hesperia 74 (2005) PATRONS OF 6 Pages 395-42 ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS OF THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS Three Studies ABSTRACT In three studies of votive offerings, the author explores the role played by private patrons in the production of art and inscriptions in Athens in the Archaic and Classical periods. The studies concern additive sculptural groups a produced by the contributions of multiple dedicators, form of display ex plained within the context of votive religion; epigraphical evidence for col on laboration between East Greek sculptors and Athenian patrons 6th- and votive and dedications that have either been mis 5th-century monuments; as vase or identified belonging to Athenian potters and painters erroneously reconstructed as metal or stone vases. INTRODUCTION The most pressing concern for most studies of artistic patronage in Ath ens in the Archaic and Classical periods has been public patronage, namely, identifying the patrons responsible for the construction of temples and other buildings and for the choice of subjects in architectural sculpture.1 After 480 b.c., the best-attested patron is the Athenian demos itself. In Archaic Athens, by contrast, the tyrant Peisistratos and his sons and the as post-Kleisthenic democracy have been identified by modern scholars or patrons sponsors of public art.2 Even the study of Athenian black an and red-figure pottery, obvious realm for the exploration of the role of 1.1 would like to thank follow the Agora Excavations. Aileen Ajootian, 1989,1995; alsoAngiolillo 1997 and individuals for me Ben the in ing granting per Nancy Bookidis, Millis, Peter essays Sancisi-Weerdenburg mission to see and otherwise and two anon 2000 for objects Nulton, Olga Palagia, up-to-date bibliography. readers see facilitating my research: former ephor ymous Hesperia contributed Kleisthenic democracy: esp. Coul Ismene Trianti and son et Christina Vlasso references that improved this paper. al. 1994, Boedeker and Raaflaub extra to poulou of the Acropolis Museum; Finally, thanks go Karen E. 1998, andMorris and Raaflaub 1998, director Charalambos Kritzas and Rasmussen for 8 and of producing Fig. collections essays inspired by the to for Chara Karapa-Molisani of the Epi Robert Houston scanning my 2,500th anniversary in 1992-1993 of graphical Museum; and director John drawings. Kleisthenes' reforms. 2. Peisistratid see Camp and Jan Jordan of theAthenian tyranny: Shapiro ? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org 396 CATHERINE M. KEESLING private patrons, has been approached in light of Peisistratid iconography and cult sponsorship since the publication of John Boardmans first article on Peisistratos and Herakles in 1972.3 In the private realm, Archaic Attic funerary monuments have attracted the lion's share of attention. A consid erable number of studies concerning the significance of their sculpture and inscriptions followed the publication of G. M. A. Richters sculptural catalogue (1961) and L. H. Jefferys 1962 epigraphical catalogue of in scribed funerary monuments from Athens and the Attic countryside.4 One major issue regarding patronage raised by private funerary monuments in Athens?the apparent gap between the Archaic monument series and the resumption of inscribed funerary stelai commemorating private individ as uals late in the third quarter of the 5 th century b.c.?has been explained outcome at the of various larger factors work in the public sphere.5 Votive monuments dedicated in sanctuaries inAthens and Attica have as been less intensively studied products of patronage than architecture, vase painting, and funerary sculpture.6 Though the Athenian demos emerges as a patron of votive statues in the Late Archaic period, the majority of inscribed, monumental sanctuary dedications of the Archaic and Classical periods attest to the patronage of private individuals.7 The bulk of the con evidence for dedications of freestanding sculpture in sanctuaries is on centrated the Athenian Acropolis. The Acropolis material, in particu lar the preserved votive inscriptions, permits the study of patronage by individual, named patrons. The rich prosopographical evidence for the 3. 1972. For to the realm of is 1999 on Boardman subsequent private sphere public major exception Jacquemin see 15 inscribed lists and collective monumental votive at bibliography, Shapiro 1989, pp. casualty offerings Delphi. 17, 61-64,157-163; Angiolillo 1997, commemoration of the war dead in the For Archaic and Classical votive statues on see pp. 134-142; Blok 2000, pp. 28-30. Demosion Sema (Stupperich 1994); the Acropolis, Keesling 2003, the of 429 b.c. and Hurwit 4. On Archaic funerary monuments, Athenian plague (Mi also 1999, pp. 57-63,116 see Richter 1961; Jeffery 1962; and kalson 1984, pp. 223-224); and the 136 passim, 145-153,199,250-253; b.c. esp. D'Onofrio 1982,1988; Sourvinou Periklean citizenship law of 451/0 Kissas 2000; Shapiro 2001. on 7. of a Inwood 1995; Kaltsas 2002, the (Meyer 1993, pp. 112-119; Stears The only certain example Phrasikleia kore and kouros from 2000, p. 52, who also dates the earliest dedication of freestanding sculpture by Merenda in Attica; and Niemeier 2002, Classical stelai to the 430s or 440s b.c. the Athenian state in the Archaic pe new than ca. 430 riod is commemo the preliminary publication of rather after b.c.). White the quadriga group used as the over the sculptures found in the Kerameikos. ground lekythoi grave goods rating victory Boiotians a ca. in b.c. 5. The head of kouros found in the in the period between 480 and and Chalkidians 506 (replaced to ca. 430 continued to monu after the Persian sack of the Kerameikos and dated stylistically represent Acropolis ca. b.c. now as Morris in the are 480 is interpreted the mental grave markers (I. 1992, 480); preserved inscriptions latest monument in the Archaic series pp. 104-118); Clairmont (1983, pp. 60 DAA 168 and 173 (IG I3 501). A colos column without a (Knigge 1969; 1991, pp. 33-34, fig. 32). 73) argued that these represented sal votive preserved for the in monuments in the Demosion Korres Explanations gap funerary public inscription, published by (1997), a was in 480 cannot be monuments in Athens include sump Sema. Role of the Parthenon sculptors: destroyed but it could be at tuary law dated after Solon's reforms Friis Johansen 1951; Richter 1961, dated precisely, and thus 113 to or to (Garland 1989; Seaford 1994, pp. 74 pp. 54-55; cf. Engels 1998, pp. tributed either the Peisistratids 92; Parker 1996, pp. 133-135; Engels 119. the Athenian demos. If the monument was as 1998, pp. 97-106); the dismantling of 6. Exceptions: Schneider 1975 and replaced after 480, Korres sug reuse 1992 on it is more to have been a Archaic tombs for in the Themis Holloway the Acropolis korai, gests, likely b.c. but now 85-88. monument of the toklean city wall in 478 (S.Morris cf. Keesling 2003, pp. public democracy, by a of votive with noted 1992, pp. 305-307); 5th-century Most studies offerings focus analogy the quadriga group restraint in on nonmonumental above and the in the culture of public display portable, votives; Tyrannicides (Morris 1994); the displacement of see, e.g., the conference papers pub Agora. commemorative monuments from the lished in ScAnt 3-4 (1989-1990). One PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 397 dedicators of votives in Athens intersects in interesting ways with data from other them Attic black- and sources, among funerary monuments, red-figure pottery, and ostraka. In addition, the inscribed dedications of were the Archaic period in Athens less conventional than the funerary same me monuments of the period, presenting greater variations in size, more con dium, and sculptural types that may express directly the patrons tribution to the monument's form. Unlike funerary monuments, private dedications inAthens also bridge the gap between the Archaic and Clas sical periods without any apparent break.8 In this article I present three separate studies concerned with private patrons and their dedications inAthenian sanctuaries. The first study deals sec exclusively with Archaic material, but the phenomena treated in the ond and third studies extend into the Classical period. Joint dedications? names votive monuments inscribed with the of multiple dedicators?have recently been studied by Christoph L?hr under the larger rubric of "Fami one lienweihungen."9 Three well-preserved examples of particular class of are are joint dedications examined here in the first study: these inscribed or bases for votive statues statuettes featuring later additions to the origi as nal monument, indicated by separate inscriptions and multiple phases of cuttings for the attachment of sculp ture. These additions resulted in the statues or statuettes on same dedication of multiple grouped together the not as base, but clearly conceived thematically unified sculptural "groups." In the second study, I reevaluate the significance of letter forms and as spelling evidence for the ethnic origins of the sculptors, letter cutters, and patrons of votive monuments in Athens and Attica. Though the in on scriptions funerary monuments have been used to link closely sculptors from Ionia and the Cyclades with East Greek clienteles living inAthens, same seems the evidence of inscribed dedications from the period to attest collaboration between East Greek craftsmen and Athenian patrons. a The third study deals with group of inscribed stone bases from the as Acropolis identified by A. E. Raubitschek supports not for statues, but stone or vase instead for bronze vessels dedicated by Athenian potters and one painters. Iwill show that only of these bases is likely to have supported a or bronze vase, and that this should be interpreted as agonistic sacrificial in rather than as the dedication of a or vase In significance potter painter.