 412-431. Yamagata, N., Homeric Morality, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1994. Yates, V., 'The Titanic Origin of Humans: The Melian Nymphs and Zagreus', GRBS 44, 2004, 183-198. Younger, J. G., Sex in the Ancient World from A – Z, Abingdon, Routledge, 2005. Zervoudaki, E., 'The Stathatos Collection', in Zafeiropoulou, D. (ed.), The National Archaeological Museum, 5th edn, Athens, Hellenic Ministry of Culture Achaeological Receipts Fund, 2007, 78-83. Zschietzschmann, W., 'Die Tempel von Rhamnous', AA XLIV, 1929, 441-451.

~341~