Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography presented to Homer A. Thompson 0876615205, 9780876615201

Twenty-one papers on various aspects of Athenian art and society by the students and friends of Homer A. Thompson, a not

324 6 34MB

English Pages 236 Year 1982

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Table of Contents......Page 7
Bibliography of Homer A. Thompson......Page 8
Bookidis - Attic Terracotta Sculpture: Acropolis 30......Page 14
Camp - Drought and Famine in the 4th Century BC......Page 23
Dinsmoor - The Asymmetry of the Pinakotheke for the Last Time?......Page 32
Frantz - The Date of the Phaidros Bema in the Theater of Dionysos......Page 48
Harrison - A Classical Maiden from the Athenian Agora......Page 56
Immerwahr - The Earliest Athenian Grave......Page 75
Jones - An Athenian Stele in Princeton......Page 85

Kroll - The Ancient Image of Athena Polias......Page 88
Lalonde - Topographical Notes on Aristophanes......Page 101
Meritt - Some Ionic Architectural Fragments from the Athenian Agora......Page 106
Miller - A Miniature Athena Promachos
......Page 119
Miller - Kleonai, the Nemean Games, and the Lamian War......Page 127
Raubitschek&Raubitschek - The Mission of Triptolemos......Page 136
Ridgway - Of Kouroi and Korai - Attic Variety
......Page 147
Shear - The Demolished Temple at Eleusis......Page 158
Smithson - The Prehistoric Klepsydra: Some Notes......Page 174
Thompson - A Dove for Dione
......Page 190
Thompson - Reflections on the Athenian Imperial Coinage......Page 203
Vanderpool - ΕΠΙ ΠΡΟΥΧΟΝΤΙ ΚΟΛΩΝΩΙ - The Sacred Threshing Floor at Eleusis......Page 213
Kaufman Williams - Zeus and Other Deities: Notes on Two Archaistic Piers......Page 217
Wycherley - Pausanias and Praxiteles......Page 227
Recommend Papers

Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography presented to Homer A. Thompson
 0876615205, 9780876615201

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview









*~ p



















Libraryof CongressCatalogingin PublicationData Mainentry undertitle: Studies in Athenianarchitecture,sculpture,and topography (Hesperia.Supplement; 20) "Bibliography of HomerA. Thompson":p. vii-xii 1. Art, Greek-Greece-Athens. I. AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at Athens. II. Series: Hesperia (Princeton,N.J.). Supplement; 20. N5650.S8 709'.38'5 81-14994 ISBN0-87661-520-3 AACR2




These papers are offered by members of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens who have been students and colleagues of Homer A. Thompson. Contributions towardthe cost of publicationhave been generously providedby the following:

Anna S. Benjamin

JamesH. Oliver

WilliamR. and JaneC. Biers

JeromeJ. Pollitt

JudithP. Binder

HenryS. and RebeccaW. Robinson

Alan L. Boegehold

CarlA. and MaryC. Roebuck


RobertL. and LouiseC. Scranton


T. Leslieand lone M. Shear

VirginiaR. Grace


DorothyKent Hill

BrianA. Sparkes

EvelynB. Harrison

DorothyB. Thompson

RichardH. Howland


SaraA. Immerwahr

StephenV. Tracy

MabelL. Lang


MerleK. Langdon

EmilyT. Vermeule

JamesR. and MarianM. McCredie

MichaelB. Walbank

Malcolmand MargueriteMcGregor

PaulW. Wallace

The MeridenGravureCompany

SaulS. and GladysD. Weinberg

BenjaminD. and LucyS. Meritt

FrederickE. Winter

StephenG. and StellaG. Miller

NancyA. Winter

FordyceW. Mitchel

WilliamF. Wyatt

CharlesH. Morgan

R. E. Wycherley

TABLEOF CONTENTS A. THOMPSON OFHOMER BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... NANCY BooKIDIS: Attic TerracottaSculpture,Acropolis 30...................... JoHNMcK. CAMPII: Drought and Famine in the 4th CenturyB.C. ..... ......... B. DINSMOOR, JR.: The Asymmetry of the Pinakotheke-For the Last WILLIAM Time . ...................................................... FRANTZ:The Date of the PhaidrosBema in the Theater of Dionysos ...... ALISON A ClassicalMaiden from the Athenian Agora ..... EVELYN B. HARRISON: ........ The EarliestAthenian Grave ........... SARA A. IMMERWAHR: ................ An Athenian Stele in Princeton ........... FRANCESF. JONES: ................ The Ancient Image of Athena Polias .......... JoHNH. KROLL: ............... GERALDV. LALONDE:TopographicalNotes on Aristophanes........ ............ Lucy S. MERITT: Some Ionic ArchitecturalFragmentsfrom the Athenian Agora ... STELLAG. MILLER:A MiniatureAthena Promachos .......... ................ STEPHENG. MILLER:Kleonai, the Nemean Games, and the LamianWar .......... ISABELLE K. AND ANTONYE. RAUBITSCHEK: The Mission of Triptolemos ..... ...... BRUNILDES. RIDGWAY:Of Kouroi and Korai, Attic Variety ..................... T. LESLIESHEAR,JR.: The Demolished Temple at Eleusis...................... EVELYNL. SMITHSON: The PrehistoricKlepsydra.Some Notes ................... B. THOMPSON: A Dove for Dione .................................. DOROTHY MARGARETTHOMPSON: Reflections on the Athenian ImperialCoinage ..... ....... EUGENEVANDERPOOL: EHI UPOYXONTIKOACNCI, The SacredThreshingFloor at Eleusis................................................... CHARLESK. WILLIAMS,II: Zeus and Other Deities. Notes on Two ArchaisticPiers .. R. E. WYCHERLEY: Pausaniasand Praxiteles.................................



9 18 34 40 54 63

65 77

82 93 100

109 118 128 141

155 163 172 175 182

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HOMERA. THOMPSON 1932 "SyrianWheat in Hellenistic Egypt," ArchivfurPapyrusforschung 9, pp. 207-213 (with K. Kourouniotis) "The Pnyx in Athens," Hesperia1, pp. 90-217 1933 "Activities in the American Zone of the Athenian Agora, Summer of 1932," AJA 37, pp. 289-296 "TerracottaLamps," Hesperia2, pp. 195-215 (with K. Kourouniotis) "The Athenian Pnyx," AJA 37, pp. 652-656 1934 "Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery," Hesperia3, pp. 311-480 1935 "The Topographyof the West Side of the Agora," AJA 39, p. 114 1936 "Pnyx and Thesmophorion,"Hesperia5, pp. 151-200 1937 "Buildingson the West Side of the Agora," Hesperia6, pp. 1-226 1938 "AdditionalNote on the Identificationof the Pottery of the Salaminiansat Sounion," Hesperia7, pp. 75-76 "The Metal Works of Athens and the Hephaisteion," AJA 42, p. 123 (with N. Kyparisses) "A Sanctuary of Zeus and Athena Phratrios Newly Found in Athens," Hesperia7, pp. 612-625 1940 "A Golden Nike," HSCP, Suppl. I, AthenianStudiesPresentedto W. S. Ferguson,Cambridge, Mass., pp. 183-210 The Tholosof Athensand its Predecessors,Hesperia,Suppl.IV, Princeton (with Dorothy B. Thompson) "The Golden Nikai of Athens," AJA 44, pp. 109-110 1942 "The Pnyx in the Fourth Century," AJA 46, p. 123



1943 (with R. L. Scranton) "Stoas and City Walls on the Pynx," Hesperia12, pp. 269-283 1946 "The Influence of Basketryon Attic Geometric Pottery," AJA 50, p. 26 1947 "The Excavationof the Athenian Agora, 1940-46," Hesperia16, pp. 193-213 1948 "Excavationof the Athenian Agora, 1947," Hesperia17, pp. 149-196 "Greek and Roman Societies' Joint Meeting, Oxford, 3-10 August, 1948," Phoenix2, pp. 88-89 1949 "An Archaic Gravestone from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia,Suppl. VIII, CommemorativeStudiesin Honorof TheodoreLeslieShear, Baltimore,pp. 373-377 "The Athenian Agora: 1949 Season," Archaeology2, pp. 184-188 "Decouverte sur l'agorad'Athenes d'un edifice du Ve siecle av. J.-C. qui pourraitavoir appartenuau Poecile," resume of a letter in ComptesRendusde l'Academie et Belles-Lettres,p. 182 des Inscriptions "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora: 1948," Hesperia18, pp. 211-229 "Head of Nike from the Athenian Agora," Archaeology2, pp. 17-19 "The PedimentalSculptureof the Hephaisteion," Hesperia18, pp. 230-268 "Stoa of Attalos," Archaeology2, pp. 124-130 1950 "Agrippa'sConcert-Hallin the Athenian Agora," Archaeology3, pp. 155-157 "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora: 1949," Hesperia19, pp. 313-337 "The Odeion in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia19, pp. 31-141 1951 "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora: 1950," Hesperia20, pp. 45-60 "The 15th Campaignin the Athenian Agora: 1950," AA [JdI 66], cols. 141-151 1952 "The Altar of Pity in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia21, pp. 47-82 "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora: 1951," Hesperia21, pp. 83-113 1953 "The Athenian Agora, Excavationand Reconstruction,"Archaeology6, pp. 142-146 "Athens and the HellenisticPrinces," ProcPhilSoc97, pp. 254-261 "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora, 1952," AJA 57, pp. 21-25 "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora: 1952," Hesperia22, pp. 25-56



1954 "ClassicalCongress in Copenhagen," Archaeology7, pp. 249-250 "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora: 1953," Hesperia23, pp. 31-67 "Rebuilding the Stoa of Attalos, Progress Report, Spring 1954", Archaeology7, pp. 180-182 1955 "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1954," Hesperia24, pp. 50-71 1956 "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1955," Hesperia25, pp. 46-68 1957 "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1956," Hesperia26, pp. 99-107 "The Athenian Agora. A Sketch of the Evolution of its Plan," Acta CongressusMadvigiani.Proceedingsof the SecondInternationalCongressof ClassicalStudiesI, Copenhagen, pp. 341-352 1958 "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1957," Hesperia27, pp. 145-160 1959 "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1958," Hesperia28, pp. 91-108 "The Athenian Agora, 1959," Archaeology12, pp. 284-285 "AthenianTwilight, A. D. 267-600," JRS 49, pp. 61-72 TheStoa of AttalosII in Athens, AthenianAgoraPictureBook, No. 2, Connecticut 1960 "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1959," Hesperia29, pp. 327-368 "Odeion of Agrippaor Sanctuaryof Theseus?" RevueArcheologique,pp. 1-3 "The PanathenaicFestival," resume in Proceedingsof the ClassicalAssociation17, p. 26 1962 TheAthenianAgora:A Guideto the Excavationsand Museum,Athens "ItinerantTemples of Attica," Abstract of Paper read at General Meeting, 1962, AJA 66, p. 200 "The SculpturalAdornment of the Hephaisteion," AJA 66, p. 339-347 1963 Review of V. Scully, TheEarth,the Templeand the Gods, New Haven and London 1962, Art Bulletin45, pp. 277-280



1964 "A ColossalMouldingin Athens," Xaptror-pIo Eus 'AaoraTa'o-ovK. 'OpX&v8o)'I, Athens,pp.314-323 "Some Consequencesof the Worshipof Heroes in Ancient Athens" (in modern Greek), Scientific Yearbookof the PhilosophicalSociety of the Universityof Athens,pp. 275-284

1965 "A Note on the Berlin Foundry Cup," Marsyas, Suppl. I, Essays in Honor of Karl Leh-

mann,New York,pp. 323-328 Review of A. N. Oikonomides, The TwoAgorasin AncientAthens, Chicago 1964, Archaeology 18, pp. 305-306

1966 "Activityin the AthenianAgora1960-1965,"Hesperia35, pp. 37-54 "TheAnnexto the Stoaof Zeus in the AthenianAgora,"Hesperia35, pp. 171-187 "ClassicalLands,"ProcPhilSoc 110, pp. 100-104 "SomeLibrariesin AncientAthens,"BrynMawrAlumnaeBulletin,pp.2-9 Review of A. N. Oikonomides, The Two Agoras in AncientAthens, Chicago 1964, JHS

86, p. 273 1967 Review of J. M. Cook and W. H. Plommer, The Sanctuaryof Hemitheaat Kastabos, Historians26, pp. 217London 1966, Journalof the Societyof Architectural

220 1968 "Activityin the AthenianAgora:1966-1967,"Hesperia38, pp. 36-72 1969 (withAlison Frantzand John Travlos)"The 'Templeof ApolloPythios'on Sikinos," AJA73, pp. 397-422 1971 "LucyTalcott(1889-1970),"Gnomon43, pp. 104-105 1972 Review of H. H. Busing, Die griechischeHalbsdule,Wiesbaden 1970, Art Bulletin54, pp.

537-539 "Sir John Beazley (1885-1970)," YearBook of the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety, pp.

115-121 (with R. E. Wycherley) The Agora of Athens:the History,Shape and Uses of an Ancient CityCenter,Princeton



1973 "Gisela M. A. Richter (1882-1972)," YearBook of the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety, pp. 144-150 Review of P. W. Lehmann, Samothrace,Volume3: The Hieron, Princeton 1969, Archaeology26, pp. 228-229 1974 "Some Recent Developments in the Excavation of the Athenian Agora," Transactions of the Royal Societyof Canada, ser. 4, 12, pp. 249-251 "WilliamBell Dinsmoor (1886-1973)," YearBook of the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety, pp. 156-163 1975 Review of J. A. Bungaard, The Excavationof the AthenianAcropolis,Copenhagen 1974, AJA 79, pp. 378-379 Review of P. Bernardet al., Fouillesd'AiKhanoumI, Memoiresde la DelegationArcheologiqueFrancaiseen AfghanistanXII, ArtibusAsiae 37, pp. 249-254 1977 "Dionysos among the Nymphs in Athens and in Rome," Journalof the WaltersArt Gallery36, pp. 73-84 1978 "A Golden Victory," A PortfoliohonoringHaroldHugo for his Contributionto Scholarly Printing,Essay No. 3, Meriden, Connecticut "Some Hero Shrines in Ancient Athens," AthensComes of Age:from Solon to Salamis, Papers of a Symposiumsponsored by the ArchaeologicalInstitute of America, Princetonchapter,and the Departmentof Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, Princeton, pp. 96-106 Review of Georges Vallet, Francoise Villard, and Paul Auberson, Megara Hyblaea, I, Le quartierde l'agoraarchadque,Paris 1976, ClassicalWorld72, pp. 122-123 Review of J. A. Bungaard,Parthenonand the MycenaeanCityon the Height, Copenhagen 1976, AJA 82, pp. 256-258 Review of R. E. Wycherley, The Stones of Athens, Princeton 1978, Archaeology31, pp. 63-65 1980 "In Pursuitof the Past: The AmericanRole 1879-1979," AJA 84, pp. 263-270 "John J. McCloy," ASCS Newsletter,Fall, p. 10 "Stone, Tile and Timber: Commerce in Building Materials in Classical Athens," Excpedition22, pp. 12-26 "The Tomb of ClytemnestraRevisited," FromAthensto Gordion:ThePapersof a Memorial Symposiumfor Rodney S. Young (UniversityMuseum Papers I), Philadelphia, pp. 3-15




"AthensFacesAdversity,"Hesperia50, pp. 343-355 "TheLibrariesof AncientAthens.,"TheSt. John'sReview32, pp. 1-16 "The Pnyx in Models," Hesperia, Suppl. XIX, Studiesin Attic Epigraphy,History,and

Princeton,pp. 133-147 Topography, 1982

"Architecture as a Mediumof PublicRelationsamongthe Successorsof Alexander," Studiesin theHistoryof ArtX, Washington,pp. 173-189


HE SUBJECTfor this articlegrewout of a recentconversationwith Mr. Thompson which centeredon the functionof terracottasculpture.'The subjectsof the conversationwere the terracottastatuetterecentlydiscoveredin the AthenianAgora and the freestandingdedicationsfrom the Sanctuaryof Demeterand Kore at Corinth.2 The questionraisedwaswhethera city like Athenswitha readysourceof marblewould decoration.The have modeledstatuesin clay for any purposebut that of architectural questionimplieda contrastwith Corinthwheremarblewas lackingand whereclaywas and freestandingsculpture.Given this hypothesis,the folused for both architectural lowingAtticpieceraisesinterestingproblems. A fragmentary statuemodeledin Attic clay was found in the earlyexcavationsof the AthenianAcropolis,was publishedin 1906 by W. Deonna,3and subsequentlywas neglected.The statue preservesthe lower part of a drapedfigure roughlyfrom the one-half life-size or slightlylarger.Deonna thighs to the plinth.It is approximately identifiedit as a standingfigureand, undoubtedlyhavingthe koraiin mind, considered it to be freestanding. The statueis mendedfrommanyjoiningfragmentsand partiallyrestoredin plaster. Left side and backare most complete;the rightside breaksoff shortlyabove the hem. The left foot is intactexcept for the tips of the toes. The right is missingbut can be restored.Now 0.325 m. in height as preserved,the statue is estimatedto have been 0.70 to 0.75 m. in height.4 Withmore parallelsnow fromwhichto draw,we can see that Deonna'sidentification was incorrect.The figureis not standingbut seated.It is seated with feet drawn II wish to express my warm thanks to Mr. G. Dontas, Ephor of the Acropolis, for giving me permission to publish this piece, and my special gratitudeto Mrs. M. Brouskari,Director of the Kanellopoulos Museum, for greatlyfacilitatingmy study of it. 2T. L. Shear, Jr., "The Athenian Agora:Excavationsof 1972," Hesperia42, 1973, pp. 401-402, pl. 75: a, b. For previous finds, R. Nicholls, "ArchitecturalTerracottaSculpturefrom the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 39, 1970, pp. 115-138. For the Corinthianmaterial, R. S. Stroud, "The Sanctuaryof Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth,PreliminaryReport II: 1964-1965," Hesperia37, 1968, p. 325, pl. 95:c, e; N. Bookidis, J. E. Fisher, "The Sanctuaryof Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth, PreliminaryReport IV: 19691970," Hesperia41, 1972, p. 317, pl. 63:a-d. The Corinthianmaterialwill be treated more fully in a forthcoming study on technique. 3Acropolis30. W. Deonna, Les statuesde terre-cuite en Grdce,Paris 1906, pp. 48-51, with referencesto previouspublication.Deonna cites a small draperyfragment,0.18 m. by 0.13 m., which I did not see. 4In greaterdetail, dimensions and preservationare as follows: P. H., left front, 0.305-0.31; back, 0.24; right side, 0.06 m. The left leg breaks off for 0.14 m. above the knee, while the preserved edge of the upper torso begins 0.21 m. from the knee, breaking off shortly thereafter. The plaster restorationsare especiallyextensive on the left side near the back where the uppertorso breaksoff. The restoredcurvature visible in side and back views is probablyexcessive.



backso that kneesand toe tips are on the same frontalplane.The feet are spreadapart andturnedslightlyoutwards.The left thigh,the outersurfaceof whichhas splitawayto exposethe underlyingcore, is not quitehorizontalbut risesvery slightlyfromthe knee towardthe hips.The beginningof the erect uppertorso is preservedat the backupper break.Alongthe outsideof the left thighthe bodywallappearsto thickenconsiderably at the pointwherethe outersurfaceof claybreaksoff.5Whilethe coarseclaycurvesup and in to block out the nearlyhorizontalthigh, the outer layer appearsto continue vertically.Althoughit is possiblethat this divergenceis due to somethingwhichonce restedon the lap, it is morelikelythatit relatesto the positionof the left arm.The arm may have been poisedabove the leg and slightlyto one side but connectedto it by a fall of drapery.Exceptingthe placementof the feet, the positioncan be paralleledin the LateArchaicmarbleseatedstatuefromPlateiaEleutherias,now in the NationalMuseum in Athens.6 The figurewearsa chitonwhichis visiblebetweenthe lowerlegs (PI. 1:a). A few surfaceripples,more apparentto the touch than to the eye, stretchfrom leg to leg to give the materialtexture.The remainingdetailsare not modeledbut only painted.A broadblackstripedefinesthe parypheof the chiton a little to the properrightof the centralaxis. A narrowerblackstripewith thin outer reservedline decoratesthe hem. Wherethe parypheand hem meet is a painted,doublezigzagfold. The remainderof the chitonis a lightred brown. The himationhangsdown the axis of the left leg in a series of modeled,stacked zigzagfolds.Theyendjust abovethe left anklein a tassle.On the properleft side three shallowlyincisedlines curve up and backfrom the calf towardsthe lap (P1.1:b). Too little is preservedof the left side behindthis pointor of the rightto knowwhetherthe remainingsurfacewas modeled.The backis not. The blackand reservedborderof the hem curvesdown over the ankleand chitonto encirclethe entire base of the statue.7 On the rightside the borderbeginsto curveupwardtowardthe missingrightankleas if to meet a similarfall of stackedfoldson the rightleg. The himationis a darkershadeof red brownthanthe chiton.8 The preservedanatomicalmodelingis confinedto the left foot and is quite skillfullydone.Tracesof red paintedstrapson the firsttwo toes andpossiblyover the instep suggestthat the feet were sandaled.The foot is slenderthroughthe instep (W. 0.048 m.), widening through the ball with a pronounced convex curve (W. 0.073 m.). The

toes are parallelto each other, includingthe little one, and the big toe may be very slightlylonger.They are long, slenderand bony.Thereis some modelingof the meta5Thisbreakis plasteredand cannot be fully examined. 6W. H. Schuchhardt,"SitzenderDionysos," AntP VI, 1967, pp. 7-20. 7Deonna, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), p. 50, thought that the hem of the chiton continued around the statue. It is clear, however, that above the right ankle the himationcovers the chiton. The borderis largely obliteratedaroundthe back but can be followed. 8MunsellSoil Color Charts, Baltimore 1973, slightly redder than lOR 3/2. The surfaces of both garments are worn, and it may be that the presentdifferencesin color were not originallyso obvious.



tarsalbones.In profilethe foot makesa continuouslydescendingline fromthe ankleto nearthe missingtoe tips.The surfaceof the foot is well polished. Surroundingthe statue is a thin solid plinth ca. 0.01-0.02 m. in thicknesswith plainverticaledge (P1.L:c).9The plinthprojects0.01 m. beyondthe backof the statue, 0.03-0.033 m. beyondthe sides, and was probablyflush with the toes. It is 0.308 m. from side to side, 0.324 m. front to back.The surfaceof the plinthis roughand unpainted.In the preservedportionsthere are no nail holes for attachmentto another surface. With the exceptionof the solid foot, the statueis hollow (P1.L:d).The wallsare extremelythin (Th. 0.015-0.025m.). Althoughthe interiorsurfaceand floor are covered with plasterand can no longer be examined,it is unlikelythat the piece was thrownon a wheel, as Deonna thought.10 In plan the statue is not circularbut more with flattenedsides and frontface." It was undoubtedlybuiltup by horseshoe-shaped, hand by means of long stripsand wads of clay, the joints of which were smoothed thereafterand coveredon the exteriorwithfine clay.How the plinthwas handledwithin the bodycavitycannotnow be determined.Most likely,the bottomof the statuewas eitherentirelyopen, or largelyso, in orderto facilitatecirculationof air duringfiring. The two colors,red brownand black,combinedwith reservedgroundto give a threecolorsystem,wereappliedbeforefiring. The clay from which the statue was modeledis coarseat the core with a dense admixtureof darkinclusionsand has fireda rosy to purplishred.12The basicmodeling of the form is executedin this clay. Over it is a coat of fine clay withoutinclusions whichvariesin thicknessfroma thin skin to 0.005 m. It has firedto a graybuff.13The fine clay is employedfor the modelingof finer surfacedetails. As Deonna also remarked,the clayis Attic. The generalappearanceof the statue is extremelysimple. What little modeling there is, is concentratedon the frontface. Paintis used as a shortcut to modeling,as exemplifiedby the treatmentof the parypheas well as of the hem of bothgarments.On the properleft side the draperyrises to expose the entire foot, yet the foot is only modeledfrom the instep forward.It is as if the sculptororiginallyhad intendedto representthe himationdrapingover the foot, as is morecustomary,but then paintedin 90f the plinth the front half of the right side, most of the front, and the back left corner are missing. The plinth has been mounted on a plaster slab for better support, but the underside can no longer be examined. 10Deonna,op. cit. (footnote 3 above), p. 50. Because of the plastertechnicalobservationsare limited. This is regretablewith regard to the problem of interior struts. Terracottastatues were generally built without an armature,but not infrequentlyin the Archaic period a thin clay wall was built from front to back up the center of the statue in order to prevent the walls from collapsing.Such a wall occurs in the Zeus-Ganymedefrom Olympiaand might be expected in the Acropolispiece. "In the view from above (PI. 1:d) the statue looks oval but the restorationof the properleft back is misleading. 1210R 4/3, an approximatereadingsince the surfaceswere difficultto approach. 13Afresh chip in the knee is ca. 10YR 5-6/4.



the hem at a higherlevel, therebycreatinga plainstretchof bodywallextendingdown to the plinth.The statue,moreover,is extremelycompact.The plinthis almostsquare. The sides of the statueare aboutflushwith the edge of the plinth.The feet are turned out to fill the frontcornersof the plinth. Large-scaleseated statuesare uncommonin terracotta,possiblybecausethey are more complexstructurally than standingfigures.Apartfrom the seated statueswhich restedon the ridgecovertiles of earlyEtruscanbuildings,"4 threeexamplesare known, andall threearefromthe GreekWest.The firstfromGrammichelein Sicily,0.73 m. in height,is thatof a very simplyexecutedwomanon a largeblockseat whichhas flaring ends.15The second,0.98 m. in height,fromthe samesite andalso female,is elaborately enthronedand attired,indeedtoo muchso for usefulcomparisonwith our piece.16The thirdwasfoundat Paestumandrepresentsa drapedandbeardedman, 0.905m. or more in height.Althoughthe arrangement of the draperyis differentfrom ours, the oblique placementof the lowerlegs is similar,as is also the generalsparenessin the renderingof details.The Paestumstatuehas been datedon stylisticgroundsto ca. 530B.C."7 Terracottasculptureas a categoryis ratherdifficultto date in absolute terms. Bronzeaffordsthe best comparisons,but large-scalebronzestatuesare rarein the 6th centuryB.C. Whileclayexhibitsthe generaltendenciesof stone workin this period,it tends to be simplerin execution.Such is clearlythe case when the treatmentof the The draperyof our statue is comparedwith examplesin marblefrom the Acropolis.18 amountof surfacedetailis muchless. Thereis little attemptto distinguishone garment from anotherand virtuallyno attemptto indicatethe anatomybeneaththe drapery. Nevertheless,sincestone sculptureis moreabundant,we must look to it for parallelsin the executionof specificdetails. As we notedin the beginning,the pose of our statueresemblesthat of the marble figure from Plateia Eleutheria,dated to ca. 530-525 B.C., more particularlywhen viewedin profile.It differsfrom the more commonpose of the statuefrom Grammichele, in whichlowerand upperlegs are at rightanglesto each other. A furtherlikeness betweenthe two statuescan be found in the way in which the feet of both are modeled.The contoursare similar,as is the treatmentof the toes. The terracottafeet 141.EdlundGantz, "The Seated Statue Akroteriafrom Poggio Civitate (Murlo)," Dialoghidi archeologia 6, 1972, pp. 167-235. 15p. Orsi, "D'una citta'greca a Terravecchiapresso Granmichelein provinciadi Catania," MonAnt7, 1897, cols. 217-220, pl. III. 16p. Orsi, "Anathematadi una citta'sicula-greca,"MonAnt18, 1908, cols. 136-145, pls. IV, V. 17p. C. Sestieri, "Statue fittile di Posidonia," BdA 1955, pp. 193-202. Feet and base are missing. Found near the north side of the "Neptune"Temple, the statue was tentativelyidentifiedas a cult statue. In view of the elaborateand unusual architecturalterracottasthat have been found at Paestum in recent years, one cannot overlook the possibilitythat the statue belonged on a roof. Cf. P. C. Sestieri, "Terrecotte Posidoniati,"BdA 1963, pp. 212-220. der Akropolis,Frank"8H.Schrader,E. Langlotz,W. H. Schuchhardt,Die archaischenMarmorbildwerke furt 1939, pp. 107-116, 207-212. The closest, if any may be so-called, is Acropolis655, p. 107, no. 57, figs. 63-64, a statuette identified as Cybele. The chiton has a double stacked fold, while the himation falls symmetricallyover both legs. It is dated to ca. 550 B.C.



may have a sharperinclinationin profile.The stackedzigzagfolds of the himationcan be paralleledin a terracottastatue of a standingdrapedmale from Corinth,dated to about the same time as the marblepiece.19A date in the late third or early fourth quarterof the 6th centuryis also in keepingwith the colorscheme,the use of predominantlycoarseclay,andwiththe consistentlythinwalls,if Corinthianstandardsapply. We come to the question of the statue's function. It could have served as a free-

standingvotive, as Deonnahadsuggested,a freestandingcult image,or an architectural element.Seatedvotive statuesin marbleare not uncommonon the Acropolis.Thirteen fragmentsare listed by Langlotz.Ourstatue, however,shows a majordifferencewhen comparedwith those. The seat or stool on whichour figuresat is not represented.We understandthe pose fromthe positionof the legs, andwe must assumethat the seat is coveredby the continuoushem of the himation.20 Indeed,when comparedto all other seatedstatues,largeand small,in marble,limestoneand terracotta,our statueremains uniquein this respect.21 This omissionis disturbingin a freestandingdedicationwhich would have been subjectto closer scrutiny.It impliesthat what was requiredwas a simpleoutlineof the pose withoutthe accouterments.It is clearfrom the handlingof the foot, moreover,thatour sculptorwas not unskillful.He simplytook shortcuts. A technicalobservationmay also be revealing,althoughtoo little is as yet known aboutthe specificpracticesof terracottamodelingto be certainof its validity.Corinthian freestandingstatuesof this periodare made in one with a hollowbox plinthopen on the bottom.Examplesof such can be seen in the Warriorand the Athenagroupsfrom Olympia.22The thin, solid, slab plinth of our seated figure differs and is to be paralleled

in a specifickindof architectural sculpture,as we shallsee below. The shorthandiconography,then, combinedwith the structureof the base, argues againstDeonna'sinterpretation and againstthe possibilityof a veneratedcult image.23 We returnto our initialqueryandto the subjectof architectural decoration. Despitethe excellentparallelsprovidedby the seatedZeus and Herain the Introductionpedimentfromthe Acropolis,it is unlikelythatour statuestood in a pediment. In the Archaicperiod,groupcompositionsin clay were workedin units of severalfig'9R. S. Stroud, loc. cit. (footnote 2 above).

20Tosuggest that the figure is merely squattingis to disregardthe postion of the thighs and to call to mind bodily functionsnot befittinga sanctuary. 2ITogive a corpusof seated statues is beyond the limits of this article.Useful references to late Archaic examples are in B. S. Ridgway, The ArchaicStyle in GreekSculpture,Princeton 1977, pp. 121-139; J. Boardman,GreekSculpture,TheArchaicPeriod,London 1978; W. Fuchs, Die Skulpturder Griechen,Munich 1979, pp. 248-258. For figurines,F. Winter, Die TypenderJfigirlichenTerrakotten I, Berlin 1903. Even the limestone kourotrophosfrom MegaraHyblaia,which might be describedas overridinglyfrontal, is seated on a block seat. Cf. G. V. Gentili, "MegaraHyblaia,"NSc 8, 1954, p. 99, fig. 24. 22E.Kunze, "Terracottaplastik," OlBerV, Berlin 1956, pp. 114-127, pis. 74, 75; E. Kunze, "Terracottaplastik,"OlBerVI, Berlin 1958, pp. 169-188, pls. 77, 78. 23Beforeleaving the subject of freestandingsculpture,we should note a reference of Pausanias(i.2.5) to clay statues depictingAmphiktyonfeasting with Dionysos and other gods, which stood in an oikema in the Kerameikos.Although the citation is tantalizing,the statues, if such they were and not large reliefs, were undoubtedlynot Archaicand need not have been of Attic manufacture.



ureswhichstood, again,on the hollowbox plinth.We have mentionedthe Warriorand Athena groupsfrom Olympia.Even more fitting an analogyis the Amazonomachy pedimentfrom Corinthwhichunites at least three figuresof nearlytwo-thirdslife-size on a singlebox plinthY14 A self-contained statueon a thin slabplinthwouldnot be out of placeas an acroteFew Archaicbuildingspreserveevidence rion but probablynot as an apex acroterion.Y5 for the workingsof the apex.Two whichdo, however,are the laterTempleof Aphaia at Aigina26 and the Templeof Apolloat Karthaia,Keos.27On both buildingsthe acroterion is carvedin one with, or fitted onto, a gabledplinthwhich, in turn, fits into a cuttingin the roof. At Karthaiathe cuttingin the roof beamalso slopesgentlyto both fromOlymsides. Gabledplinthsalso can be foundin clay, as on the Zeus-Ganymede at an angle latter The of the rises from Corinth. Nike plinth a pia,28andon fragmentary In otherwords,we shouldexpectthe plinthof an apex acroteof ca. eleven degrees.29 rionto slope. this worksout well. A terraWe are thus left witha corneracroterion.Structurally, Behind cotta sima from Kalydonprovidesus with a good exampleof the technique.30 base with sunkenfloorinto whichis set the the cornerlion-headspoutis a rectangular flat plinthof the acroterion.The Kalydonslab plinthwhich is still leaded into place preservesthe fourpawsof a sphinx. A quicksurveyof other such bases for acroteriashows that there is no fixed rule abouttheir size. Oursis unusualin that it is squareand thereforemassive.Its maxi24R.Stillwell, "A TerracottaGroup at Corinth," ClassicalStudiesPresentedto EdwardCapps,Princeton 1936, pp. 318-322. S. S. Weinberg, "TerracottaSculptureat Corinth," Hesperia26, 1957, pp. 306-307, no. 8. of ArchaicGreekAkroteria, 251regret that the dissertationof MarilynGoldberg, Typesand Distribution cf. K. Volkert, Das Akroter treatment, earlier an For me. to diss. BrynMawrCollege 1977, was unavailable 1932. Frankfurt Zeit, I, Archaische Baukunst, griechischen der besonders in derAntiken 26A.Furtwingler, Aegina,Munich 1906, pp. 274-295, pl. 47. The predecessorof this temple, from the first half of the century, shows a differentsystem. The acroterionis a large palmetteplaquewhich becomes the apex of the sima. Cf. E. L. Schwandner,"Der iltere Aphaiatempelauf Aegina," Neue Forschungenin griechischenHeiligtimern,TUbingen 1976, p. 111, fig. 8. A marble floral acroterion from the Athenian Acropolisis cut at the bottom to fit either onto the sima or onto a gabled base, T. Wiegand, Die archaische derAkropoliszu Athen,Cassel 1904, p. 182, fig. 191. Finally, a diagonalcutting in the peak Poros-architektur of the SiphnianTreasuryis mentioned but not describedfully. Cf. P. de la Coste-Messeliere,Ch. Picard, FdD IV, ii, Paris 1928, p. 165. 27AEXT, 1963, XpovLKa (19651,pp. 281-282, pl. 327:c. 28Kunze,OlBerV (footnote 22 above), pp. 103-114, pls. 57-62. The Zeus-Ganymedehas been identified both as a freestandinggroup and as an acroterion.Most recently as an acroterion, cf. A. Mallwitz, OlympiaundseineBauten,Munich 1972, p. 36. 29S. S. Weinberg, op. cit. (footnote 24 above), p. 312, no. 27.1, pl. 69, who did not note that the plinth actuallyslopes. If we are correct in assuming that apex acroteriain the Archaicperiod had gabled plinths, then compositions such as the Silene and Maenad from Olympia, originallyplaced at the apex, must be relegatedto the angles, cf. G. Treu, Olympia,III, Die BildwerkevonOlympiain Steinund Thon,Berlin 1897, pp. 35, 37-40, pls. VII.2, 3, VIII.1, 2. Athens 1951, pp. 73-74, figs. 52, 53. E. Dyggve, Das Laph30K.Rhomaios, KEapao rrjcKaXv&Cvoo, rion, Copenhagen1948, p. 173, figs. 177-180, pl. XXII:C.



mum length, however, is no greater than that of several other acroteria and much smaller than the horse-and-ridergroup from the Athenian Treasuryat Delphi.3" Vitruvius (iii.5.12) recommended that angle acroteriaequal the height of the tympanum while central acroteriashould exceed it by one eighth. If such a canon existed in the Archaic period,32then we should expect to find a small building with a pedimental height of ca. 0.70 to 0.75 m. for our statue, or about the size of the Red Triton and Hydra pediments from the Acropolis. If there was no such relation, then the building could have been even larger.Given the date and materialof our statue, we should also associate it with a sima of the so-called black-figure"Wellensima" type in terracotta. Regrettablythe examples of this type from the Acropolis are extremely fragmentary.33 No direct attributionscan be made. If Schuchhardtis correct in associatingthe series of small marble simas with the small decorated poros pediments,34then our statue can belong with none of the latter. We are left with an unknown small structure of the second half of the 6th century.35 We have not discussed the identity of the figure, a problem perhapsas elusive as the building on which it stood. Although parallelsexist for seated men who wear chiton and himation, our statue is undoubtedlyfemale. This is suggested by the short draping of the himation which does not completely cover the upperlegs but falls open to expose the chiton. The difference is apparentwhen one compares the statue from Paestum or the Zeus from the Introduction pediment with any of the seated females from the Acropolis. Our statue could represent Athena who is often depicted sitting. Without some attribution,however, this can only be a supposition.More importantis the question of whether her stance is significant.The customaryposition for a seated figure is with legs and feet together or closely set. Some of the later Milesian statues show legs parted, presumably to allow more room for elaboration of the drapery.36The spread of our statue's legs is greater and is accentuated by the outward turn of the feet and by the 31Afew comparativemeasurementsare as follows: Kalydon, 0.164 x 0.245 m., Dyggve, op. cit. (footnote 30 above); Aigina, Temple of Aphaia, 0.25 x 0.33 m., Furtwdngler,op. cit. (footnote 26 above); MegarianTreasury,ca. 0.18 x 0.255 m. The best preservedof the acroteriafrom the AthenianTreasuryis at least 0.80 m. long, 0.30 m. wide and 0.95 m. high. Cf. P. de la Coste-Messeliere, FdD IV, iv, Paris 1957, pp. 182-187. 32Fora discussion of this question, P. Lehmann, Samothrace,3, TheHieronI, Princeton 1969, p. 351 and note 183, p. 386 and note 235. 33E.Buschor, Die Tonddcher derAkropolis,I, Die Simen, Leipzig 1929, pp. 16-19. 34W. H. Schuchhardt,"ArchaischeBauten auf der Akropolis von Athen," AA (JdI 78), 1963, cols. 797-822. It is interestingto note that none of the corner pieces appearsto preserve any evidence for the attachmentof an acroterion. 35Forthe most recent summaryof the problemsof the small buildings, S. Bancroft, ProblemsConcerning the ArchaicAcropolisat Athens, diss. Princeton University 1977, University Microfilms7920425, pp. 46-57. Discussions of the Acropolisbuildingsgenerallydo not take into account the terracottasimas published by Buschor, op. cit. (footnote 33 above). 36K.Tuchelt, Die archaischenSkulpturenvonDidyma,Berlin 1970. Among the later statues with spread feet are his K60, p. 90, pl. 59; K63, p. 92, pl. 61; L95, L96, L99, L100, pls. 85, 86.



fainthorizontalripplesof the chiton.It calls to mind the stanceof a matureor elderly woman.It is tempting,moreover,to think that the pose is determinedby something held in the lap, suchas a child,and to view the statueas a representation of a kourotrophos. Kourotrophos is a fittingsubjectfor the Acropolis.Pausanias(i.22.3) mentionsa Sanctuaryof Ge Kourotrophos which stood near the entranceto the Acropolis,and, accordingto a late source,Erichthonios decreedthatall sacrificesmustbe precededby a sacrificeto Ge Kourotrophos.37 Thereare two problemswithsuch an identification. Suchconsciouscharacterization of maturityis unusualin Archaicart.It is furtherunlikelythatan Archaicbabyplaced on an Archaiclap wouldcause the legs to spreadand the draperyto pull.Ourprimary large-scaleexample,the limestonekourotrophos fromMegaraHyblaia,is interestingin this respect.38 Althoughshe nursestwo babies,her legs couldbe those of any simple, seatedfigure.The emphasisis on her breasts. If the explanationis not iconographic-andwe have not exhaustedthe possibilities-it could be stylistic.The.sculptorchose the compositionin orderto give an ima pressionof bulkandmassiveness.At the same time, he couldgive the superstructure broad,firmfoundationwhilekeepingthe thinbodywallswhichfiremoreeasily. We are still left with the questionof why a seatedfigureshouldhave been placed on the roof of a buildingon the Acropolis.We generallyassociateacroteriawith movement, strengthor action.Thus, we have wingedfiguresand animalsor scenes of rape It may be that the reasonfor and combat.We do not thinkof passiverepresentations. of the our subjectis to be soughtin the realmof Atheniancultsand in the topography Acropolis,a separatestudyin itself. The answer to our opening query may well be no, as Mr. Thompson suggested.

ArchaicAthenians,unlikeArchaicCorinthians,may have used clay only for architecturaldecoration.Havingansweredthatquestion,however,we must still finda placefor our statue. NANCY BooKIDIS EXCAVATIONS CORINTH

37Eitrem,s. v. Gaia, RE VII, 1910, cols. 467-479. L. Deubner, AttischeFeste, Berlin 1966, p. 27, for sacrifices. 38G.V. Gentili, op. cit. (footnote 21 above). Acropolis 655 (footnote 18 above) is a further case in point. The attribute,a lion(?), is simply placedon her lap.


A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' -7

b. Left side

a. Front

.pg NAY

c. Back



above from ed. .* View ,, t


DROUGHTAND FAMINE IN THE 4TH CENTURYB.C.* XCAVATIONSIN THE AGORA have broughtto light much informationconcerningthe watersupplyof Athens, fromgrandiosefountainhouses to the humblest of wells cut into the soft gray-greenbedrockwhichunderliesmost of the city. The evidenceillustratesthe continuouseffortandingenuityrequiredof the Atheniansto provide the largepopulationof Greece'sgreatestcity with a reliablesupplyof water.As a resultof the excavationsin the Agoraand elsewhere,it is now possibleto reconstruct the long historyof the supply.When viewed againstthis background,certainperiods standout as beingespeciallynoteworthy;the late 8th century,for instance,whenAthens sufferedthe effectsof a severe drought,and the 6th century,when the Peiapparently sistratidsprovidedthe city with the famed Enneakrounosand other fountainhouses.1 Anotherperiodof interestis the 4th centuryB.C., especiallythe secondand thirdquarters, when the Athenianspaid particularly intense attentionto the problemof water supply,both publicand private.The archaeological evidencesuggeststhat duringthis periodthe city sufferedthe effectsof a prolongeddryspellor drought. E


In the Agora,a largefountainhouse was constructedin the southwestcorner.The buildingis in a pitiablestate of disrepairand its very identification as a fountainhouse dependson the great stone aqueductwhich broughtwater to the buildingfrom the east.2The channellies underneaththe road which runs along the south side of the Agoraand since its discoveryin the 1930'shas been tracedfor some 220 meters,from the fountainhouse eastwardto the limits of the excavatedarea of the archaeological zone. The source of the line has never been determined.As preserved,it was built throughoutwith large limestoneslabs for floor, walls, and cover, and it is the most substantialwaterline yet discoveredat Athens.3Of the fountainhouse it supplied,only *It is a pleasureto dedicate this to Homer A. Thompson, a mentor and friend for so many years. His long and varied career began with a study of the ancient grain trade, and I hope that the present piece, concernedas it is with both grainand the Agora, will be seen as an appropriatecontributionto this volume in his honor. 'For the 8th-centurydrought:Hesperia48, 1980, pp. 397-411; for the Peisistratidfountain houses: R. E. Wycherley, TheAthenianAgora, III, Literaryand Epigraphical Testimonia,Princeton 1957, pp. 137-142, and Doro Levi, "Enneakrounos,"ASAtene39-40, n.s. 23-24, 1961-1962, pp. 149-171. 2For the fountain and its aqueduct:H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, TheAthenianAgora, XIV, TheAgoraof Athens,Princeton1972, pp. 200-201, with earlierreferences. 3The inner dimensions of the aqueductare ca. 1.28 m. high by 0.50 m. wide, large enough for a man to walk through.Waterwas carriedin a channel in the floor ca. 0.30 m. wide by 0.16-0.30 m. deep.



survive.These, however,are the foundationsand a few blocksof the superstructure enoughto give some idea of the basicplanof the building.A smallsquarecourtin the northwestcorner,pavedwith stone slabs and open to the sky, gave accessthrougha colonnadedporchof unflutedDoriccolumnsat the southand east to a largedrawbasin. The drawbasin was separatedfrom the porchby a low parapet,over whichwatercould be drawn.The parapetwas supportedat intervalsby unflutedcolumnssimilarto those used in the exteriorcolonnade.The drawbasinwas L-shaped,with a floor areaof just over 100 squaremeters.The foundationswere of soft yellowlimestone,the lowerpart of the superstructure, of hardgrayPiraeuslimestone.Detailsof constructionabovethe stylobateare obscure. Recent excavationsby Homer Thompsonwere carrieddown to bedrock,and a bowlwas foundin the floorpackingof the northwestcourt.It is of a smallblack-glazed typegenerallydatedto the middleof the 4th centuryB.C. or slightlylater.Fragmentary potteryfromunderthe floorin the same areaseems also to dateto the thirdquarterof the century.4 and the lackof any ancientreferenceto it, the southDespiteits poorpreservation west fountainhouse representsa significantadditionto the Athenianwatersupply.It lay in a prominentlocationnear to both the Agoraand a majorcrossroadswhichlies just to the southwest.Its dimensionsshowit to be the largestfountainyet discoveredin Athens. It was clearlyan importantpublicproject,perhapsto be associatedwith the Combinedwith its impressivesupply of eitherEuboulosor Lykourgos.5 administration aqueduct,the buildingis the principalhydraulicundertakingof its era, matchingin scopethe Mycenaeanfountainandthe Peisistratidsystemof earliertimes.6 Justwithinthe citywalls,set up againstthe innerside of the Dipylongate, thereis a fountainhouse whichfirstcameto lightin the 1870's.The entireplatformof the building is preserved,and numerousclamps,dowels,settinglines, and weatheringmarkson the uppersurfacepermita secure restorationof most of the building.7The fountain measured8.00 m. north-southby 11.25m. east-west.It hadan L-shapedbasinalongthe the buildingfrom the northand west, suppliedby a stone aqueductwhichapproached areain the southwestcornergave accessto the basinand was north.A marble-paved 4P 27562: H. 0.035 in., diam. 0.074 m. Complete, mended from several pieces. Small black-glazed bowl with thick incurvedwall and high ring foot. Thin black glaze; very worn, reddish brown clay. Similar to L. Talcott and B. Sparkes, The AthenianAgora, XII, Black and Plain Pottery,nos. 945-950, dated ca. 350-325 B.C. Also potterylots, Section K, nos. 346 and 347. 5G. L. Cawkwellhas suggested that Euboulos may have served as water commissioner: "Eubulus," JHS 83, 1963, pp. 47-67. Lykourgosseems likely on generalgrounds as the instigatorof numerous public buildingprojects:F. W. Mitchel, LykourganAthens,338-322, Lecturesin Memoryof Louise TqftSemple,2nd ser., Universityof Cincinnati1970, pp. 34-35, 48-49. 6For the Mycenaeanfountainon the Acropolis:0. Broneer, "A MycenaeanFountainon the Athenian Acropolis,"Hesperia8, 1939, pp. 317-433. See footnote 1 above for the Peisistratidhydraulicinstallations. 7G. von Alten, "Die Thoranlagenbei der HagiaTriadazu Athen," AthMitt3, 1878, pp. 37-39 and pl. IV; also G. Gruben, "Die Ausgrabungenim Kerameikos,"AA (JdI 79), 1964, p. 407 and idem, "Dipylon und Brunnenhaus,"AA (JdI 84), 1969, p. 39. Final publicationby ProfessorG. Gruben is in progress.



itself enteredfrom the south througha colonnadeof three columns.Wearin the floor suggestsplacesof easy access to the basin or the positionof spouts cut throughthe parapet.As a resultof recentexcavations,the fountainhousehas been datedto the third quarterof the 4th centuryB.C., accordingto the dateof the ceramicmaterial. sourcesrefer to other In additionto these two fountains,literaryand epigraphical hydraulicinstallationsin this periodas well. Most strikingof all is the monumental This was a largesupplyline apparently designedto bringwater "Acharnianaqueduct".8 to Athens from severalspringson the lower slopes of Mount Parnes,some 18 kilometersto the northof Athens.Fourinscriptionsattestits existence.These recordwater rights, collectinggalleries,and rightsof way for the conduitwhich were sold to the commissionersof the project.Largesums of moneyare recordedas havingbeen paidto propertyowners,and thereis reasonto believethat the oratorDeinarchoswas calledin ownerin a lawsuitover the aqueto arguethe commissioners'case againsta recalcitrant duct.By plottingthe findspotsof the four inscriptionsit has been possibleto show that the channelran from the slopesof Parnesalongthe line of the Kephissosrivervalley. Thoughit is not possibleto pointto any remainswhichcanwith certaintybe associated have takenthe formof a tunneldriventhrough with the aqueduct,it wouldpresumably when one rebedrock.It must have been an impressivefeat of engineering,particularly membersthat at this early periodthe aqueductwould have been a gravity-flowline throughoutits entirelength.' The careerof Deinarchosis confinedto the last thirdof the 4th century,and the letter formsof the inscriptionspointto the same datesIt has been suggestedthat the projectis to be associatedwith the surgeof buildingactivitycarriedout at the time of Lykourgos(338-326 B.C.,footnote5 above).The Athens'greatfinancialadministrator, largesums of moneypaidand the greatlengthof the systemboth indicatethat this was a majorpublicprojectof the firstorder,designedto increasethe watersupplyof the city in the secondhalfof the 4th centuryB.C. Finally,a decree of the year 333/2 B.C.honors one Pytheasof Alopeke for his performanceas watercommissioner.He was awardeda gold crownworth 1000 drachmas for repairinga fountainat the Amphiareionat Oroposand for buildinga new fountainin Athens or Piraeus.10 It is worthnotingbrieflythe prominenceof the water commissionersat this time. The positionwas one of the very few in the Athenian democracywhichwas electiveand not allotted(Aristotle,Ath. Pol. 43.1); the job was simplytoo importantto leave to chance.Pytheasand possiblyone other commissioner 8The Acharnianaqueducthas been brought to light by Eugene Vanderpool,a friend and teacher also being honored in 1981 on the occasion of his 75th birthday:"The AcharnianAqueduct,"Xapxr ptowvEL 'AvarTaratovK. 'OpXavov I, Athens 1965, pp. 166-175. On p. 174 he notes Athenian concern over water supplyat this period. 9The earliest pressureline that I am awareof from Athens dates to the second half of the 3rd century B.C.: Agora inv. no. A 2295, M. Lang, Waterworks in the AthenianAgora, Agora Picture Book No. 11, Princeton1968, no. 24. '01G II2, 338. The fountain was set up in front of a temple of Ammon, but otherwise the location is not specified.



are the only two knownto have been honored,both in the thirdquarterof the 4th centuryB.c."1 PRIVATESUPPLY

An interestingphenomenonoccursin the patternof privatewatersupplyat this same time. The bottle-shapedcisternreplacesthe well as the standardsourceof supply in privatehouses.As the nameimplies,these cisternstakethe formof a bottleor flask, startingwith a verticalroundshaft ca. 0.80-0.90 m. in diameter,openingout to 2.505.50 m. acrossat the bottom.They are anywherefrom threeto seven metersdeep, for the most partcut throughthe soft bedrockand lined with a thick coat of waterproof cement.Oftenthereare archedtunnelsleadingout of them, some intendedto connect one cisternto another,otherssimplyto provideincreasedcapacity.Such cisternswere designedto collectand store rainwateroff roofs, and with one or two exceptionsthey are foundin the courtyardsof privatehouses.They are a standardfeatureof Athenian domesticarchitecturethroughoutthe Hellenisticperiod,and no fewer than 140 have come to light in the residentialdistrictsaroundthe Agora;others are known from elsewherein the city. The natureof their construction(cut into bedrock)and the fact that they were apparentlycleanedout with some regularitymake precisedatingdifficult.A construcfor dates we are tion date or even a periodof use is consequentlyoften unobtainable; it ceased to be used. We a at the time into cistern thrown the material on dependent maysupposethata cisternwas in use immediatelybeforeits abandonment,but thereis no wayof determiningthe lengthof time it mayhave been in use. The earliestcisterns aroundthe Agoraseem to have been filledup aboutthe middleof the 4th centuryB.C., They become and this suggeststheiruse as earlyas the secondquarterof the century.12 commonthereafter,into the Hellenisticperiod. increasingly This new developmentis complementedby an interestingpatternamongthe wells. 'Some 28 wellsare knownto have been in use in the 4th the areaaround the Agora.Only 13 wells have been foundwhichwere in use in the 3rdcentury,however. The tremendousdecreasein the numberof wells in use betweenthe 4th and 3rd centuries,combinedwith the introductionof cisterns,suggestsa radicalchangein the "In additionto the decree in honor of Pytheas, a second decree (IG II2, 215) honors one Kephisodoros, son of Kallias,of Hagnousfor his performanceas water commissioner (? restored), in 346/5 B.C. The water supply was a matter of considerableimportancein earlier times as well, and prominent men con31), cerned themselves with the problemthroughoutthe 5th century:Themistokles (Plutarch, Themistokles Kimon (Plutarch,Kimon13), and Perikles (IG I2, 54). In additionto Pytheasand Kephisodorosin the 4th century, see also footnote 5 above. '2Fourcisternsin the Agora (F 19: 2, L 17: 6, Q 13-14: 1, and R 18: 2) were filled in the years around 350 B.C. Similarcisterns are reportedfrom Olynthos:D. M. Robinson, Excavationsat Olynthus,XIII, DoBaltimore1946, pp. 307-309, pls. 101 and 123. As only eight were discovmesticand PrivateArchitecture, cleared, it seems likely that the cistern was a relativelyrecent develop100 than houses ered in the more ment at the time the city was destroyedin 348 B.C.



watertableceasedto be tappedto the privatewatersupplyof the city.The underground greatextent it had been for centuries,and effortswere made to collectand save rainThe mainimplicationof this developmentwouldseem waterfromthe roofsof houses."3 to be thatwaterwas increasingly difficultto find.This is not a suddenshift but rathera gradualone, startingin the yearsaroundthe middleof the 4th centuryB.C. andcontinuing throughoutthe rest of the century. Thusconsiderableactivityconcerningthe watersupplyof the city is apparentin the 4th centuryB.C.,particularly the thirdquarter.As noted, for the publicsupplywe have no fewer than four majorhydraulicinstallationsat this time: the southwestfountain house, the Dipylonfountainhouse, the Acharnianaqueduct,and the fountainbuiltby at Pytheas.These presenta concentratedexpansionof hydraulicresourcesunparalleled any periodin Athens with the possibleexceptionof the 6th century,under the Peisistratids.14 Largenew fountainswere built and waterwas broughtin from as far away as MountParnes.This publicconcernis complementedin the privatesectorby a gradual shift from wells to cisternsduringthis period.The watertable apparentlysank too low to be tappedeasily,and whateverrainfell was caughtfrom the roofs and carefully hoarded.15The likeliest explanationof these developments is that Athens experienced a droughtin the 4th centuryB.C. The archaeologicalevidence may be supplemented by literary and epigraphical

sourceswhichshed furtherlighton this droughtand its effect on the historyof Athens and the rest of Greece.Its originsmay well be noted in a passagefrom Demosthenes (vs. Polykles,61): 13Regularrainfall,of course, is requiredto keep the ground water at an accessible level. During a dry spell in 1977, the water level in an unused well in the village of Ancient Corinthdropped2.65 m. between Februaryand October.In dry areas or during a dry spell much of whatever rain does fall is lost as runoff. Cisterns are common today in many of the driest islands of the Aegean. The inferior quality of cistern water was recognized in antiquity: Hippokrates, rEpIa''pwv,



8.20, and Vitruvius, viii.6.14.

Note also from this period the huge cisterns in the mining districtof Laureion.The care with which the water was recycledand the highly refined and effective waterproofingof the cisterns indicate the pains taken to preservethe water so crucialfor washingthe ore. On the compositionof the mortarof the Laureion cisterns (almost 30%lead): K. Konophagosin IHpaKTrKa 49, 1974 [1976], pp. 251-261; K. Konophagos and H. Badeca, Annalesgeologiquesdes pays hellknique,Athens 1975, pp. 328-337, and K. Konophagos, Le Lauriumantique,Athens 1980, pp. 253-273. 14There is no evidence of a droughtin the 6th centuryat Athens. Ratherthe Peisistratidsytems (footnote 1 above) should be consideredan innovation, the first attempt to provide the city with a publicwater supply, analogous to similar efforts in Corinth, Megara, and Samos at about the same time. Once built, these Archaicestablishmentsremained the backboneof the public supply throughoutthe Classicalperiod until the great expansionof resources-under discussionhere-in the latterhalf of the 4th centuryB.C. "Increased populationcannot, it seems, be advanced as an argument for increased public efforts to obtain water. Both Gomme (The Populationof Athensin the Fifthand FourthCenturiesB.C., Oxford 1933, p. 26) and Ehrenberg(The GreekState, 2nd ed., New York 1969, p. 31) estimate a steadilydeclining population for Athens throughoutthe 4th century. Nor, on the other hand, can a decrease in populationbe used to explain the drop in the number of wells, for the wells were replacedin their function as private supply by numerouscisterns.


14 r)

& U)

OVX 07r0o



Ttva Kap7rOv 79v11EyKEv,aXWa KatLTo' iwp W' 7raves

XAaxavov yEvEOat

UTTE, EK TWv OpEa7wv Ev a(, Kcr(0.



my land not only produced no crops, but that year, as you all know, the water even dried up in the wells, so that not a vegetable grew in the garden.

The date, 361 B.C., correspondscloselyto whatwe have seen concerningthe beginning of the shift fromwells to cisterns,in the secondquarterof the 4th century.The effects of the droughtcontinuedto be felt, apparently,for in 357, accordingto Demosthenes (vs. Leptines,33), there was a universal shortage of grain (a&xxa Trp rEpvnt


rapa 7Tau-tvavOp6ToL' 'yEVot4EvrE). These difficultiesmaywell have been the impetus

for a changein the natureof privatewatersupply.Activityin publicsupplyseems not to have been far behind;Demosthenes(Olynth.iii.29) refersto fountainsunderconstructionin the city in 349 B.C. Inscriptionsrefer to intermittentproblemswith grain supplyin the 330's,16and Athenssuffereda severe faminein the period330-320 B.C.17 The literarysourcespainta grimpictureof the city duringthe crisis: aEl To ) aTTEL OLKOVVTE( 8&E"'TpOV^vTOra

El~m )v 7s El TO) mexpLt) EXaC43aVOVKar' 6,8oXov a rquAEKToP roMv apTOVs KcatEMT T71s liaKpa' 0-oaq ra TaaX'tra, sa'aXLa ,.E7 ,~~~~~~~ra ,AETpOVtuVOL Ka KaTa7raTolVvoL. V1WOV Ot


cb&"O,01 8'ETV,


(Demosthenes, vs. Phormio,37) Those of you who dwelt in the city were having their barley meal measured out to them in the Odeion, and those who dwelt in Peiraeuswere receiving their loaves bit by bit in the dockyardand in the long stoa, having their meal measuredout to them a twelfth of a medimnos at a time and being nearlytrampledto death.

sourcesshed furtherlighton the shortagein the formof honorarydecrees Epigraphical for foreignerswho broughtgrainto the city. Here, too, specificreferenceis made to famine.18Individualswere honoredfor providinggrainat a low price and often the amountsare surprisingly small, as little as 3000 medimnoi.Togetherwith the literary showthatAthensreceivedgrainfromthe BlackSea, fromAsia sourcestheseinscriptions (335/4 B.C.) and IG II2, 342 (332/1 B.C.). Also Plutarch,Moralia851B. grecqueI, Paris 1925, "7Forthe extensive materialon the famine:A. Jarde, Les cerealesdans l'antiquite pp. 43-47; F. Heichelheim, s. v. Sitos, RE Suppl.VI, cols. 819-892; M. N. Tod, GreekHistoricalInscriptions II, Oxford 1948, no. 196 and commentary;M. Rostovtzeff, Social and EconomicHistoryof the Hellenistic WorldI, Oxford 1941, pp. 94-98, 168; J. Pec'irka,TheFormulafor the Grantof Enktesisin AtticInscriptions, Prague1966, pp. 70-72; S. Isagerand M. H. Hansen, Aspectsof AthenianSocietyin the FourthCenturyB.C., Odense 1975, pp. 17-19 and 200-208. Hitherto the famine has been seen as an economic problem rather than as the result of drought:H. Michel, The Economicsof AncientGreece,2nd ed., Cambridge1957, p. 275; M. Rostovtzeff, op. cit., pp. 97-98; W. W. Tarn, CAH VI, Cambridge1927, pp. 448-449; and W. L. Westermann,"New HistoricalDocuments in Greek and Roman History," AmericanHistoricalReview35, 1929, pp. 16-19. 18IGII2, 360, lines 8-9: Ev rjj Travoo-iL and IG II2, 398, line 11: arav~wz [orov yEvopEv7~1. For similar language in the literary sources, Aristotle, Oikonomika1352a: XquoviyEvogEvov Ev Tots aXXoL9 16G II2, 408





Thoughthe city was never Minor,from Cyprus,from NorthAfrica,and from Sicily.19 in concentration of andthe specific the unusual honorary inscriptions self-sufficient grain, referencesto a shortagesuggestan especiallycrucialperiodof supplyin the 320's. It is of interestto note also that the faminewas not a localAthenianproblembut ratherseems to have been widespreadthroughoutGreece at this time. An important inscriptionfrom Cyrenerecordsthat huge amountsof grainwere suppliedto no fewer than41 cities in centralGreece, the Peloponnese,and the Aegeanislandsin the years around335-325 B.C.20 The openingphrasereadsas follows: ['IapIEvq lwoLaq Kak[XAa]8a [fHI[o-os cr701 ova

E&8KE a Iroxv



The priest Sosias the son of Kalliades.The city gave the following amounts of grainwhen there was a famine in Greece.

This is followedby a list of cities with the amountscontributedto each one. In all, 805,000medimnoiwere made availableby Cyreneto the Greek poleis. Such a widespreadfailureof the cropssuggestsa generalproblem,moreseverethanAthens'perennial failureto providefor herself.The likeliestexplanationis that not only Athens but also muchof the rest of Greecesufferedthe effectsof a droughtin the thirdquarterof the 4th centurywhichculminatedin the severefamineof the 320's. The evidence from several sites perhapsreflectsthe effect of this droughtelsewherein Greece.The systematicexcavationsof Corinthhave shed much light on the historyof thatimportantcity;thoughthe full storyof the watersupplyhas not yet been written,there are indicationsof concernfor the supplyin the second half of the 4th century.The SacredSpring,for instance,underwentseveralmodificationsin its long 19Themost complete document is IG 112,360, honoring Herakleides of Salamis in Cyprus for his benefactionsduring this period. Other decrees of a similar nature are IG II2, 363, 398, 400, 401, 407, 416, and possibly423 and 499; also Hesperia8, 1939, pp. 27-30, no. 7; Hesperia9, 1940, pp. 332-333, no. 39; Hesperia43, 1974, pp. 322-324, no. 3; and Hesperia49, 1980, pp. 251-255, no. 1. Many of the orationsof Demosthenes of this periodconcern the graintradeas well: xxxii, xxxiv.36 and 39, LVI.9, and xx.32-33. Also to be dated to this period (325/4 B.C.) is the projectedfoundationof an Athenian colony in the Adriatic,with the express intent of securing the grain route: IG II2, 1629, lines 217-220 (M. Tod, op. cit. [footnote 17 above], no. 200, pp. 284-289). Colonizationwas a standardresponse to famine, and it is interestingto note this late revival of the institution. The fact that most of the kernoi found in the Agora date to the 4th century (J. Pollitt, "Kernoifrom the Athenian Agora," Hesperia48, 1979, pp. 205-233, esp. pp. 226-227) might be taken as renewed interest in the cult of Demeter because of the droughtand subsequentfamine. Also related, perhaps,would be the exensive building programcarriedout at Eleusis and in the Eleusinion at Athens in the years around 329/8 recordedin IG II2, 1672. 20G.Oliverio, Documentiantichidell'AfricaitalianaII, i, "La stele dei nuovi comandamentie dei cereali," Bergamo 1933, pp. 29-94. (Also Tod, op. cit. [footnote 17 above], pp. 273-276, no. 196). The date is set by grants of grain to Olympias,Alexander's mother, and to Kleopatra,his stepmother. See also Plutarch, Alexander,25, where it is recorded that after the siege of Gaza (332 B.C.) Alexander sent large amounts of the spoils home to both women. Accordingto the list, Athens received 100,000 medimnoi of grainfrom Cyrene, twice as much as any other city and 13 per cent of the total amount provided.



history.B. H. Hill describedthe natureof the supplyafterone of these alterationsas follows:"The amountof waterflowingfrom the lion head spouts must at best have As a resultof the most recent been very smallbut it was now very greatlyreduced."'" In excavationsin the area, this phaseis datedto the last quarterof the 4th century.22 addition,five wells went out of use in or aroundthe thirdquarterof the 4th century, and severalcisternsappearfor the firsttime.23A handsomebathsouthwestof the racewent out of use at aboutthis time.24Finallyone shouldnote the coursealso apparently unusualsupplysystem for the shops of the South Stoa, built duringthe latterpartof Thirty-oneof the shopswereprovidedwithwells.Thesewellsdid not the 4th century.25 tap the groundwaterdirectlybelow,however,but were fed by meansof a long tunnel which broughtwaterin from afar.These variousexamplesare not all equallysignifiand cant, perhaps,but, consideredagainstthe backgroundof the Cyreneinscription26 the evidencefromAthens, it seems likelythat Corinthalso experiencedsome difficulty withher watersupplyin the latterhalfof the 4th centuryB.C. Across the Gulf from Corinthlies the Perachorapeninsula,which was provided A handsomefountainhouse andseveralimmense withextensivehydraulicinstallations. cisternswereconstructedlate in the 4th century.27 A thirdsite, recentlyexcavated,deservesa word.The explorationof Halieisin the southernArgolidhas progressedfarenoughto show that the site and its environswere abandonedlate in the 4th centuryB.C.28 No compellingreasonhas yet been put forward to suggestthatthe site and it does not seem unreasonable to explainthis abandonment, as a resultof drought.The Cyreneinscriptionsuggeststhat the becameuninhabitable areaas a wholewas affected;Argos,Kythera,Troizene,and Ermionewereall provided with grain.With better sourcesof watersupplythese cities were able to last out the drought;perhapsHalieiswas not so fortunate.29 21B. H. Hill, Corinth,I, vi, Peirene,SacredSpring,Glauke,Princeton1964, p. 177.

K. Williams,II, Hesperia38, 1969, pp. 36-63. 23G.R. Edwards, Corinth,VIII, iii, CorinthianHellenisticPottery,Princeton 1975, pp. 198-212. Wells nos. 17, 20, 21, 24, and 43, cisterns nos. 22, 23, 37, 39, and 40. 24CentaurBath:C. K. Williams, II, Hesperia45, 1976, pp. 109-116 and idem, Hesperia46, 1977, pp. 51-52. 260. Broneer, Corinth,I, iv, TheSouthStoa, Princeton1954, pp. 59-65. 26Corinth(line 9) received 50,000 medimnoi of grain, the third largest amount after Athens and Olympias. 27R.A. Tomlinson, "Perachora:the Remains outside the Two Sanctuaries.Descriptionof the Waterworks of the UpperPlain," BSA 64, 1969, pp. 195-242. 28M.Jameson, Hesperia38, 1969, pp. 311-342, esp. pp. 328-329; W. Rudolph, Hesperia43, 1974, pp. 105-131, esp. pp. 130-131, and T. Boyd and W. Rudolph, Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 333-355. 29AtHalieis, right by the shore, the wells may have gone brackishif the water table fell at all. There are both wells and cisterns reportedfrom the 4th-centuryhouses at the site. For abandonmentas a gradual processas a result of drought, see Aristotle, Meteorologica,351b. Pausanias(ix.38.9) recordsthe abandonment of Aspledon in Boiotia because of a lack of water. Note also the Athenian colony planned at about this time (above, footnote 19). I should like to thank the following colleagues for readingearlier versions of this paperand making useful suggestionsfor its improvement:A. L. Boegehold, W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr., R. Townsend, S. Rotroff, and T. L. Shear, Jr. 22C.



In conclusion,the archaeological evidence,takenwith the literaryand epigraphical sources,providesa coherentpicture.Greateffortsin the publicsectorand innovationin the privatesectorshow thatAthenianresponseto adverseclimaticconditionsin the 4th centurywas both imaginativeand extensive.Impressiveeffortswere made to securea reliablewatersupplyduringwhatseems to have been a periodof drought.At the same time, the evidencewouldseem to suggestthat this droughtwas the cause of a widespreadfaminewhichafflictednot only Athens but also much of the rest of Greece in the 2nd halfof the 4th centuryB.C. JoHNMcK.CAMP II ATHENIAN AGORA EXCAVATIONS

THE ASYMMETRYOF THE PINAKOTHEKE FOR THE LAST TIME?* rARIOUS REASONShave been proposedfor the asymmetryof the openingsin the windowwall of the Pinakotheke.The first one publishedwas in 1912 by GeorgeW. Elderkin,secretaryof the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesin Athens from 1908to 1910.1He pointedout thatthe west face of the east antaof the tristyle-inantiscolonnadealignedwith the east side of the east windowof the windowwall, and that the positionof the antawas fixed by a triglyphabove.2He believed,however,in He the now disprovedtheoryof a Classicalzigzagroad leadingup to the Propylaia.3 determinedthe positionand directionof his uppermostzigzagby theorizingthat it had to followa line fromwhichboth the windowsand the doorwaycould be seen through and finallypositedthat, of the colonnadeof the Pinakotheke,4 the intercolumniations from the aestheticviewpointalong "thatlast stretchof the zigzagroad,an asymmetric arrangementof door and windowswas absolutelynecessary."5G. Stevens, in 1946, thoroughlyacceptedElderkin'sidea.6He re-expoundedit andaddedan observationthat the open spacebetweenthe east antaand the easterncolumnis greaterthanthe actual spacings(he did not mentionthatthe widthof these spaceswas automatintercolumnar icallycontrolledby the triglyphfrieze).Enlarginguponthis observation,he went on to say that "the shiftingof the dooreastwardand the spreadingof the space [betweenthe east antaand easterncolumn]undoubtedlyeased the circulationfrom the centralportion of the Propylaeainto the 'PictureGallery'."W. B. Dinsmoor,in 1950, took into considerationthe cantedClassicalretainingwall whichalloweda straight,rampedroad some 22 metersin width.He believed,however,that only a portionof this rampwas V

*H. A. Thompson has a keen interest in, and an innate understandingof, ancient Greek architecture and its many problems. It is to be hoped that he will appreciatemy solution to one of the strangest of architecturalenigmas.The solution presentedhere appearsalso in tabulatedform at the end of this article. 1Problemsin PericleanBuildings,Princeton1912. 2Ibid.,p. 1. 'There are two preservedstretches of the almost straightretainingwall of the 11-meterwide Archaic rampwhich led up some 80 meters towardsthe early entranceto the Akropolis (see A. Keramopoullos,To 'ApX'EO, 1934-1935 [1936], p. HIEXapytKov, TO 'AcOKcXrlet1ov, at' 68ot at ava'yovoat 7Tpo' r Ha'poIratau, 87 and pi. I). These are now dated to 566 B.C. (E. Vanderpool,"The Date of the Pre-PersianCity-Wallof

Athens," 1OPOL.Tributeto B. D. Meritt,D. W. Bradeenand M. F. McGregor,edd., Locust Valley, New York 1974, pp. 156-160). Although the upperor eastern stretch was known, and dated as 6th centuryB.C. vonAthen, 2nd by W. Wrede (AttischeMauern,Athens 1933, p. 9, no. 20) and by W. Judeich (Topographie ed., Munich 1931, pp. 213-215), it was not recognizedby them as being partof a straightramp.The canted wall furthernorth retainedthe Classicalsuccessor to this straightramp, doubling its width. It should be concluded, therefore, that no zigzagapproachexisted after the middle of the 6th centuryB.C. 40p. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 2. 5Ibid.,p. 5. 6"Architectural Studies," Hesperia15, 1946, pp. 87-89.



executedand that it had to be supplementedby an unsymmetrical windingpathat the upperlevel.7He shunnedthe Elderkin-Stevens theoryfor the asymmetryof the window wallandconsideredthe off-centeringof the doorwayto be merelyfor easieraccessfrom the CentralBuilding,the same reasoningwhich he also used for the shorteningin width,in the planningstages,of the Pinakothekeitself (see below). In 1930,F. Francoevolvedthe imaginativeidea thata higher,widerdoorthanthe and withoutits attendantwinpresentone, centeredon its facing intercolumniation in a laterschemethe presentwindows,less high thanthe dows,was originallyplanned;8 aboutthe door.The doorwas then loweredto the doorway,were addedsymmetrically heightof the windowsto be, he said, in the linearspiritof Doric architecture,necessitating,for the sake of proportions,a reductionin its width.He suggestedthat the easternjambhadalreadybeen partiallyerectedby this time, andit was thereforetoo late to makeanotherchangein orderto allowsymmetry. J. A. Bundgaard, in 1957,suggestedthatthe openingscopiedthe theoreticalplacing of those of ArchaicBuildingB, whichhe consideredto have occupiedthe same spaceas the Pinakothekeand to have been dismantledto allowfor the erectionof the latter.9H. Riemannrefutedthistheoryon the groundthatsincethe central,interiorrowof columns in the Pinakotheke,thereis no reasonto believe of apsidalBuildingB wasnot reproduced thatthe hypothetically off-centeredlocationof the doorof BuildingB wascopiedeither.10 In 1964, C. Tiberitried to explainthe designof the Propylaiaand the reasonfor the off-centereddoor as evolvingfrom a complicatedgeometriccompositionof overlappingsquaresand triangles."For a soundrefutationof this idea, see the commentsof P. Hellstr6m.12

J. Travlos,in 1971, wrote:"The entranceto the Pinakothekewas shiftedoff axis ... so that dining-couchescould be installed." "When the door is off-centre [it allows]

for a normalarrangement of dining-couches.""3 For the refutationof this ideasee again P. Hellstr6m."4

Finally,in 1975,we have the explanationsof P. Hellstr6mfor the asymmetryof the windowwall.15He stressesa proportionate relationshipof the lengths of the sections 'Architecture of AncientGreece,London 1950, p. 198. 8"Le asimmetriedella Pinacotecadei Propyleisull'Acropolid'Atene," ASAtene13/14, 1930/31 [1933], pp. 9-25. 9Mnesicles,a GreekArchitectat Work,Copenhagen1957. "0Reviewof Bundgaard,Gnomon31, 1959, pp. 309-319. For my argument that Building B did not occupy this space at all, see W. B. Dinsmoor, Jr., ThePropylaiato the AthenianAkropolis,I, ThePredecessors, Princeton 1980, p. 2, note 10, and see also footnote 27 below. 1 Mnesicle,I'architetto dei Propilei,Rome 1964. 12"The Asymmetryof the Pinacotheca-Once More," OpusAth11, 1975, p. 87. "3Pictorial Dictionaryof AncientAthens,London 1971, p. 482. 14Op. cit. (footnote 12 above), pp. 87-89. In addition, the Pinakothekenever received a marble floor, as employed elsewhere in the building,since the face of the toichobatecourse againstwhich it would have abutted was not finished. Many of the toichobate blocks still retain lifting bosses. For the supportof dining-couchesone would expect a solid masonryfloor. l51bid.,pp. 87-92.












-~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~0




II @ ~ ~ Il6t












vz~wst r



o --|0~I 4






~~ 2~~~~~~






0 0.





HAVELEARNEDa greatdealfromHomerA. Thompson,throughthe yearsof my acquaintance withhim, andtwo of his teachingsstandout withclarityin my mind:to payattentioneven to minutedetails,and to rise abovethem to view the greaterwhole. The ensuingspeculationand theoriesmay not alwaysbe correct,but as long as they are revisedwhenevernew andcontradictory evidencebecomesavailable,the attemptshould be made. I hope that these lines, stemmingfromjust such an approach,may not be amissas a modestoffering.The minutedetailsto be consideredhere are a set of swollen earsand a mantle.The largerpictureconcernsthe possibleinferenceson the meaning of kouroiandkoraiin ArchaicAthens.1 The so-calledRayetHead (P1.17:a)was foundin Athens, "nearthe gas-works"at the edge of the Kerameikoscemetery,in the early1870's,and is now one of the glories of the Archaiccollectionin the Ny CarlsbergGlyptothekin Copenhagen.Well known to scholars,the head is often illustratedin monographson Greeksculptureand is analyticallydescribedin Richter'sKouroi.2 There,however,no mentionis madeof the fact that the head has "cauliflower ears"as befit a boxer (P1.17:b, c).3 Otherdescriptions commenton the thick,fleshyrenderingof this anatomicaldetail,but treatit as a mannerismof its sculptor.4I was able to inspectthe RayetHeadin the springof 1979 and I

'Besides the standardabbreviations,the followingwill be used throughout: = G. M. A. Richter, TheArchaicGravestonesof Attica,London 1961 AGA der Akro= H. Schrader,E. Langlotz,W.-H. Schuchhardt,Die archaischenMarmorbildwerke AMA polis, Frankfurtam Main 1939 ArchaicStyle = B. S. Ridgway, TheArchaicStylein GreekSculpture,Princeton1977 = L. H. Jeffery, "The InscribedGravestones of Archaic Attica," BSA 57, 1962, pp. 115Jeffery 153 = G. M. A. Richter, Korai,ArchaicGreekMaidens,London 1968 Korai = G. M. A. Richter, Kouroi,ArchaicGreekYouths,London 1970 Kouroi OlympicGames= N. Yalouris et al., TheOlympicGames,Athens 1976 from theAthenianAkropolis,Cambridge,Mass. 1949 Raubitschek = A. E. Raubitschek,Dedications = G. Schmidt, "KopfRayet und Torso vom pir~Aischen Tor," AthMitt84, 1969, pp. 65-75 Schmidt = L. A. Schneider, ZursozialenBedeutungderarchaischenKorenstatuen,Hamburg1975 Schneider = F. Willemsen, "Archaische Grabmalbasenaus der athener Stadtmauer," AthMitt78, Willemsen 1963, pp. 104-153 2Copenhagen,Ny CarlsbergGlyptothekI.N. 418; F. Poulsen, Catalogueof AncientSculpturein the Ny CarlsbergGlyptotek,Copenhagen 1951, no. 11, pp. 28-29, dated in the third quarterof the 6th century. Kouroi,no. 138, figs. 409, 410. 3The term is defined in Webster's Dictionaryas "an ear deformed from injuryand excessive growth of reparativetissue, so as to suggest a cauliflower."Boxers, wrestlersand pankratiastswould suffer such injuries in practicingtheir sport, either under the blows of their opponent or when the cartilagewas broken by the pullingof the ear. Present-dayboxers and wrestlersoften displaysimilarear configuration(P1.17:d). formelhafteOhrist bei Boxerund Kopf 4See, e.g., Schmidt, p. 70: " ... dasfleischige,wenigdifferenzierte, gebildetwie bei dem Kouros-Kopf Rayetsehr dhnlich... "; p. 75: "Das Ohrist nichtmehrso kompaktfleischig



can verify that this is an iconographic,not a stylistic, trait. Specifically,the central orificeis quite small and the cartilagesurroundingit (the antihelix)appearsswollen, with creasesmarkingthe puffinessof the area, which is barelydistinguishedfrom the helix.5

This realisticrenderingis well attestedin 4th-centuryand Hellenisticsculpture;it was, however, generally surmised that it would not occur before the time of increased

in sportand, specifically,of decreasingidealizationin art. But the disprofessionalism covery of the so-called Boxer Stele in 1953 forced a revision of this dating: the relief

can be ascribedto the mid-6thcenturyB.C. on the bases of style and format,yet not only does the bearded man on the stele display cauliflowerears and a broken nose but

his raisedarm is clearlybound by the leatherthongs of the boxer.6The deceasedis intentionallycharacterizedas a mature athlete who survived many encounters, although it is perhapsunnecessaryto speculate that he might have met his end in one last match. This characterization,surprisingas it might seem at this early a date, is not alto-

getherout of placeon a gravestone.In the largecorpusof Attic stelai, severalArchaic examplesidentifythe deceasedas an athlete, while others depicthim as a warrior,a priestor a man of status.7But I did not knowof any similarindividualization in sculpture in the round,specificallywithinthe kourostype with its strictadherenceto a neutralformula.I have thereforemadean (admittedlysuperficial)examinationof the ears of kouroi,withoutbeingable to find a close parallelto those of the RayetHead.To be sure, severalmale figureshave thickand rathershapelessears, and it is impossiblein many cases to determinewhetherthe renderingis due to the early date or the small size of the sculpture,the relativelack of skill of the sculptoror the desire to depicta boxer'sear. In particular,it is not unusualto find that helix and antihelixare more or less on a level, thus suggestinga degree of swelling.My criterionin such cases has been the size of the openinginto the middleear:when normallylarge,I have assumed that no deformitywas meantand that the ear patternhadjust been simplified.In fact, some sphinxes and a few korai exhibit similarrenderings.The Rayet Head stands apart.8 ... " (in comparisonwith the Potter's Relief on the Akropolis). For a more general statement see J. Boardman,GreekSculpture,TheArchaicPeriod,London 1978, p. 83: "thickears". 5For terminologyand a diagramof the human ear see Kouroi,p. 17. 6BoxerStele: AGA, no. 31, fig. 92; Jeffery, p. 128, Stelai, no. 1. She, however, interpretsthe nose as possiblyhooked ratherthan definitelybroken. 70n characterizationon stelai see ArchaicStyle, p. 169; cf. also p. 167. For various examples see AGA, nos. 25-27 (athletes); 45, 46, 67 (warriors);70 (priestor man of status). Comments on the individualizationof grave stelai and the youth of the kouroi during the Archaic period are also made by B. Schmaltz, "Verwendungund Funktion attischer Grabmiler," MarbWinckPr, 1979, pp. 13-37; see especially pp. 35-36, where the Rayet head is mentioned as having swollen ears for characterization.My point of view as regardsthe kouroi is somewhat different. 80ne possible example of cauliflowerear would be even earlier than the Boxer Stele: the head from the Ptoion, Athens N.M. no. 15; Kouroi,no. 10, fig. 75 (ca. 580 B.C.).Only the left ear appearsdeformed, but this is not unusual in later times (see footnote 28 below). A break and an imperfectionin the stone cross the feature, however, and may have been responsiblefor the undetailedrendering.



Becauseof its allegedfindspot,the CopenhagenHeadis likelyto have belongedto a funerarystatue, since many such monumentslined the road to Peiraieusnear the homonymousGate. Severalof them were incorporatedinto a stretch of the ThemistokleanWall in the vicinityand were excavatedby J. Threpsiadesin 1953.9Among torsoand partsof the legs of a kouroswhichG. Schmidthas them are the fragmentary connectedwith the RayetHead.10The latter,althoughlargerthan life-size,may be too small for the body,1"and the torso, at least in its presentstate, displaysno specific athletic connotation.The attributionof head to body remains uncertain.The fragmentarykouroshas also been tentativelyassociatedwith an inscribedbase for a Samian, or with anotherset up for the KarianTymnes,12but no joins exist. In turn, the Ny CarlsbergHead has been attributedto the as yet unidentifiedstatue which stood once on the so-calledBall PlayersBase in the Athens NationalMuseum, also found nearby.13Thatathleticcontests,includingwrestling,shouldbe depictedon the pedestal but appropriate, seems particularly of a figurecharacterized as a boxeror a pankratiast againcertaintyis lacking;moreover,the RayetHeadmay be too early (ca. 530?) for a basegenerallyplacedwithinthe last decadeof the 6th century. It has so far been assumedthatthe RayetHeadbelongedto a kouros-typestatue;I wonderwhetherthis was indeed the case. As late as the impressiveAristodikos(ca. 490) the standardformulafor the nude male gravestatueseems to have been retained, and I have arguedelsewherethat it may have borne little resemblance(in age, physA kouros, originallya iognomy or otherwise)to the deceased it commemorated.14 of Apollo, would have remaineda symbolof heroization,while greater representation sense of identitywas attainedby depictionson stelai. Towardthe end of the 6th century,with the widespreadinterestin the PanathenaicFestivaland the OlympicGames, 9Besidesthe general account in Jeffery, pp. 126-128, see also Willemsen, and ArchaicStyle, pp. 292295. The excavationreportby Threpsiadesappearedin HpaKTrLKa,1953 [19571,pp. 61-71. I0Schmidt,pl. 32. The torso is preservedapproximatelyfrom waist to mid-thighs,the nbn-joiningright leg preservesthe lower thigh and the knee, the left extends from mid-kneecapto ankle. Accordingto early reports, a foot had been found with the Rayet Head but is now lost; this information,however, may serve to discreditthe furtherassociationof a plinthwith a kouros' feet: Schmidt, p. 73, and W. Deyhle, "Meisterfragender archaischenPlastikAttikas," AthMitt84, 1969, pp. 1-57, especiallyp. 29. On the body fragments per se see U. Knigge, "ZumKourosvon pireiischenTor," AthMitt84, 1969, pp. 76-86, pls. 33-35. 11Cf.Schmidt, pl. 31, p. 69 and note 18, where the relative proportionsare said to be at least not incompatible. 12Cf.Schmidt, pp. 73-74 and notes 39, 41, 42; Knigge, op. cit. (footnote 10 above), pp. 85-86. For a discussionof the bases see Willemsen, pp. 123-129. 13SeeSchmidt, p. 73, note 37, and Willemsen, p. 135. Note that not only the Ball Players Base was found in that general area but also the Boxer Stele and the so-called MarathonomachosStele: Jeffery, p. 128, Stelai, no. [2]. Since the helmeted youth is usually taken to be a hoplitodromosor a pyrrhicdancer, the monuments from that vicinity would seem to be particularlyconnected with athletic representations. For the monument of an Olympicvictor see Willemsen, pp. 110-117; cf. also his pp. 129-136, for another renderingof the ball-playingscene on a different base. Jeffery, p. 123, no. [4], lists the Rayet Head as coming from a slightlydifferentarea, but see her statement on p. 116. 14Aristodikos:Kouroi, no. 165, figs. 492, 493. My comments are in ArchaicStyle, pp. 49-59, 77. Cf. also Jeffery,p. 150.



victors' statues began to be erected-some in the increasinglypopularmedium of bronze,but some still in marble.In eithercase, theircompositionmay have been more animatedthan the traditionalkourospose, as suggestedby some bases and even some may The same transformation "narrative"monumentsfrom the AthenianAkropolis.15 have taken place among funerarystatues, and the Rayet Head could indicatethat it occurredas earlyas ca. 530. Althoughthe more symbolicand statickouroscontinued to markgravesuntilalmostthe end of the Archaicperiod,a new athletictypemay have existed side by side with it, eventuallyreplacingthe generickourosentirelyand giving rise to the long line of Severeathletesknownin both life- andunderlife-size. The RayetHeadhas not been convincinglyattributedto any of the knownArchaic mastersactive in Athens, althoughstylisticsimilaritieswith the Boxer Stele, the Potter's Reliefand the BallPlayersBasehave been pointedout. Endoiosand Aristoklesare known to have made monumentsfor burialsin the vicinityof the PeiraieusGate.16 More significantly,tombs for foreignersseem to have been gatheredin that particular area, as indicatedby the Karianand Samianepitaphsalreadymentioned.Perhapsthe of an athlete'sstatuewas promptedby the wishesof a familyfromAsia characterization Minor,wherewrestlingwas almostthe nationalsport.The literarysourcestell us that the Olympicrulesfor boxingwereestablishedby Onomastosof Smyrna,the firstOlympic winnerof the event in 688, and that Pythagorasof Samos,who won in 588, was the firstscientificboxer.17 Cauliflowerears, althoughwith less picturesquelanguage,are also mentionedby the ancientauthors.Plato refersto young oligarchs"withbrokenears," who imitated 15Pausanias(vi.18.7) seems to ascribethe first victors' statues to the late 6th century; cf. C. Mattusch, "The Berlin Foundry Cup," AJA 84, 1980, p. 443 and note 46. P. Levi, in his Pausanias:Guideto Greece II, London [Penguin Books] 1971, p. 337, note 152, comments that a 7th-centuryvictor's statue had already been mentioned by Pausaniasat Olympia, but that "Probablyit was a stiff, massive, primitive Pharaoh-likefigure, and Pausaniaswas instinctivelynot thinkingof it as an athletic portrait."This would imply that the later statues looked differentfrom the standardkouros. For an analysis of male statues found on the Athenian Akropolis see ArchaicStyle, p. 49, note 3. Raubitschek (pp. 80-82, no. 76) has suggested that the inscribed base E.M. 6379 held a dedication by Phayllosof Kroton, who mentions that he won the pentathlonat Delphi three times; the base supporteda marble statue but apparentlyone more complex than a standardkouros. Raubitschektentatively associates with it the so-called Blond Boy (Akr. 689). I would question the Blond Boy as a depiction of a pentathlete because of his elaborate hairstyle, unless he represented Theseus and thus only symbolicallyalluded to Phayllos' prowess. For other comments on victors' monuments see Raubitschek, p. 464. For a typical animatedgroup, perhapsTheseus wrestlingSkyron, see AMA, no. 410, pp. 281-283 and figs. 326, 327, pls. 155-157 (Akr. 145). "6Thestylistic groupingof the Rayet Head had alreadybeen attemptedby Poulsen (footnote 2 above). Boardman(footnote 4 above) seems to accept the connection with Endoios' workshop;cf. Deyhle (footnote 10 above), pp. 13-20 (Endoios); Schmidt;and Willemsen, p. 135. 171tis impossible to differentiatebetween a boxer's and a wrestler's ears; cf. footnote 3 above. For Onomastosof Smyrnasee Philostratos,de gymnastica,12; for Pythagorasof Samos see Diogenes Laertius, viii.47. These references are given by H. A. Harris, GreekAthletesand Athletics,London 1964, p. 98 and note 49 on p. 206. For an Archaicrelief with fat wrestlers from a Lycian tomb see E. Akurgal, Die Kunst Anatoliens,Berlin 1961, p. 135, fig. 86. See also B. Schrbder,Der Sportim Altertum,Berlin 1927, pl. 23, for coins of Aspendos showing wrestlers.



the Spartansin theirfashions(includingboxing)in orderto publicizetheir politicalinVariousgods and heroes clinations.18A boxer's physiqueis describedas otothladias.19 are cited as the mythicalpredecessorsof the Olympicathletes.Theseus, althoughsupposedlythe inventorof wrestling,is shownwith normalears, even when his opponent Apollo, another"inventor",was credsometimesclearlyexhibitsthe disfigurement.20 I have been unableto find a sure representation ited with outboxingAres at Olympia.21 of Apollowith cauliflowerears, but the Ares Ludovisitype, at least as reproducedby Romancopyists,definitelydisplaysthe deformity.22 Heraklesis shownwith swollenears as earlyas the Severe period.In the metope with the Nemean Lion, from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia,the hero is depicted youngand tiredafterhis firstlabor,apd with the obviouslyswollenears of the boxer; yet the subsequentmetopes,as far as we can tell in their presentstate of preservation, Perhapsthe Strugglewith the Lion was so close to a typical omit this characteristic.23 schemathat the Olympiamaster,although wrestlingbout in its traditionaliconographic electingto show a later moment in the event, wantedto alludeto the more familiar version.Conversely,the hero mighthave been portrayedprogressivelyless humanand more divine. Among the other sculpturesfrom the same building,the Lapithbeing bitten by a Centaur,on the West pediment,has cauliflowerears, while the Centaur The beinggrabbedby the ear exemplifiesthe tacklewhichcausesthatkindof damage.24 renderingis thereforewell attestedby ca. 460 undoubtedGreekoriginals. For the laterperiodsour evidenceincreases,althoughsome examplesremainquestionable.On the Parthenonfrieze severalridersseem to have swollenears,25and the youthful head with a lion-skin helmet from the Tegea Temple has them beyond doubt.26The best knownexampleis perhapsthe bronzeBoxerin the TermeMuseum but in Rome;by the Romanperiodcauliflowerearsidentifyprimarilythe professional,27 18Plato: Gorgias,515e; Protagoras,342b 8; cf. the comments by E. R. Dodds, Plato, Gorgias,Oxford 1959, p. 357. Diogenes Laertius,v.67, speakingabout the philosopherLyko; Yalouris (OlympicGames, I9Otothladias: p. 222) cites it as a boxer's name. For the effects of the palaistraon ears: Philostratos,Heroicus,167.13. 2001ympicGames, pp. 82 and 202; fig. 108 illustratesa red-figuredcup by the Kodros Painter, from Vulci, in the BritishMuseum: London E 84, Beazley, AR V, p. 739, no. 4, ca. 430 B.C. Theseus, with normal ears, is fightingKerkyon,who has a swollen ear. 21 Olympic Games,pp. 35, 82, and 216. 22AresLudovisi:see S. Lattimore, "Ares and the Heads of Heroes," AJA 83, 1979, pp. 71-78, especially pl. 3, figs. 4, 5, pl. 6, fig. 13. 23Heraklesand Nemean Lion: B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia,London 1967, fig. 147; contrast the renderingof the ear in fig. 145. Only the Herakles of the metope with the eighth labor, the Mares of Diomedes, may have the same swollen rendering:Olympia,fig. 177. 24Lapith,West Pediment, Figure Q: Olympia,fig. 88. Centaur,West Pediment, Figure D: Olympia,fig. 74. 25ParthenonFrieze: see, e.g., F. Brommer, Der Parthenonfries,Mainz 1977, pls. 131 (S XIII), 135 (S XVII). Some such ears may occur also on the Lapithsand Centaursof the South metopes but I cannot be sure. 26TegeanHead: A. F. Stewart, Skopasof Paros, Park Ridge, N.J. 1977, cat. no. 16, pl. 13:b and pl. 52, ear 2. 27TermeBoxer: OlympicGames,fig. 120; Roman boxers and practices,ibid., pp. 275-285 and fig. 153.



a few Greek citizenscontinuedto have themselvesso portrayedduringthe Empire.28 The Conversely,the Etruscansdo not seem to have imitatedGreekart in this respect.29 Rayet Head, if not the first, may representone of the earliestexamplesof this renderingin Greek sculpturein the round, in the shift from the funerary-Apollo/anonto the moreindividualistic portrayalof athletes. ymous-kourosrepresentation The questionraisedabout the varyingmeaningof the kourostype in Attica can also be formulatedaboutthe Akropoliskorai,and althoughmy commentsmust remain moretentativethanin the case of athleticfigures,some pointsare perhaps considerably worthmaking. I had sharedin the generalsurmisethat these elegantfemalededications(P1.17:e) on the Atheniancitadelrepresentedgenericattendantsto Athena,whetherpriestesses, or arrephoroi.30 Specifically,I acceptedthe theorythatthey displayedcontempergastinai oraryfashionsof the Athenianaristocracy,regardlessof whetherthey depictedactual Atheniangirls or were simplypleasingimagesoften donatedby men. A monographic study has even affirmedthat these smilingcreatureswere the socialexpressionof the upperclassand of a city statewherewomenlent prestigeto theirhusbands.They would have been renderedas they appearedat festivals, the normal showcasefor female beauty,as sung by the lyricpoets.31I have now had occasionto re-examinethe issue and have come to questionthe diagonalmantleas an item of clothingworn by Athenianwomenduringthe 6th century. In chronological order,the factsseem to fall in this sequence: 1) The Athenianwomen used to weara dress fastenedwith long pins;when they turnedthese ornamentsinto weaponsto kill the sole survivorof the Battleof Aigina, they were madeto changefashionsand to adopt"Kariandress"as definedby Herodotos.32This statementhas usuallybeen takento meanthatwomenshiftedfrompeplosto a chiton/diagonal-himation combination.33 The Battle of Aigina is poorly dated but seems to have occurredstill in the 7th century.If this is the true natureof the change, it is not reflectedin any definitewayeitherin vase paintingor in sculpture.Perhapsthe 28E.B. Harrison, TheAthenianAgora, I, PortraitSculptures,Princeton 1953, no. 14 and note 2; no. 25, note 11. The renderingis limited to only one ear. 29Thisconclusion was reached by Sarah U. Wisseman in her Bryn Mawr College dissertation (1981): TheArchaeological Evidencefor EtruscanGames. 30ArchaicStyle, pp. 50, 108-112; see also the review by A. F. Stewart, ArtB 62, 1980, p. 486. Since I have discussed the costume of the korai at some length in my book, I shall limit myself to brief allusions here. 31Schneider,passim. See especially pp. 27-29 for the smile as a social expression of the upper class, typicalof the gods and therefore makingman "godlike".Appendix 1, on vase paintingswhere koraiappear as spectatorsto heroes' deeds, suggests that they function as indicationof the hero's aristocraticmilieu, not as literalparticipantsto the scene. 32Herodotos,v.87, where mention is made only of linen tunics, and his footnote, where the dress is called Karian. 33E.g., Korai, pp. 9-10. The change is dated to ca. 560 and attributedto both the lonian leanings of Peisistratosand to the anecdote mentioned by Herodotos, with a consequent lowering of the date of the Battleof Aigina.



change implied only the adoption of the chiton under a heavy, symmetrical mantle, such as we see on one of the earliest Athenian korai, Akr. 593.34 2) The earliest korai with diagonal himation on the Akropolis (ca. 560 B.C.) are imports or works by foreign masters: Akr. 619 and 677 are probablyCycladic; other, later statues are Chian (Akr. 675); and the activity of Lakonian (Gorgias) and possibly Ionian (Bion, Endoios) masters is attested by surviving signatures on dedications.35 That the diagonal mantle was at home in Asia Minor is not in question, although we cannot be sure whether it was worn by humans or by cult images (Artemis?). The literary sources conveniently collected by Schneider usually refer only to the trailing chiton, or use more generic terms. In addition, most of the poets quoted belong to Ionia or the islands. 3) By ca. 540 the wide distributionof the diagonal himation in all territoriesand colonies inhabited by Greeks-regardless of climate-is surprising,especially since the garment seems a latecomer within Archaic fashions, or at least it can be said not to coincide with the beginning of monumental sculpture.Perhaps the reason for the diffusion should be sought in the means of transmission:not in terms of the clothes per se but of the many terracotta statuettes reproducingdivinities, which reached even the Western Greeks as copiously as those in Greece proper.If these statuettes depicted cult images or Nymphs or other non-human beings of some kind, fidelity in reproducingthe costume may have been considered essential, although not paralleledby contemporary daily fashions.36 4) The earliest Attic kore from the Akropolis to display the diagonal mantle wears it with peculiar draping:the so-called Lyons Kore (ca. 540) shows no indication of fasteners for the himation, and the rendering cannot be coherently explained. Later Akropolis korai continue to show unusual variations:the himation appearsto be in two pieces, fastened along both shoulders (Akr. 605, 611, 678); or it is buttoned along the right arm but then again pinned once over the left shoulder (Akr. 600 and 673); or it hangs with balancingswags under both elbows, in unexplainablefashion (Akr. 685; P1. 17:e)0.3The diagonal border between the breasts is ornamented with an abundanceof frills that often defy understandingunless they were separately applied to the folded garment. 5) It may be coincidence due to the chance of the finds, but none of the funerary korai from Attica, both earlier and later than the Lyons Kore, wears the diagonal him34KoreAkr. 593: ArchaicStyle, pp. 104-105, fig. 29 and bibliographyon p. 118. For the date of the Battleof Aigina see, e.g., J. B. Bury, A Historyof Greece,3rd ed., London 1955, p. 204, "probablynear the middle of the seventh century." L. H. Jeffery (ArchaicGreece,London 1976, p. 84) would go as early as the second half of the 8th centuryB.C. 35Fora discussionof these koraisee ArchaicStyle, pp. 104, 106, 118; the mastersare mentioned on pp. 285-286 and in note 3. 36Theidea of a famous cult statue in Miletos as a possible prototype for the East Greek korai has alreadybeen advanced:B. Freyer-Schauenburg,Samos, XI, Bildwerkeder archaischenZeit und des strengen Stils, Bonn 1974, p. 47; ArchaicStyle, p. 98. 37LyonsKore: ArchaicStyle, pp. 105-106; the other renderingsof the himation:pp. 92, 94.



ation. I once suggestedthat they are depictedwith indoorattire,38but the difference may be of anothernature.Korai from the Citadelwearingjust the chiton are also known, and may indicatethat not all female statues should be interpretedin similar manner;in particular,Akr. 683, the Red-slippersKore, was probablythe smallerfigure in a doublededication(by two men) whichmay thereforehave had additionalmeaning, such as thatof a humanvotarynext to a goddess.39 6) The inceptionof the fashion (diagonalhimation)has been connectedwith Peisistratos'ties with Ionia;40yet the real popularityof the mode seems to occur after Peisistratos'death, towardthe end of the 6th century.Accordingto statisticsworked half of all survivingdedicaout by A. Raubitschekand E. B. Harrison,approximately between500 and 480. were made 6th 5th centuries for the and tions to the Akropolis Of the 56 more or less preservedkoraicataloguedby Langlotz,most were made between 530 and 490, and Ionic influenceseems confinedto them. The dedicatorsof but amongthe 18 offeringson the Akropolisincludedsome membersof the aristocracy, and an Ionianwho used a Chiansculpa washerwoman womentherewere, remarkably, tor. Koraiwere set up by a potter,a fullerand a tanner.41 7) The periodaround530 coincidesalso with a markedincreasein the numberof extantPanathenaicamphoras.A studyby J. R. Brandtconcludesthat duringthe rule of Peisistratosthe PanathenaicFestivalseems to have undergonedecline and stagnation in the ratherthanexpansion,to judgefromthe numberof extantvases. Standardization patternof the amphorascoincideswith the rule of Peisistratos'sons, who may have used the expansionof the event as a politicalmeansto re-establishfriendshipwith the Koraiearlierthan 530 B.c. are thereforeless likely to have repalienatedaristocracy.42 and those whichfollowedshouldnot have resentedaristocraticergastinaior arrephoroi, variedin theirmeaning.43 vases beforethe last quarterof the 6th centurydo not depict 8) Attic black-figured a diagonalhimation,althoughthe garmenthad alreadybeen seen on the Akropolis. 38Archaic Style, p. 103. 39Archaic Style, p. 107 and note 28, fig. 19; see also index for additionalmentions and bibliography. 40Korai, pp. 9-10.

4'Raubitschek,pp. 464-467, especially p. 465; the washerwoman:no. 380 (dedicated a basin); the lonian woman: no. 3; the potter: no. 197; the fuller: no. 49; the tanner:no. 58. E. B. Harrison, TheAthenianAgora, XI, Archaicand ArchaisticSculpture,Princeton 1965, p. 8 and note 49. 42J. Rasmus Brandt, "ArchaeologiaPanathenaicaI: PanathenaicPrize-vases from the sixth century B.C.," Acta ad Archaeologiam et ArtiumHistoriamPertinentia,InstitutumRomanum Norvegiae 8, 1978, pp. 1-23, especiallyp. 19 and notes 6 and 11. 43Wehave no definite depiction of the Arrephoroi,even from later times, since the Erechtheion Karyatids,occasionallyidentifiedas such, hardlyqualify.A fragmentaryhydriaby the Kleophon Painterin the collection of the University of Tilbingen, E 112, supposedlyshows Aphroditebetween arrephoroi:Stewart, loc. cit. (footnote 30 above); AthMitt93, 1978, pl. 13:2. The young women, however, are not distinguished by objects carried on their heads (as described by Pausanias), and they wear mid-Sth-centurycostumes. The only comparabletrait may be the gesture of the first woman on the left, who lifts her (long) himation: perhapsa misrepresentationof the pose of the korai, or an allusion to the Charites and the Horai, more appropriatecompanionsto Aphrodite.



Conversely, the fashion is rendered in red-figurescenes, but most of them are, either openly or possibly, mythological in content. It is becoming increasinglyapparentthat even what we take to be representationsof daily life may have had heroic connotation for the contemporaryuser." It seems difficultto reconcile the tempo of fashions in vase painting and sculpture. Certainly nothing in the techniques made it inherently impossible for a black-figurepainter to depict a diagonal himation or particularlyappropriatefor a red-figuremaster to do so. 9) Figures of non-human nature are clearly shown with the diagonal himation: the korai flanking the chariot of Apollo on the East pediment of his temple at Delphi-a site which has otherwise yielded no freestandingkore; the maidens on either side of the central floral akroterionon the Temple of Aphaia at Aigina-a position usually reserved for creatures of the air or at least endowed with special motion; Nikai at a variety of sites, including the Akropolis. It should also be stressed that the diagonal ruffle becomes the distinctive trait of archaisticsculpture and that perirrhanterion-holders,idols and karyatidsare often depicted wearingsuch a mantle. Even when the costume actually shown is the peplos, the lower hem is treated as if it were part of a diagonal himation, a sign of venerability and antiquity. It seems remarkablethat such a widespread fashion should be abruptlydropped from sculpture everywhere at the inception of the Severe style, just when statues became personalized rather than generic, and that the few examples, either in the round or in relief, which retain the diagonal mantle betray their later date only because of archaisticfeatures.45 All this evidence is undoubtedlycircumstantialand I want to stress once again the extremely tentative nature of my suggestions. It is nevertheless worth considering the possibility that the diagonal himation originated in Asia Minor, perhaps as part of the dress of a famous cult image and maybe even under Anatolian influence. From there the motif, carrying the same religious connotation, was distributed throughout the Greek cities. On the Athenian Akropolisthe garment arrivedthrough the dedicationsof foreigners, carved by foreign masters. When the Athenians imitated it, they did so with some misunderstanding,since the fashion was not current in their city. The elaborate dress became the hallmarkof a "non-human"image, thus appropriateas a dedicationto a divinity that could then be offered by aristocracyand lower classes alike. The garment disappearedin the Severe period, when each statue became individuallycharacterized, but was retained in archaisticart through the centuries. If all the above is near the mark, to the question "Who are the Akropolis Korai?" we should answer:"Not Athenian aristocraticgirls, ergastinaior arrephoroi,but Nymphs 44See,e.g., J. Neils, "The Group of the Negro Alabastra,"AntK 23, 1980, pp. 13-23, esp. p. 23; idem, "The Loves of Theseus: An EarlyCup by Oltos," AJA 85, 1981, pp. 177-179. 451ffashionsin sculptureare taken as true reflectionof daily life, the change to the Severe peplos must coincide with a change in costume in Athens and everywhereelse. Patrioticreasons might have prompted the rejection of an eastern garment, but this explanationseems less valid outside Greece proper, and in any case it is not reflected in Attic red-figuredvases until some years later. On Archaisticfashions see Harrison,op. cit. (footnote 41 above), pp. 51-61; ArchaicStyle, chap. 11 and esp. pp. 313-316 and, on the Archaickorai, pp. 113-114.



or lesser deities in distinctive attire; they may have originally portrayeda major goddess, but their meaning became diluted into generality in the course of the 6th century in Athens." BRUNILDE SISMONDo RIDGWAY BRYNMAWRCOLLEGE

Departmentof Classicaland Near EasternArchaeology BrynMawr, PA 19010


d. A modern cauliflower ear. Photo courtesy of Douglas Nigro

a. The Rayet Head, Copenhagen,Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek

b. Rayet Head, right ear

c. Rayet Head, left ear

e. Kore Akr. 685



HE MUSEwho governsthe fortunesof excavatorsin the field has reservedit for the giants alone to explorethe remainsof buildingswhich were never built, to reconstructmonumentswhichstood on unknownsites, and to interpretthe historyof structuresdemolishedin antiquity.To ordinarymortalssuch feats may seem to require a magician'sartsof legerdemain;and yet when touchedby HomerThompson'sskillful hands, the stones of Athens have producedbefore our eyes the unbuiltstoas on the Pnyx, the migratoryTemple of Ares, and the SquarePeristyle,demolishedfor the conjuring,it constructionof the Stoaof Attalos.In view of this historyof archaeological to dedicateto him a story of two Attic buildings,one of seems peculiarlyappropriate in the 5th centuryB.C. to make way for the other whichwas never whichdisappeared constructed. The long and complexhistoryof the sanctuaryof Demeter and Kore at Eleusis finds its most graphicexpressionin the survivingremainsof the Telesterionitself. From a small Mycenaeanmegaronto the ceremonialhall of the Classicaland later periods,the temple doubledand redoubledits size in responseto the ever-growing popularityof the cult whose pilgrimsand pageantsit accommodatedthroughoutantiquity. Unique among the sanctuariesof Greece, the prosperityof the Great Mysteries can be readin the physicalexpansionof the templein whichthey were celebrated.The building'svicissitudeswere legion and have taxed the ingenuityof archaeologistsno less than the elusive secretof the Mysteriesthemselveshas tantalizedthe historianof religion.The ruins of the enormoushypostylehall, whichhoused the Mysteriesfrom Pericleanto Romantimes, forma familiarlandmarkfor everymodernvisitorto the site (P1.18:a).The tiers of rock-cutsteps and the northwesternwallquarrieddeep into the living rock of the acropolisso dominatethe site todaythat it is easy to overlookthe predecessorsof the ClassicalTelesterion;but beneathits floor, half a centuryof excavationhas revealedthe tangledremainsof five earlierstructureswhichservedthe cult continuouslyfromthe BronzeAge to the early5th centuryB.C. Into this pit of fragmentarywallsand re-usedfoundationsfew but the most dedicatedinitiatesof Eleusishave venturedto descend.The investigationsof earlierexcavatorshave served to elucidate the historyof the Telesterionin all of its successiveremodelingsand enlargementsso developmentare now clearlyunderthatthe generallines of the building'sarchitectural stood.1Thereremains,however,a shadowyepisodein the earlyhistoryof the greathall whichappearsas yet to have eludedexplanation. des Entwicklung 'The monumental publicationof the sanctuary,F. Noack, Eleusis,die baugeschichtliche Heiligtumes,Berlin 1927 (= Noack, Eleusis), has been considerablysupplementedby the excavationsof K.



The Eleusinianepistatai,the overseersof the sanctuary,recordedin their annual inventoryfor the year 408/7, and again in 407/6, the sacredfunds and dedications belongingto the Two Goddesses,the annualincomeand expendituresof the cult, and in additiona considerableassortmentof architecturalblocks and buildingequipment whichwas storedin the sanctuary.2 Includedamongthe latterwere buildingblocksof Aiginetanporos and Pentelic marble,dressedblocks for the foundations,steps, and stylobateof a colonnade,columndrumsand at least one capital,new and unusedroof tiles in largenumbers,and an assortmentof lumber,some of whichwas storedaway from the elements under a tent. Togetherwith these were various builders'tools, ropes, scaffolding,and wagonswhichlend color to the pictureof a buildingsite where constructionwork is still in progress,or for some reasononly temporarilysuspended. The overseersalso cataloguedand passedon to the custodyof theirsuccessorsanother collectionof buildingmaterialsevidentlyremovedfrom an old buildingand storedin the sanctuaryagainstfuturere-use. This portionof the catalogueis introducedby the notation:"takendownfrom the temple,"and these materialswill presentlybe seen to yield some interestinginformationconcerningone stage of that building'shistory,even record.The thoughthey have perishedlong since and surviveonly in the epigraphical items in questionare listed in IG 12, 313, lines 103-110 for the year 408/7, and in IG 12, 314, lines 113-120 for the year 407/6. The betterpreservedversion of the text on the obverseof the stele is quotedhere. aIo ro










xoivXa ErviTvXta: AAI EY 81VOL) KEKoXXEAE'Vo










III :htKptT[Ep]a"



Taken down from the temple: 1750 pairsof roof tiles, 105 54 column drums, 16 Ionic bases, 21 wooden epistyles, Kourouniotes, AEXT,13, 1930/31 [1933], Hapapr'ux pp. 17-30; 14, 1931/32 [1935], Hap'pr., PP. 1-30; 15, 1933/35 [1938], HapapT.,PP. 1-48; idem, 'EEVO-LVLaKa , Athens 1937. Many of Noack's interpretations and chronologicalconclusions must be altered in the light of this work. See especially K. Kourouniotes and J. N. Travlos,

"TEXE0cpwLOV KaL vaos


AEXT15, 1933/35 [1938], pp. 54-114 (

Kourouniotes-Travlos);Travlos, "To 'AVaKTopoV T7'q 'EXEvcivo-q,"'Apx'Eo, 1950-51, pp. 1-16 (= Travlos, "'AVaKTopoV");0. Rubensohn, "Das Weihehaus von Eleusis und sein Allerheiligstes," JdI 70, 1955, pp. 1-49; G. E. Mylonas, Eleusisand the EleusinianMysteries,Princeton 1961 (-Mylonas, Eleusis). [Plate 29, illustrating"The Sacred Threshing Floor at Eleusis," by E. Vanderpool, shows the model of the PeisistratidTelesterion.-Ed.] 2IG 12, 313, lines 70ff.; 314, lines 80ff.



1 glued together from two, 18 rafters3taken down from the stoa, 110 3 pairsof doors, 10 roof timbers.4

Anotherdocumentfound at Eleusismentionsstill more blockswhichwere taken downfrom the temple.A decreeof the AthenianBoule and Demos datingto the year 421/0 (P1.18:b)authorizesthe constructionof a footbridgeover one of the Rheitoi,the two smalllakeswhichformedthe boundarybetweenthe plainof Athens and the Thriasianplainof Eleusis.The new bridgefor the sacredprocessionof the initiateswas to be constructedentirelyof re-used blocks, removed from the Archaictemple, which wereleft over aftersome workon the wallsof the sanctuaryhadbeen completed.5 STOIX:26


Ary7El EI7TpVTaVEVE,HpEMr9Euypa [A]AaTEVE,






EP(TOVTOU 7rapa TO [a]


xlo'; XpoAtE[vI 'EXEvv[o61 EV TOYKa6ELPEJE[VI EAXrov OV EK TO VEO TOapXato, ho%' ES; TO TEtXO'; avaxLCtKOVTE';, ho' a' 10 v Ta%htEpa%O'pocuv hat hEpEat a OTEO'; yEfvpocrat


[okaAXEcrTaTa. 7TXaTOq8E 7rItoVTOV [7]EVTEI7ro8a,



XavvovrTat, a&Xa Tois; incV



aE KaT

Tar htEpa. Xos


Ta% 15 [aKlakvkOaL &appoaqTO8 PPE[T] av Xo-vyyp(a)XkEL AEoAEUAEX LE';6 apXlTEKTOV. E]al6 8E ME ocil E[.]

o KaOoln

Prepisson of Euphereswas secretary.Resolved by the Council and the Demos; Aigeis held the prytany;Prepiswas secretary; Patrokleswas chairman;Theaios made the motion: to bridgeover 5 the Rheitos on the side towardthe city, makinguse of the blocks at Eleusis which had been taken down from the Archaictemple, are the raftersof a roof is indicatedby the use of the term in those portions of the 3That04-KiootK Erechtheion accounts dealing with the woodwork of the roof, see J. M. Paton and G. P. Stevens, The Erechtheum,Cambridge, Mass. 1927, pp. 314, 353, 366-369. Cf. A. T. Hodge, The Woodworkof Greek Roofs, Cambridge1960, p. 119. 4The technical meaning of hLKpLOTEpaq is not clear, nor is their function in the Telesterion. They are certainlyof wood and most likely part of the woodworkof the roof. In the specificationsfor the arsenalof Philon, the term is applied to vertical posts supportingthe shelves of the galleries, IG II2, 1668, lines 78-80; translatedas "posts" by K. Jeppesen, Paradeigmata,Aarhus 1958, p. 73, commentary,p. 84. Cf. the use of the term in the woodworkof ships, IG I12,1629, line 1156; 1631, line 339. 51GI2, 81, lines 5-9; for this interpretationof the work on the walls, lines 8-9, see SIG3, 86, note 5; for the Rheitoi, Pausanias,i.38.1; Hesychios, s.v. 'PELTOL.



and which they left aside when they re-used them in the wall, in order that the priestessesmay carrythe sacredrelics as 10 safely as possible. Let them make the width five feet so that wagons may not drive across, but those going to the sacred rites may cross on foot. And furtherto cover over with blocks the 15 channels of the Rheitos as the architectDemomeles shall specify. But if they are not ....

Therecan be little doubtthat the phraseho VEOc,in an Eleusiniandocumentrefers to no other buildingbut the Telesterionitself, for it has been convincinglydemonstrated by Kourouniotesand Travlosthat the great hall of the Mysterieswas in fact the templeof Demeter.6In the 5th century,no other structurewithinthe sanctuarycould have been describedsimplyas "the temple"withoutfurtherqualification.It has long been recognizedalso that the buildingdescribedas ho VEoq ho a&pX'Cdo in IG 12, 81, line 8 and again more simplyas ho VEO' in IG 12, 313, line 103 (= 314, line 113) shouldbe identifiedas the Telesterionof the 6th centuryB.C., the constructionof which is commonlyattributedto the tyrantPeisistratos,althoughwith more chronological precisionit oughtpreferablyto be assignedto his sons.7Two entriesin the inventoryof 408/7 will shortlybe seen to confirmthis identificationof the building,for the overseers listed materialfrom a stoa, whichseems to have had some connectionwith the temple,and three pairsof doors.8 The survivingfoundationsof the ArchaicTelesterionwere found buriedbeneath the presenteasterncornerof the vast hypostylehallwhichsucceededit on the site in the second half of the 5th century.These remains,togetherwith cuttingsin the bedrock, have yieldedan accurateplanof the Archaictemple,almostexactlyone quarterthe size of the laterClassicalstructure.In additionto its foundations,the buildingsurvivestoday in numerousfragmentsof its superstructure (Pls. 19:b,20) whichcontributetheir evidence to the architectural reconstruction.9 The ArchaicTelesterionwas a large,square 6Kourouniotes-Travlos,pp. 54-114, and especially 59-61. The theory of Rubensohn (Die Mysterienheiligtumerin Eleusisund Samothrake,Berlin 1892, pp. 44ff.) that the temple of Demeter ought to have been a canonical Greek temple separate from the Telesterion, was followed by Noack (Eleusis, pp. 48, 218), who attemptedto locate the temple on the rock-cutterracejust north of the ClassicalTelesterion and referred to it as "Temple F" (ibid., pp. 85-88). This attempt was unsuccessful and the cuttings proved later to belong to a building of the Roman period, Kourouniotes-Travlos,pp. 72-75. Cf. also the discussion of G. E. Mylonas, TheHymnto Demeterand Her Sanctuaryat Eleusis,St. Louis 1942, pp. 28-63. 7See E. Cavaignac, Le tresor sacredd'Eleusisjusqu'en 404, Versailles 1908, pp. 38-39, followed by Noack, Eleusis,pp. 59-60, 68-70; Mylonas, Eleusis,p. 82; cf. also Dittenberger'scomment, SIG3, 86, note 4; Kourouniotes-Travlos,pp. 75ff. 81G 12, 313, lines 108-110. It may perhapsbe questioned whether the entries in line 110 belong with those immediately preceding since the line is separated from the others by a paragraphmark. But the identical entries in IG I2, 314, line 120 are not so separated.Here the mason placed his paragraphmark immediatelybefore line 113, where it had been omitted in the previous inventory; thus he set apartall the materialremoved from the temple. It is possible that the mark before IG I2, 313, line 110 is in fact an error. 9For detailed descriptionof the architecturalremains, Noack, Eleusis,pp. 48-68; Mylonas, Eleusis,pp. 78-88. The restored plan is conveniently reproduced in A. W. Lawrence, GreekArchitecture,Baltimore



hallapproached by threedoorwayson its southeasternside. Here a broadporticoof ten Doriccolumns10 crossedthe facadeof the buildingand projectedtwo intercolumniations to form a deep porch,of whichmanyof the originalporospavingslabs still remainin The threeotherinteriorwallswererangedwithbanksof nine stone steps,except place.1" in the westerncornerand extendinghalf way alongthe southwesternwall, wherethere of the stood a smallenclosedchamberknownas the Anaktoron,the sanctumsanctorum Eleusiniancult.12The building'sroof was carriedupon five parallelrows of interior columnsnumbering22 in all, andarrangedwithfive columnsin each rowexcepton the southwestside where two columnsalignedwith the front of the Anaktoron.Both the centeredrowof columnson the axis of the buildingand the survivingmarblesfromthe decorationof its roof showthatit was of the normalgabledtypewitha pedimentcrowning the facadeof the southeasternportico. The colonnadedporchof the ArchaicTelesterionwas the only structureof its kind builton the site beforethe greatprostoonof Philonwas addedto the Classicalbuilding in the late 4th century;and in fact it was the only buildingin the sanctuaryduringthe 6th and 5th centuriesto which the Greek word stoa could properlybe applied.The earlierArchaictemple of the beginningof the 6th centurywas a simple rectangular The later, so-called"Kimonian"reconstructurewith no evidence for a colonnade.13 structionwas designedto have its frontwallfoundedon the old stylobateof the Archaic Althougha stoa was projected porchand apparentlydispensedwith exteriorcolumns.14 and actuallybegunfor the ClassicalTelesterion,it was plainlynever built;and indeed we may suspectthat the columndrums,steps, and stylobateblockslistedin the invenThusthe toriesof 408/7 and407/6 are actuallymembradisjectaof this abortiveproject.15 materialslisted in the same inventorieswhichare said to have been takendown from the stoa could only have been removedfrom the porch of the ArchaicTelesterion. Includedamongthese, it will be remembered,were also three pairsof doors,while the existingfoundationsfor the southeastwall of the Archaictemple preservethe thresholds of three doorways.These were the only means of access to the hall of initiation since its other threewallswere linedwith steps and its westerncornerwas occupiedby the Anaktoron.Now the doorsof the inscriptioncan hardlyhave come from the Classi1957, p. 253, fig. 142; H. Berve, G. Gruben, M. Hirmer, GreekTemples,Theaters,and Shrines,New York 1962, p. 400, fig. 70. '?Kourouniotes-Travlos,p. 75. Noack (Eleusis,pp. 57-58) restored three possible schemes for the stoa with eight, nine, and ten columns, but he preferredthe facade with nine columns; followed by W. B. of AncientGreece,London 1950, p. 113. Dinsmoor, TheArchitecture 11Noack,Eleusis,p1.3. 12Theexistence of the enclosed chamber in the west corner and its identificationas the Anaktoron were first recognized and demonstratedby Travlos ("'Aa'aKTOpOI'," pp. 1-16, and especially p. 7, fig. 4). For the steps lining the walls, see Noack, Eleusis,pp. 95-97. I3Ibid.,pp. 16-23, and especiallyp. 19; Mylonas, Eleusis,pp. 67-70. 14Noack,Eleusis,pp. 99-101, fig. 47; Mylonas, Eleusis,pp. 111-113. 15Evidencefor the beginning of work on a stoa for the ClassicalTelesterion can be seen at the east corner of the buildingwhere the deep foundationsstep forward4.21 m. beneath the later foundationsfor the prostoonof Philon, Noack, Eleusis,p. 117, fig. 51; p1.39:d. -



cal Telesterion;for it seems unlikelythat three of its six doors could have been removed and discardedso soon after their installationas to be cataloguedby the overseers of 408/7. On the otherhand,the so-called"Kimonian"phaseof the templeseems to have been designedwith only two entranceson its southeastfacadeand was, in any event, not sufficientlycompletedfor its doorsto have been hung in place.16Againone is led to supposethat the three pairsof doors mentionedin IG 12, 313 and 314 hung originallyin the doorwaysof the Peisistratidtemple.The two inventoriesand the decree (IG I2, 81) of the late 5th centurymay then be assumedin all probabilityto refer to buildingmaterialssalvagedfrom the Archaicstructure,the foundationsof which are preservedon the site today. and at what time in the historyof We may now inquireunderwhatcircumstances the buildingits roof and columns,its porchand doorswere dismantledand storedfor re-usein the sanctuary.Scholarshave explainedthe fate of the ArchaicTelesterionwith unanimityof opinion, and the conclusionhas been almost universally extraordinary acceptedthat the templemet its end in the Persiandestructionof 480 B.C. Indeed,no less a witnessthan Herodotosseemed to have madean explicitstatementto this effect when he recountedthe personalrevenge which Demeter exacted from the Persian troopsat Plataia."It seems to me a marvelousthing that thoughthe battlewas fought besidethe grove of Demeter,none of the Persiansdied in the precinctor even entered ground.But into it; and most of them fell roundaboutthe sanctuaryon unconsecrated I judge, if one may judge of the ways of heaven, that the goddessherselfrefusedto receive them because they had burnedher sanctuary,the Anaktoron,at Eleusis."17 Thatthe Persianarmydid, in fact, visit its wrathon the sanctuaryat Eleusiswith a fury nearlyequalto the sackof the AthenianAcropoliswas apparentto the earlyexcavators, who reportthe discoveryof burnedand brokendebrissimilarto that from the Acropolis.18The Archaicperiboloswall was apparentlybreachedat a pointjust southeastof the Telesterion,wherea sectionof the earlymud-brickwall was subsequentlyreplaced masonryfoundedon the originalpolygonalsocle (P1.19:a).19 with fine pseudo-isodomic Furthermore,other structuresassociatedwith the Archaicsanctuary,and in particular the SacredHouse, are known to have been destroyedat this time.20In view of the 16Travlosrestored three doors without comment in the "Kimonian" building as in its predecessor p. 13, fig. 4); followed by Lawrenceand Gruben, locc. citt. (footnote 9 above); but see ("'Ava'Kropo0V," Mylonas, Eleusis,p. 112, and Travlos' most recent version of the plan, ibid., fig. 26, C. On the incomplete state of the structure,see Noack, Eleusis,pp. 94-103. 17Herodotos,ix.65.2: OC'ux &' got O'KCV' 7rapa rTs Ar-,urqpos ro aXoosHEPcTE'C)V OV"TE EcTEXOC6 es cTOJ.






EuaXo/.tvwOv oi8E E'1s eOalq rC'V X [3E,37)AX(EI7rE-




6Eo% aVT-


OVK (E~KETO ETvp)caTava

a vaKropovO. [TO tpOId TO% 4 'EXEVOrtiVL

18Noack,Eleusis,p. 93. 19Thesection of the peribolosreconstructedin pseudo-isodomicmasonry is located between H 25 and H 29 on the plan, Mylonas, Eleusis,fig. 6. For discussion of the repairof the wall, see ibid., pp. 107-108; Noack, Eleusis,pp. 30-32, 90-92, and pl. 14 between C 6 and C 8. 20Forthe Sacred House, located to the south of the sanctuaryjust beyond the fortifications,see Kourouniotes, HlpaKrtKa, 1937, pp. 42-52; Mylonas, Eleusis,pp. 101-103, 192.



archaeological remainsand the statementby Herodotosthat the Persiansburnedthe Anaktoron,the innermostchamberof the Telesterion,all the evidence seemed to suggestthe totaldestructionof the Archaictemplein 480/79. Scholarshave maintained this date almost withoutexceptionand have gone on to describein vivid terms the holocaustwhichengulfedthe sanctuary.21 Closer examinationwill reveal a numberof facts about the ArchaicTelesterion which are at variancewith this pictureof utter destructionand may suggest that the buildingmorelikelysuccumbedto a ratherdifferentfate. In the firstplace,it shouldbe noted that much of its superstructure can be accountedfor in the late 5th century. Thereis no way of knowinghow muchmaterialwas re-usedfor repairingthe peribolos wall, but enoughwas left over aftercompletionof that projectso that the new bridge over the Rheitos was to be built entirelyof blocks salvagedfrom the old temple.22 Presumablyblocksof the most regularand useful shapeswouldhave been takenfirst, the wall blocks,the triglyphs,and architravesfrom the stoa. A numberof blocksfrom the exteriorDoric cornicewere re-usedin a short length of wall constructedon the polygonalsocle of the easternArchaicperiboloswall. It has been suggestedthat this may be partof the reconstruction es TELXOs of IG 12, 81, line 9;23 but whetheror not this is the wallmentionedin the inscription,its constructionis certainlyto be associated with the buildingof underground granariesto the east of the Archaicperiboloswall in the latterpartof the 5th century.Still other blocksfrom the Archaictemple,including anotherpiece of the Doric cornice(PI. 19:b),were employedin a greatsupplementary pierset againstone of the interiorpiersof the Classicalgranariesat some time before One interior they were filledwith earthand went out of use in the late 4th century.24 epicranitisblockand possiblysome of the wallblocksfromthe ArchaicTelesterionwere used as backersfor the fine pseudo-isodomic masonrywhichrepairedthe breachbroken by the Persiansin the south periboloswall.25Anothercorniceblock and a Doric anta capital(P1.20:a) were laterbuilt into the wallsof the little Romanbuilding,knownas while still other "TempleF", on the rock-cutterracenortheastof the Telesterion,26 21Ibid., pp. 88-90, 106-108; Noack, Eleusis,pp. 91f., 93; D. Philios, 'EXEVcTL', MvOrrTpuLa,'EpEL'lna


1884, pp. 75ff.; and cf. Cavaignac,op. Av r^s,Athens 1906, pp. 81, note 1, 90; idem, npaKTtKa, line 8. 81, note on IG 12, 7 86, note 4; SIG3, above), p. 39; cit. (footnote 221G12 1, lines 5-9 (p. 130 above). 23Suchwas the interpretationof Kourouniotesand Travlos, pp. 75-82. It is more likely that this wall was built when the low-lyingarea beyond the Archaicperiboloswas converted into undergroundgranaries. See Noack, Eleusis, pp. 189-193; Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 125-127. The wall in question does not properly align with the polygonalsocle beneath it, and it abuts the northernmostpier of the granaries,Kourouniotes-Travlos,p. 76, figs. 11, 12. Cf. the plan Noack, Eleusis, p. 190, fig. 76, where the wall is indicatedby dotted lines runningnorthwardsat an oblique angle from the last pier in the right row. If this is one of the of which IG 12, 76, lines 10-12 authorizesthe construction,then the date of that inscription, three cnpo%, ca. 422 B.c.(?), providesa terminuspost quemfor the re-use of the cornice blocks from the Archaictemple. For a recent summaryof the discussionconcerningthe date of IG 12, 76, see R. Meiggs and D. M. Lewis, GreekHistoricalInscriptions,Oxford 1969, pp. 222-223. pp. 79-82, fig. 15. 24Kourouniotes-Travlos, 25Noack,Eleusis,p. 54. 26Ibid., pp. 86-87. These were shown to belong to the ArchaicTelesterion by Kourouniotesand Travlos (pp. 74-75); cf. Mylonas, Eleusis,p. 176.




membersof the same seriesare to be seen in the west wallof the Archaicarchitectural long Romangranary,near the southwestcornerof the building.The well-knownsima blockof Parianmarble(P1.20:b), adornedwith its ornamentalram'shead, whichoriginally crownedthe southerncornerof the building,was found in the fill between the post-Persianrepairof the southernperibolosand the deep foundationfor the crepidoma The sima couldhave been buriedalreadyin the secondquarter of Philon'sprostoon.27 of the 5th century,when the originalfillingwas thrownin behindthe Archaicperibolos in orderto enlargethe terraceof the Telesterionabove;or the blockmighthave found its way into the fill whichwas replacedafterthe foundationsfor the prostoonhad been laidin the mid-4thcentury. In additionto all these piecesof the Archaictemplewhichsurvivetodayby virtue of their re-use in variouslater buildingsat Eleusis, there were extant in the late 5th centuryall the materialslistedby the overseersof 408/7 and 407/6, whichhad not been re-usedin otherconstructionup to that time. We have seen that these included54 column drumsand 16 Ioniccolumnbases,whichare to be assignedto the interiororderof the hall.28No less than 1750pairsof roof tiles had been salvagedfromthe buildingand survivedin the storeroomsas late as 407/6. It was possiblypartof this group,together with severalmarblesimas and antefixes(P1.20:c, d), whichwas found in the excavation of a small building,locatedon a rock-cutterracerisingtwo metersabove the SacredWay,just south of the Hellenisticexedra.29But by far the most strikingentriesin the inventoriesare the 22 woodenepistyles,the 18 woodenraftersfrom the stoa, and The epistylescame almostcertainlyfrom the interiorof the hall the ten roof timbers.30 and restedon the Ionic columns, 16 bases of whichwere still storedwith them, while the text statesspecificallythatthe rafterswere "takendownfromthe stoa." The foregoingsynopsisof existing or recordedarchitecturalmembersfrom the largeproportionof the building'ssuperArchaicTelesterionsuggeststhat a remarkably structuresurvivedthe Persiandestructionof the sanctuaryand was thoughtfit for reuse throughoutthe 5th centuryand later.Now, except for the sima and roof tiles of 27D. Philios, TIpaKrtKa, 1883, p. 63.

28Forthe attributionof these to the Archaictemple, see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 60-61; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 82; W. B. Dinsmoor (op. cit. [footnote 10 above], p. 195, note 4) thought that they might have come from the post-Persianreconstructionof the Telesterion, no doubt because they survived to the end of the century, while the Archaic temple he had already consigned to destruction by Xerxes (p. 113). A. W. Lawrence(op. cit. [footnote 9 above], p. 252) assumed Dinsmoor's suggestion to be certain. 29Philios,'EXEVrq- (footnote 21 above), p. 86, note 1. It has been suggested to identify this building (Mylonas, Eleusis, fig. 4, no. 22) with one of the two treasuriesin the sanctuarywhich are mentioned in the overseers' accounts of 329/8, IG I12,1672, lines 300-302; see Noack, Eleusis, pp. 83-84; Mylonas, op. cit., p. 144. It is not impossible that some of the roof tiles from the Archaic temple were stored here during later periods. The fact that it would seem strange to us to store secondhand building materials in a treasurydoes not reflect the view of antiquity.We have only to recall that the treasurersof Athena for 369/8 recorded among the dedications in the west room of the Parthenon eight and one half boxes of rotten and useless arrows (IG 112, 1424a, lines 344-345: G-dipaKOL Pill Ka[l 7].upaKLOr T[o(]EVa'Tuwv rairpcivaxp-q~rwrw)). Their successors in 368/7 were perhapstidier housekeepers, for they seem to have reduced the useless arrowsin the Parthenonto one small box, IG I12,1425, lines 280-282. 30Seeabove, p. 129, lines 106, 108-110.



Parianmarble,the buildingwas entirelyconstructedof fine poros stone, of the kind whichis easilycalcinedon the surfaceand becomesextremelyfragileand friablewhen exposedto the heat of fire. It seems unlikelythat severelydamagedblockswouldhave been so carefullystored, recorded,and re-used, especiallyin the constructionof the bridgeacross the Rheitos. Far more surprisingis the very existence in the late 5th centuryof so manywoodenmembers,epistyles,rafters,beams,and doors, of a building whichhad been fired by the Persians.There is, after all, ratherlittle inflammable materialin a stone buildingapartfromthe doorsand the roof timbers;and it is scarcely crediblethat a fire, of such intensityas to destroyeven the chamberof the Anaktoron,31couldhave left the roof in such a state that it was worthsalvaging.It is well to recallthat the wallsof the AthenianAcropolisappearedscorchedby fire in the time of Herodotos(v.77.3), a generationafterthe Persiansack.Moreover,Pausanias,traveling in the 2nd centuryafterChrist,saw a numberof buildingswhichhad been burnedby the Persiansand were neverrepaired.Of one he writesin particular,"Onthe wayfrom Phaleronto Athensis a templeof Herathat has neitherdoorsnor roof; they say it was The roof was the one partof the building firedby Mardoniosthe son of Gobryas."32 whichwas certainto perishin any extensivefire;and yet woodenepistyles,rafters,and timbers,togetherwith a large quantityof roof tiles, seem to have survivedin sufficientlygood conditionto makeit worththe troubleof storingthem for 70 years. memberswill increaseone's doubtsthat An examinationof the extantarchitectural the ArchaicTelesterioncan have sufferedextensive damageat the handsof the Perfine state of preservation sians.These blockshave all in commontheir extraordinarily noteworthyin this upon whichthe excavatorshave especiallycommented.Particularly respectare the piecesof the marbleroof and the poroscorniceblocks.A considerable numberof marblesima tiles and antefixesof the cover tiles have survived,and far from showingsigns of damageby fire, manyretainto this day tracesof their original painteddecoration(P1.20:c, d). The palmettesof the antefixeshad 11 red petalsoutlined in blue, while the rakingsima was decoratedwith a bandof alternatinglotus and palmettessurmountedby a narrowbead-and-reelpattern.Againthe petalsof the blossoms and the beadswere paintedred and outlinedin blue.33Equallywithouttraceof burningis the cornersima (P1.20:b) of which the ornamentalram's head displaysa remarkablefreshness.The originalpaintwas partiallypreservedat the time of its discovery,red for the eyes and blue for the tightcurlsof hair.34 Moreinterestingstill is the seriesof poroscorniceblocksbuiltinto the west wallof If a buildingis deliberatelydestroyed,its cornice the granariesin the late 5th century.35 31Herodotos,


32Pausanias,i.1.5; and vII.5.5,x.35.2. 33SeeA. K. Orlandosin Noack, Eleusis,pp. 66-67; Mylonas, Eleusis,p. 80. 34Philios,HpaKTLKa, 1883, p. 63; Mylonas, Eleusis, p. 81. Orlandossaw the traces of blue as green, Noack, Eleusis,p. 64. 35Fordetailed discussion and interpretationof these cornice blocks, see Kourouniotes-Travlos,pp. 75-82. One block in the series was found in "Temple F", Noack, Eleusis, pp. 86-87. Another was built



mightbe expectedto show clearersigns of damagethan some other partsof the superstructure.If its roof collapsesin a fire, we should expect many corniceblocks to be dislodgedfrom their positionshigh on the buildingand to shatterin their fall to the ground.But the evidenceof the preservedpiecesis precisely' the reverse.Almostall are completeblocks, some carvedwith one mutuleand one via and others with two mutules and two vias. The edges of the mutulesare crispand sharp;on some the guttae have scarcelyeven been chipped.The moldingson the faces of the blockshave naturallynot faredquiteso well as the more protectedundersides,but on manythe geison dripstill comes nearlyto a pointand the coronaretainsits smoothface undamaged(P1. 19:b).Patchesof ancientstuccostill cling to the less exposedsurfaces,the undercutof the geison drip, and the cornersof the vias. Some of these bits of stucco still show tracesof color, but much has been lost becauseof theirexposureto the weathersince the time of their discovery.There are no visible signs of damageby fire.36The comments of the excavatorsare expliciton the excellent conditionof the blocksand are worthquotingat some length.37"Thearchitectural membersused in the constructionof the littlewall, at any ratethe greaterpartof them, have not sufferedgreatdamage;and on some of them thereare quitewell preservedeven the very sensitive,delicateedges, on whichdependspartof the architectural functionof the poroscornices.On almostall the originalcolorwas preservedin lively tones at the time of theirdiscovery.This, too, is evidencethat these blocksdid not suffervery badlythroughcarelesshandlingor bad keepingduringthe intervalbetween their removalfrom the buildingto which they originallybelongedand theirconstructionin the little wall here in question."Inevitably it followslikewisethat they cannothave been heavilydamagedwhile in their original positionson the Archaictemple. All the availableevidence appearsto suggest that the building,whose wooden timberswere recordedin the inventories,and whose porosand marbleblockswe possess today, cannotin fact have been the same temple which Herodotossays that the Persiansburned.The carefuland detailedlists in the inventoriesof 408/7 and 407/6 reflectconsiderableadministrativelaborsuch as is not likely to have been expended upon ruinousdebris.Furthermore,the conditionof the building'ssurvivingmembers indicatesthat it did not meet its end in conflagration. On the contrary,the phraseology into the later pier, which was constructedin the undergroundgranariesbeside the northernmostpier in the east row and was removed by Kourouniotesin 1923, op. cit., p. 79, and note 1; fig. 15. The location of the pier is shown as a dotted rectangleon the plan, Noack, Eleusis, p. 190, fig. 76. Still another of the Archaic cornice blocks is still built into the west wall of the Roman granaries. 36Theblock of the interior epicranitis,now re-used as a backer in the post-Persianrepairof the peribolos wall, was described by Noack (Eleusis, p. 54) as heavily burned. This, like the cornice blocks, it should be noted, is a complete block; and while the upper curve of its hawksbeakis largely broken away, its other surfaces are not badly damaged.The slightly friable condition of the surface may well be due to weathering;and there are today no obvious traces of calcinationor discolorationwhich need be attributed to the action of fire. Noack (Eleusis, p. 93) likewise reported signs of what he took to be burning on the marbleroof tiles, but he admittedthat the roof did not appearto have fallen. 37Kourouniotes-Travlos, pp. 78-79.



of the inscriptionsis uniformand explicit.All the buildingmaterialssalvagedfrom the Archaictempleare describedas &ro'To VEO KaOELpELEva or aTro TEs -r0oisKaOEpEgEK To VEO To apXawo.38 The naturalinferencefrom these expresvot or KaOEpEgEvov sions is that the blockswere actuallytakendown from their positionson the building and committedto the chargeof the overseersfor storagein the sanctuary.The preservedinventoriesof 408/7 and407/6 presumablylistedonly those materialswhichhad not yet been re-usedin other construction.The simplestexplanationof the building's fate is systematicdemolition:it was deliberatelydismantledto make way for another building.Onlythis solutionwill accountfor the survivalof its woodentimbersand the care of the overseersin recordingthe salvagedmaterialin exact detail;only this can have promptedthe descriptionof this materialas Ka6EapEgJva in all the epigraphical the excellentconditionof the survivdocuments;and only this can explainsatisfactorily blocks. ing architectural It remainsto discover,if possible,at what time the old ArchaicTelesterionwas torn downand its successorbegun.The circumstancessurroundingthe constructionof the buildingwhich is generallycalled "Kimonian"may providea clue to the correct chronologyof that event. The Archaichall of initiation,of whichthe survivingblocks have been consideredabove,was succeededon the same site, at a date yet to be determined in the early 5th century,by a far more commodioushall apparentlydesigned doublethe numberof initiateswithinthe expresslyfor the purposeof accommodating The fixed featureof the site whichdeterminedthe planof the wholebuilding temple.39 was evidentlythe little chamberof the Anaktoron;for Travloshas demonstratedconvincinglythat this structureremainedthe same and inviolablethrougheach successive of the TelesterionfromearlyArchaicto late Romantimes.40The narrow reconstruction walledsanctuary,built aroundan uncutoutcroppingof naturalbedrock(P1.19:c,foreground),protecteda spot hallowedby the long traditionsof the cult and was plainlyof centralimportanceto the performanceof the Mysteries.The Anaktoronhad occupied the westerncornerof the Archaictemple,and althoughin its successorit was to retain preciselythe same physicalpositionon the site, the new hall was to have been laid out aboutthe Anaktoronso that it was centrallydisposedon the long southwestwall. The new Telesterionwas thus designedto have nearlytwicethe lengthof the Archaicbuilding, althoughthe width remainedexactly the same. The plan called for 21 interior columns,largerin diameterandmorewidelyspacedthanbefore,arrangedin threerows of seven columnseach. Also like its predecessor,the new buildingwas intendedto have tiersof steps, now seven in number,rangedaroundat least threesides of the hall. The frontwallwas pushedforwardto standon the stylobateof the earlierDoricportico, thus enlargingthe interiorof the hallitselfat the expenseof its exteriorfacade. 38GI12, 313, lines 103, 108-109 = 314, lines 113, 118-119; IG 12, 81, lines 7-8. 39Thearchitecturalremains are discussed in detail by Noack (Eleusis, pp. 93-106); Mylonas, Eleusis, pp. 111-113. For convenient reproductionof the restored plan, see Lawrenceand Gruben, locc. citt. (footnote 9 above). pp. 1-16. 40Travlos,"'Ava&K-opOv,"



Evidencefor the reconstructionof this plan comes chieflyfrom the beddingsand foundationspreparedfor the interiorcolumns, and from the rock-cutsteps along the northeastwall. The smooth, rock-cutfloor in the north cornerof the existingTelesterionpreservescircularbeddingsfor three rows of three columnsof smallerdiameter and spacedslightlycloser togetherthan the later Classicaland Roman columns (P1. 18:a,foreground).These three rows of beddingsalign with three rows of foundations furtherto the southeast,where individualpiers for each column were set down on bedrock,deep beneaththe floor of the Archaictemple.41The patternof the interior columnscan thus be reconstructedwith accuracy.The existenceof the beddingsin the floorof the presentbuildingshows that masses of the living, blackrock of the hillside must have been quarriedawayat this time in orderto increasethe floor area of the initiationhall towardthe northwest.The same thing is suggestedby the new foundations belowthe floorof the Archaicbuilding,for these are composedof unworkedand irregularslabs of Eleusinianlimestone,which still show tracesof the wooden wedges used to prythem out of the hill.42It is a naturalinferencethatthey werequarriedin the northwestextensionof the building.Along the northeastwallof the Archaictemplethe nine originalrock-cutsteps were at this time reworkedso as to become seven wider steps in the new building.In the courseof quarryingoperationsfor the northwestextensionof the Telesterion,seven steps of similardimensionswere cut alongthe continuation of this wall; and these are visible today beneaththe later marblesteps of the Classicalbuildingjust wherethe northernmostportalpassesinto the initiationhall (P1. 19:d).43

This phasein the historyof the temple,the so-called"Kimonian"Telesterion,has been almostuniversallyattributedto a reconstructionof the buildingundertakenafter the Persianinvasion,which has been seen as the cause of its predecessor'sdemise. Now, its scantremainsbearwitnessto the new building'smost strikingfeature,that is the extraordinarily early stage at which the projectwas abandoned.It is obvious that partsof the buildingnevergot abovethe ground.Hereit is importantto emphasizethat no beddingwas ever preparedfor the foundationsof the southwestwall beyond the cornerof the Anaktoron.The rock-cuttrenchwhichservedas beddingfor the western cornerof the Peisistratidtempleand of the Anaktoroncan be seen in Plate 19:c (lower left). Clearly,however, no westwardextensionof the cuttingto carrythe wall of the later structurewas ever begun;and there is no indicationthat any remodelingof the Anaktoronhad taken place. As we have seen, the blacklimestoneof the Eleusinian acropoliswas cut downsufficientlyto carvethe stepsalongthe northeasternwall,where they are preservedunderthe marblesteps of the ClassicalTelesterion.But Noack44has 4"Theevidence for the interior columns is discussed by Noack (Eleusis, pp. 94, 99-102) and appears on the actual-stateplan, pl. 3. 42Cf.Mylonas, Eleusis,p. 112. 43Forthe rock-cutsteps, see Noack, Eleusis,pp. 94-98, figs. 44, 46. 44Loc. cit. Those parts of the building for which there is evidence that work was carried out are illustratedon the plan, ibid., p. 100, fig. 47.



shownthat even the cuttingof these stepswas not fully carriedout at the northcorner of the building.As noted above, the spacingof the interiorcolumnswas determined, and rock-cutbeddingsand limestonefoundationswere preparedto carrythem. Not a has been identified;and in view of the incomplete singlefragmentof the superstructure state even of the foundations,it is hardto imaginethat manyblockswere ever fully workedand set in place.It should be equallyobvious that the doors, roof tiles, and woodentimbersof the inscriptionscannothave belongedto this phaseof the temple. The earlyand suddenabandonmentof this abortiveprojectto enlargethe Archaic Telesterionis strikinglyreminiscentof the fate of the OlderParthenonon the Athenian Acropolis.While this is not the place to indulgein furtherdiscussionof the controversiessurrounding the chronologyof thatcelebratedmonument,its conspicuousabanat an donment early stage of constructionis still most easily explainedby Xerxes' destructionof the Acropolisin 480 B.C. The evidenceat Eleusisnow suggestsa precisely analogouschainof events. If the constructionof the enlargedTelesterionwas cut short by the Persiansack, at that momentwhen the earlierArchaicbuildinghad been largely dismantledand the new buildingwas just beginningto be built, we can then more easilyunderstandboth the survivalinto the late 5th centuryof blocksand beamsfrom the Archaictempleand the unfinishedstate in whichits successorwas left abandoned. All the evidencehere reviewedsuggeststhe followingreconstructionof events in the sanctuaryat Eleusis.At some time duringthe decade490-480 B.C., the decisionwas made to replacethe old ArchaicTelesterionwith a buildingof twice its capacity.The Archaictemplewas carefullyand systematicallytaken apart,and the quarryingof the of foundationsfor its successorwas just begun when the Persian hill and preparation invasionof 480 B.C. causedthe workto stop abruptly.It is possiblyfor this reasonthat Herodotos45 explicitlyemphasizedthe Persiandestructionof the Anaktoron,the inner sanctumof the temple.This smallchamberwas very likelythe only partof the building standingabovegroundwhen the PersianssackedEleusis.In any event, the destruction of Eleusis had the same effect as the destructionof the AthenianAcropolis;for Demeter'stemple,like that of her sisterAthena,was allowedto lie in ruinsfor a generawasagainundertakenin the Pericleanperiod. tion beforeits reconstruction T. LESLIE SHEAR, UNIVERSITY PRINCETON

Departmentof Art and Archaeology Princeton,NJ 08544 45Herodotos,ix.65.2, footnote 17 above.




















N1,~~~~0 W

1 OA:314 s7OA3t4-26O3

0 A314-29



OA 314-42

OA 314-15

c. Late HelladicIIICand Protogeometricpotteryfrom KlepsydraEast Cuttingand channel A

CA 314-25


N THEMUSEUMOF IOANNINA,one of the most charmingin all Greece, a room is dedicatedto objectsfrom the sanctuaryof Zeus at Dodona.In the middleof this room a case presentstwo smallboys in bronze,one a stockylittle ballplayer,the other a slim youngsterof six or seven years tenderlyholdinga flutteringbird. This latter figureimmediatelyarrestsattention.'He seems strangelymodernin the worldof ancient Dodona, among the warriors,gods, goddesses,arms and jewelrythat surround him. Nevertheless,we recognizehim as Greek, a traditionalfigureand yet a unique piece. His typewas createdthroughhundredsof yearsof tradition,reachingbackto the beginningsof the sanctuaryof Dodona, but his essence is classical,even philosophical. Canwe understandhim? Herodotos(ii.55) tells the localstoryof the foundingof the oracle:how a priestess, a iTEXEMa gLEvkaw(black dove) from Egypt, established it under an oak tree. She served

the shrine of the primevalgoddess, the EarthMother,who was originallyassociated withdoves2-inevitably,as all visitorsto Greeceand Asia Minorknowhow theirrepetitive call still throbs in the summer shade.' Later her shrine was taken over by the goddessDione, wife of Zeus, whose priestessesthemselvesstill were called "doves", Peliades.Strabo(vii.7.10)has a common-senseexplanationof this story: As for the myths that are told about the oak tree and the doves ... they are in partmore appropriateto poetry. 'lIoanninaMuseum, inv. no. 1371. J. P. Vokotopoulou, 'O8,qjy' MovO-Elov 'Iwavvivwv, Athens 1973, p. 66, pls. 22-23 (Pls. 23, 24). Measurements:H. 16 cm., H. of head 2.7 cm., H. of face 2.2 cm., chin to navel 4.2 cm., width at armpits3.3 cm., base of neck to genitals 4.8 cm. The surface is in fair condition, showing ancient rectangularpatcheson chest and abdomen, modern mending on right thigh and back and details elsewhere. The incised areas of the hair, bird's feathers, fingers and toes are sharply reproduced from the wax model without much reworking.No base was found. This figure was excavated in 1965 by the Greek ArchaeologicalService near the theater. I am deeply indebted to Professor S. I. Dakaris, Ephor of Epeiros, and to the Director of the Museum, Dr. Andreou and to Mrs. Andreou for their permissionto publish this piece and their generous cooperationin arrangingfor study and photography.The photographs in the Ioannina Museum are by R. K. Vincent who gave generously of his time and talent. I must also acknowledge,with much appreciation,help from the AmericanCouncil of LearnedSocieties by a Grant-inAid, in 1980, for the travel and photographyrelated to the preparationof this article. Finally, I was also assisted by the honorandhimself, my husband,who helped me measure and study the bronze, unknowing (I trust) that he was enhancingthe qualityof his own Festschrift. 2Full bibliographyin S. I. Dakaris, ArchaeologicalGuide to Dodona, Ioannina 1971, p. 107; bronze figure, p. 105, pl. 35:1. The figure was found buried in a disturbeddeposit with two bronze coins; one of Kassiopeia,dating 342 B.C.,the other of the Molossians, dating 168 B.C. These imply that the bronze suffered in the Roman destructionof Dodona, 167 B.C. 3D'Arcy W. Thompson, A Glossaryof GreekBirds, Oxford 1895, pp. 129-134; on the doves of Dodona, pp. 133-134. This is the "fan-tailed"type of dove; see R. Peterson, A Field Guideto the Birds of Britainand Europe,London 1971, p. 80.


156 and (fragment1):

In the language of the Molossians (the people of Epeiros) old women are called "peliai".Perhapsthe much talked of Peliades were not birds, but three old women who busied themselves aroundthe sanctuary. (translationby H. L. Jones)

A lovely bronze of one of these priestessesof the early 5th centurysurvivesfrom Dodonawith her sacreddove confidentlyperchedon her hand.4The blood of a dove was employedeven in Athens for ritualcleansingof the sanctuaryof AphroditePandemos,5probablybecause it was not forgottenthat Aphroditewas the daughterof Dione according,at least, to the Epeirotetradition.Though earlierfiguresshow the dove in the handof the goddessor priestess,by the late 5th to early4th centurychildren are frequentlyshown handlingdoves as pets with no apparentintentionof sacrifice. We all know two famous reliefs of little girls, one with two doves and another holdingout a dove to her babybrother.6In the 4th centurymanyother such charming grave stelai may still hold a faint referenceto Aphroditeor to the GreatMotherherself.7 Parentsmust have gained a certainconfidencein seeing their child on happy terms with the goddess' own birds.When the child tired of the pet, perhapshe was inducedto learnreverencefor the deityby offeringher his birdas a votive. Ponderingthese things,we feel more deeplythe emotionalcontentof this bronze statuette;the boy's wistfulglancemay well mean that the child is about to offer the birdto Dione or to Aphroditeherself.ProfessorDakaris,in a sensitivedescriptionof the figure,8thoughtthat the gestureof the righthand (P1.24:d) was "tryingto attract the bird'sinterestor pull a stringattachedto the bird's leg." Perhaps.Or also it is possiblethat the thumband fingerof the righthandheld the stem of a missingbunch of grapesthat excites the dove. Or again, the boy may have extendeda prospective mate in the righthand,held only by the wings.9But the implicationof the gesturemay remainforeverbeyond our grasp,though its intent createsa charmingcross play of glances. Shouldthe child seem merelya genre figurein his home, considerfor a moment his peculiarhair dressing.Little boys on the Attic Choes vases,10who are sketched 4For Mycenaeandoves of the Earth Mother, see Dakaris, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), pl. 38:1 and 3. Earlyfigurines, R. A. Higgins, Catalogueof Terracottasin the Departmentof Greekand RomanAntiquitiesin the BritishMuseumI, London 1954, pls. 52, no. 336; 164, no. 1201 and J. N. Coldstream, Knossos, The Sanctuaryof Demeter,BSA, supply.vol. VIII, London 1973, pls. 59, nos. 213, 214. In bronze, H. Schrader, Phidias,Frankfurt1924, p. 152, figs. 129, 130. 5L. Deubner, AttischeFeste, Hildesheim 1962, p. 215. 61) G. M. A. Richter, Catalogueof GreekSculpture,MetropolitanMuseum of Art, Cambridge,Mass. NationalMuseum,IllustratedGuide, Athens 1954, pl. LX, no. 73, pp. 73-74; 2) S. Papaspyridi-Karouzou, 3845. 1980, pp. 58, 60, no. 7See below, footnote 25. 8Qp.cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 105. 9E.g., footnote 6 above (2) and H. Diepolder, Die attischenGrabreliefs,Darmstadt1965, pl. 33:2. 10G.van Hoorn, Choesand Anthesteria,Leiden 1951, passim.



playingwith animals, wear their hair short but loose and curly. Our Boy's hair is strange;it couldfall to the shoulders,but it is meticulouslyboundtightto the head (P1. 24:c, e). Behindthe ears, the hair is parted;the front ends are brushedforwardand braidedinto a plait reachingfrom partto forehead;likewise,at the back, the hair is brusheddownwardto form a similarbraidfrom partto nape.The braidsare thin, not thick as on most children who wear this central plait (o-KopfLo'?)l11The hair in such

plaitsoften was reservedfor dedicationby the child to one of the divinitieswho watch over children, the Kourotrophoi,Asklepios and Aphrodite,Demeter and Artemis. Originally,the plait marksa votary,a child who will ultimatelygive his lock or who himself has been offered to a divinity for service throughouthis childhood.'2That Dione receivedsuch childrenseems clearwhen we look also at the bronzeBallPlayer'3 who standsbesideour Boy in the Museum(P1.25). This chubbyfellowholdsa leatherballand moves to throwit. He too is naked,and he too wears a strange,even fantastic,hairdress.His abundantlocks are plaitedand twistedinto a complexerectionnot unlikethose fancycoiffuresof Trajaniccourtladies or bewiggedwomenfrom the Fayum.Theirclosestearlyparallelsare Boiotianfigurines who carryfillets and basketsas offeringsto the gods at the Kabeirion.Manyof these boys carrycocksor doves andwearimmenseandcomplicatedhairdresses.14 The custom of protectingthe sensitivehead has been commonthroughoutthe ages. Since the hair is a seat of personalpower,it must be cautiouslytreated(as witness, the tale of Samson)."5Ourboys fromDodonashowthatDione was happyto receivesuchvotaries. It is probablethat these bronzesrefer to living boys who were, accordingto the long tradition,vowed to the goddessat birthand dedicateduntil puberty.Both bronzes show boys well below that age-either becausethe parentsremovedthem at an early time or possiblybecause the child died in the sanctuary.The unusuallysentimental mood of our bronzemay suggestthat the parentsdedicatedthe statuemore in sorrow than in pride.They chose a distinguishedsculptorwho caughtthe mood and preserved it for us. Canwe guess at his artistictradition? Smallbronzesof the late Classicalperiodare surprisingly rare;most are heroicor athletic,not portraits.OurBoy is certainlyearlieras well as olderin age than the chubby BallPlayer.The legs of the BallPlayerare widelyspread;he moves at a diagonalto expressthe impendingthrustof the ball, a centrifugalpose that swingsoutward.The RE, s.v. Haaropferund Haartracht,col. 2125 (Bremer). It seems impossible to define the Greek terms with precision.See D. B. Thompson, Troy,supplementarymonograph3, pp. 40-44. 12V. von Gonzenbach, Untersuchungen zu den Knabenweihenim Isiscultder rimischenKaiserzeit,Bonn 1957, pp. 27-29; p. 31 for the Hellenistic plait in Greece. 13loanninaMuseum, inv. no. 1410, Vokotopoulou, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), p. 66, pl. 21; Dakaris, op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 105, pl. 35:2. I am much indebted to Dr. Andreou for permitting me to publish these photographsby R. K. Vincent (P1.25). "4B.Schmaltz, Terrakotten aus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben,Berlin 1974, pl. 11, no. 152; pl. 12, nos. 153, 159, 167. "5A. Gotsmich, "Volkstiimliche Ausschauungen in der griechischen Kunst," InternationalKongress, BerichteVI, Berlin 1939, pp. 436-438, pl. 42:c and f.



Boywiththe Dove, in contrast,standsquietly,to concentrateon his charge.The movement of his head and armscreatesa centripetalcomposition.His left relaxedleg is set forwardto stabilizethe stance.The axis of the body,seen best fromthe back,runsin a very faintcurvefromnapeto buttocksto rightheel. The bodysways,but very slightly; it also leans a triflebackwardso that the left shoulderand the abdomenare advanced. The movementof the arms raises the left shoulderand lowers the left hip, but the chiasmosis too delicateto be calledPraxitelean.It is a quiet pose, balanced,but not lazy. It is, fundamentally,the pose of Lysippos'Agias (datedsomewherebetween340 and 334 B.C.). It even more closely resemblesthe pose of the very youthfulbronze athleterecentlyacquiredby the GettyMuseum(P1.26).16Allowingfor the differencein age of the subjects,the balancedpose, the profilesof the bodies and the restrained modelingcertainlyrelateour bronzeto the Lysippiantradition.The soft musculatureof the childis keenlyobservedbut not exaggerated.The stomachis not plumpbut swells slightlyout belowthe navel to the immaturegenitals.The thighsare slender,the lower for the subject'sage to legs are a little short, and the head is realisticallyproportioned aboutone fifth of the height.The childhas come into its own as a subjectfor realistic a noveltyperhapsinitiatedby Lysipposhimselfwhen in the 340's he underportraiture, took portraitsof the child Alexander,"a pueritiaeiusortus"(Pliny,xxxiv.63), thus no doubtsettinga fashionamongthe well-to-dowho wereproudof theirsons. Let us look our Boy in the face for a moment.It is a roundchildishface with a high foreheadunder tightly combed hair (P1. 24:c). The long, narroweyes, under droopingupperlids, have delicatelyprickedeyeballs.The nose is aquiline,not stubby like the nose of a babyEros.The largeears are set ratherhigh.The mouth, a thin line with deep cornersand a wide lower lip, shows barelya trace of a smile. In many of these details,as well as in the treatmentof hairand thin plait,the headresemblesthat which also has a wistfulair. Our Boy is not of an Eros often consideredLysippian,17 offeringhis pet affection,not teasingit with roughposErosbut a seriousbird-watcher sessiveness.In this expressionwe alreadyread characteror ethos. The sculptormust have felt a realaffectionfor children,perhapsfor this childin particular. It is this lively expressionof ethos that placesour bronzein the lateryearsof the 4th century,just at the time when Aristotlehad expressedthe growinginterest in naturalismin art and in reasonablenessin raisingchildren.He believed (Politicsvii.17) that childrenwere trainableby modelsthat fit the idealsof their society.Perhapschildren's pets were chosen also with purpose:cocks to encouragea pugnaciousspiritin boys, doves to developthe gentlercharacterof girlsandof the sons of "gentlemen". These figuresof votaries,in bronzeand also in marble,were dedicatedin many sanctuaries,but particularly,as we have noted, in those of the various deities, the 160n the Lysippianpose, F. P. Johnson, Lysippos,Durham 1927, pp. 128-131, pl. 20; E. Sjdqvist, Lysippus(Semple Lectures), Cincinnati1966, pp. 13-14, pl. 3. J. Frel, The GettyBronze(preliminarytext), p. 12; I am most gratefulto Dr. Frel for supplyingthe photograph. 17Forour head type, cf. Johnson, op. cit., pp. 114-115, pl. 18, an Eros head in Copenhagenwith close hair, heavy-liddedeyes, a thin nose, a straightmouth.



Kourotrophoi,that protectedchildren.In particular,the precinctof Artemisat Brauron which was destroyedby floodingat the end of the 4th centuryhas producedmany examplesof our period.18We must look carefullyat these child-votariesfor a fuller of our Boy. understanding The marblestatuesfromBrauronpresentan engagingpictureof the little devotees who lived, like the AthenianArrephoroi,in the sanctuary,as in a convent, to serve their goddess.All are aristocrats:the girls know how to wear their long dresses, the boys how to bearthemselvesin nudity.One girl, whose head is aboutone fifth of her height,carriesa pet hare, another,a triflemore advancedin style, holds a dove in the overfoldof her dressand looks downat it, as deeplyconcernedas our Boy (P1.24:a).19 Her sparefeaturesare also very like his, as are the eyelids of the "BlindChild" (PI. 27:a)0.2A little boy also carryinga dove has a similarseriousface.2"Closestof all the Brauronvotariesto our bronzeis the statueof a little boy claspingtwo doves closelyto his chest and listeningwith delightto theircooing (P1.27:b).22 a date Our Boy with the dove has been datedin the "earlyHellenisticperiod,"23 entirelyplausiblein the widersense, since realisticfiguresof childrenwere most popularjust at that time. Manyportraitsof children,however,were createdwell beforethe The historyof this type is clear, particularly from the long end of the 4th century.24 serieson Attic gravereliefs.Of all the pets withwhichthese childrenplay,the birdand the dog are by far the most popular.They are renderedin manyposes, often together, in delightfulcross movementsbetweenthe eagerdog and the timidbird.By the 320's Otherclose examples the childrenon gravereliefshave attainedrealisticproportions.25 are seen in a groupof marblestatuesfoundin Athensnearthe Ilissos.26One of these is reminiscentof the statue of the girl with the dove from Brauron;it could be by the Both girls standquietlylike our Boy. Both wear ampledresseswith a same sculptor.27 crinkledsurface,a treatmentknownalso in majorsculptureof the late 4th century.The 18Thematerialfrom Brauronis in process of publication.For preliminaryreports, see P. G. Themelis, Brauron,Guideto the Site and Museum,Athens 1971, bibliography,p. 35. 19Themelis,op. cit., pl. 71:b. Photo R. K. Vincent. 20Themelis,op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pp. 22-23 and p. 26. See S. Karouzou, 'ApX'E0,1957 [1961], pp. 68-83. 21Themelis,op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pl. 71:c. 22Brauron,inv. no. 1239. Photo Emil, through the kindness of Lilly Kahil with generous permissionof Dr. V. Petrakos. 23Dakaris,op. cit. (footnote 2 above), p. 105. 24E.g.,Diepolder, op. cit. (footnote 9 above), pls. 33, 38, 39:2, all of the later 4th century. 25A.Conze (Die attischenGrabreliefs,Berlin 1893-1922) gives the full development. Note particularly vol. I, no. 108 (for heavy eyelids), no. 290 (for elaborate hair); vol. II, nos. 938, 969, 977, 1100 (for doves). 26I. Svoronos, "Ao-KXq71rtaKa ArvrqAE'aKal KIovoXarpdta 4V'AO'4vas,"'ApX'E0,1917, pl. I:a (Athens, N.M. inv. no. 695), pl. II:f8(inv. no. 696). M. Bieber, TheSculptureof the HellenisticAge, New York 1955, fig. 542. 27Svoronos,op. cit., pl. II:-y(inv. no. 693); cf. Themelis, op. cit. (footnote 18 above), pl. 71:b. The style of the Ilissos figure seems a little more advancedthan that of the Brauronianand may run to the end of the century.I owe ProfessorEvelyn Harrisonmuch enlightenmenton this group of sculpture.



lowest date for these statuesmust be close to 317 B.C.when Demetriosof Phaleron passedsumptuarylaws that ended exuberantfunerarysculpturein Attica.28The subsequentmiserablerule of DemetriosPoliorketes(317-307) producedno sculpturalrevival. A depositof clayfigurinesin the AthenianAgoraillustratesthe later,freerstyle, our lowerlimit.Twenty-onefiguresof boys wearingMacedoniandress,chlamysand kausia, show us the taste of the period,307 to 287 B.c.29These figurineshave chubbyfaces, thickcurlsto the shoulder,slimmerproportions,and they show more animatedmovements than those of the funerarysculpture.In style they are obviouslymore advanced thanthe elegantBoy fromDodona.His date, therefore,so faras we can now tell, must fall in the late 30's or early20's of the 4th century. Not only do the close parallelsin Brauronand Athensindicatethat the artistof our bronze statuetteworkedin Attica, but more evidence is at hand. On the South and West of the AthenianAgora,the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudieshas uncovered the remainsof modest houses in a wide industrialarea. When, in 1932, I excavated there myself, the best preservedancientremainson the rockysurfacewere channels and drainsbuilt to organizethe overflowof abundantwaterthat pouredout in springs fromthe rocksabove.Certaindrains,whichrannearseveralof the dwellingsof artisans in clay, marble,and bronze,were carefullybuiltwith stone wallsdeep set into bedrock and packedwith earthfilling,includingwastersfromthe near-byshops.The date of the potteryfrom this fillinglies in the late 4th and early 3rd centurieswhen a need for waterwas badlyfelt.30The qualityof the fragmentsof certainterracottafigurinesfrom this fillingis remarkablyhigh, even at times sculpturalin style. Among them a mold turnedup that startlesus by its resemblanceto the DodonaBoy (P1.24:f).31A modern clay cast from this mold shows the head and upperpartof a nakedboy (P1.27:c, d). The head lookssharplydowna trifleto its left. The armsare cut off at the elbowssince the forearmswould have been addedlater.The child's face with its long eyes under droopinglids, its slim nose and wide mouth are almost identicalwith those of the bronze.The bronzeis regularlya little largerthan the mold;a consistentdifferencein Variations measurementsis more thaneight percentbetweenbronzeand clayfigures.32 occuron the mold, such as the bunchesof curlsof laterstyle whichwere addedover 28Forthe style, see 0. Palagia,Euphranor,Leiden 1980, p. 31, fig. 27. 29StellaG. Miller, "Menon's Cistern," Hesperia43, 1974, pp. 194-245; chronology, pp. 209-210. For zur politischenGeschichteAthensim 3. Jahrhundertv. Chr. ( Vesthe period, see C. Habicht, Untersuchungen tigia 30), Munich 1979, pp. 22-33. I am most grateful to Professor Habicht for giving me references on this period. 30Miller,op. cit., pp. 209-210; see particularlypl. 37. R. S. Young, "Sepulturaeintraurbem,"Hesperia vonAthen, 2nd ed., Munich 1931, p. 86. 20, 1951, pp. 113-114 and W. Judeich, Topographie 31Agora T 153 from Area H 16 in the city grid on the slope of the Areopagus. Measurements:P. H. 9.5 cm., H. head 2.7 cm., navel to base of neck 3.5 cm., width across body at armpits2.8 cm. These measurements should be comparedwith those in footnote 1 above. They are also identicalwith those of Agora T 2960/2, a much damagedcopy of the same type, to be publishedin the Agora volume on terracottasof the Hellenisticperiod. 32In general, R. V. Nicholls, "Type, Group and Series," BSA 47, 1952, pp. 217-226; B. Neutsch, Koroplastik,JdI-EHXVII, Berlin 1952, pp. 10-12, well illustrated. Studieszur vortanagrdisch-attischen



the ears and the less open positionof the arms.Moreover,fragmentsof other related piecesalso have been foundin the Agorawhichhelp us developthe storyof this Attic type.These will be discussedin the forthcomingCatalogueof the Agoraterracottas. Whateverthe historyof the clay descendantsof the bronze Boy, they definitely identifythe sculptoras an Athenian.He too must have workednearthe Agora,beside the sculptorsof marblegravereliefs and of dedicatorystatuesof children.Possiblyhe copied one of them, or, more likely as a bronzeworker,he createdthe models from whichthe sculptorsworked,which, in turn, were boughtor borrowedby coroplaststo maketheirown models.33 How did this bronze statuettecome to Dodona? Fortunately,oratorsrecountin They tell how detailthe storyof Athenianrelationswith Dodonafrom 343 to 325 B.C.34 Athens, in fear of Macedonianexpansion,sought advice from the oracle of Zeus at Dodona.In 343 B.C. an Athenianembassywas advisedto bewareof her commanders, and, above all, to keep the city unified.The who were too readyfor self-advancement, Atheniansneverthelesscontinuedto squabbleover policy, althoughthey expressed theirrespectfor the oraclesby obeyingZeus' commandto refurbishthe statueof Dione and to makerichofferingsin Dodona.In 330 B.c.,Olympias,the motherof Alexander, who had fled to her old home Molossia(in Epeiros),enteredthe scene. First, she gave the Atheniansa silverphialefor the statueof Hygieiathat had been erectedat Oropos by a generouscitizen, Euxenippos,trierarchin 333/2 B.C. He was later accusedof improprietyin acceptingthe gift.35Olympiasin angryletterswarnedthe Atheniansto stay out of Molossia,her land, she claimed,aftershe had drivenawayher daughterKleopatra.She said that the Athenianshad no right to build at Dodona or to bringgifts there.36Demosthenes, however, succeeded in defendingEuxenippos'conduct, and embassiescontinuedduringthis period(ca. 330-325 B.C.).37 Usually such delegations, as we see on inscriptionsrelatingto Delphi and Oropos,38were composedof distinguishedcitizens-like Lykourgosand Demades.On such an embassyat this perioda rich aristocrat(perhapsEuxenipposhimself?)must have carriedthe votive statuetteto Dione. Perhapshe had a specialrequestof the goddess-that she rememberthe attractivelittleboy who broughther a dove to sacrificeon his behalf. This statuetteof the Boywith the Dove for Dione was thrownout fromher temple eitherwhen it was looted by the Aitoliansin 219 B.C. or, more likely, in 167 when the 33Theprocess of copying metalworkin clay is studied by W. Zuchner, "Von Toreuten und T6pfern," JdI 65/66, 1950/51, pp. 175-205. 34P. R. Franke,Alt-Epirus unddasKonigtum derMolossier,Kallmunz1955, pp. 55-67; N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus,Oxford 1967, pp. 543-546, 583. 3Hypereides, 111.13,19; 32, on the characterof Euxenippos.A. N. Oikonomides (Neov 'A@rjva'v 1, 1955, pp. 57-59) identifies Euxenippos as a trierarch in 333/2 B.C. F. W. Mitchel, LykourganAthens (Semple Lectures), Cincinnati1970, pp. 24-25. 36Hypereides,ni.24-26. G. Bartolini, Iperide,Padua 1977, pp. 70-71. A. N. Oikonomides, 'YlrEapdbov AloyoLA"Evevh7rrou, Athens 1958. 37Demosthenes,xix.298; xvII.253; Deinarchos, 0.78. 38E.g., SIG3, I, 296 (330-326 B.C.), 298 (329 B.C.).



It lay buriedfor some two thousandyearsuntil Dione Romansburnedthe sanctuary.39 graciouslypermittedits resurrectionin 1965.Now, in a strangeworld,the Boy brings his dove as one of the manyofferingspresentedwith gratitudeand affectionto a philhellenewho, like Dione, loves smallchildren,birdsanda fine bit of sculpture. BURRTHOMPSON DOROTHY Princeton,NJ 08540 39Seefootnote 2 above for the context.




9A~~~~~A E: 0$



>~ 0)

N 0


0t a)

:? E












E >0)





C I-








Add a)















~> ~ ~






of ancientart and artifactsrepresentedin AMONG THE VARIOUSCATEGORIES X' \.this volume, the coins are uniquein that they have somethingto say about all threeaspectsof the chosen theme:Athenianarchitecture,sculpture,and topography. It is especiallyappropriate, too, thatcoins be includedin a tributeto the eminentarchaeologist whose name is indeliblylinked with the AthenianAgora, for they compriseda high proportionof the excavationfinds, coming from the groundin such abundance that they might be said to have litteredthe site. Althoughoften lackingin aesthetic appeal,these smallrecordsof the city's economy,like everythingelse from the Agora, were importantto HomerThompson,who took a keen interestin the analysisof the numismaticmaterialand its ultimatepublication.This articleis an inadequateexpression of admirationand appreciation from one who has had the rewardingexperienceof workingwith him.1 A Roman numismatistrecentlydescribedthe Atheniancoinage as "amongthe most boringever producedby man"-a veritablenumismaticdesert2 and it must be admittedthat there is some truthin the judgment.For centuriesthe mint of Athens put out a silver currencyof such probitythat it found universalacceptancebut one characterized by a rigidretentionof traditionaltypes:Athena's head on the obverse, Athena'sowl on the reverse.Eventuallyas the trend in coinageintroducedlargerand thinnerflans, Athens adoptedthe new formatbut with scant alterationof the basic types. Athena'shead was now that of the Parthenosstatue, her owl rested on a Panathenaicamphora,and the abbreviatedethnic of the reverse was supplementedby names, dates and control marks.The style was new but the repertoireof types remainedconventional. Undoubtedlythe standardized simplicityof designwasthe resultof officialpolicyand not of engravingincompetence.Individualdies of Archaicand Classicaldate are of high quality,attestinga skill whichcouldhave dealtwith far more elaboratemotifs.Even in the Hellenisticperiodwhenthe generallevel of artisticachievementwas lower,thereare 'The only substantialcompilation of Athenian Imperial material and hence the basic work for the presentdiscussion is J. N. Svoronos and B. Pick, Les monnaiesd'Athenes,Munich 1923-1926 (hereafterSv. followed by the plate and coin numbers). Publicationof the coins from the Agora, now being undertaken by John H. Kroll, will add hundredsand perhapsthousandsof specimens to the existing record. I am indebted to G. Dembski, 0. Morkholm, M. Oeconomides, M. Price, H.-D. Schultz and T. Volk for casts of coins in the cabinetsof Vienna, Copenhagen,Athens, London, Berlinand Cambridge(England). A scholarin this countryhas kindlysuppliedthe photographof the coin of Bizya,which is in his collection. 2T. V. Buttrey, "The Athenian Currency Law of 375/4 B.C.," GreekNumismaticsand Archaeology. Essaysin Honorof MargaretThompson,Wetteren 1979, p. 33.



The die-cuttersof Athensweresurelyableto reproexamplesof superiorworkmanship.3 ducemorecomplicatedandimaginativetypes.Thattheyfailedto do so musthavebeen a decisionof the state, awareof the advantagesfor a majortradingcenterin havinga coinage whichwas easilyrecognizableand hence readilyacceptable.The "owls"of Athens traveledwidelyandwerewelcomeeverywhere.If one deplorestheirstereotypedmonotony, one mustagreethatit madegoodsense froma commercialpointof view.4 Only in the bronzecoinage,primarilyfor local circulation,was there a degree of innovation,but as a late development.On some of the Hellenisticbronzes,a fulminatingZeus or a fightingAthenareplacedthe owl on the reverses;a few issues showed unusualtypes such as a Gorgoneion,a Sphinxor a seated Dionysus.These, however, whichdominatedthe were mainlysupplementsto the Athenahead-owlrepresentations coinageas a whole. Withthe periodof Romanhegemonythe situationchanged,and it is with this late Atheniancoinagethat we are concerned.As Rome extendedher empireto embrace Greeceand most of Asia Minor,she imposedcurrencyrestrictions.The hithertoindependentGreek cities and states, with few exceptions,were no longerfree to strikein gold and silver.They were allowedto issue bronzecoins and these, knownto numismatistsas GreekImperials,were hybridpieces.5Obeisanceto Caesarwas obligatory,or at least politicallyexpedient.The obversesof the coins carriedthe portraitand name of the rulingRomanemperor.For the reverses, the cities were apparentlyat libertyto choose theirown typesand these can often be interpretedas expressionsof civic pride. The presentmightofferlittle morethansubsistenceunderthe shadowof Rome but the pasthadbeen glorious,andit wasthe pastthatthe best coin typesevokedwiththeiremphasison the buildings,worksof art,andlegendsfor whichthe citieshadbeen famous. This was the standardpattern.At Athens, however,there were notabledeviations fromthe norm.Frombeginningto end the AthenianImperialcoinagecarriedthe head of Athenaas its basic obversetype. Rome's rulerswere never represented.That this was approvedpolicyat the Imperiallevel is almostcertainand since the coinagebegan it wouldseem to have been his personaladmirationfor Athens at the time of Hadrian,6 thatdictatedthis concessionto Athenianpride. 3Consideringthe difficultiesof cutting an ancient die with rather primitivetools and a lack of sophisticated magnifyingdevices, one marvels at the anonymous engraver of the early 2nd century B.C. who adorned the neckguardof Athena's helmet with a tiny biga and charioteer, a personal signature which formed no part of the originaldesign and would have passed unnoticed by the average Athenian. See M. Thompson, TheNew StyleSilverCoinageof Athens,New York 1961, pl. 1:1-3 and frontispiece. 4Nothingbetter illustratesthe range and influence of Atheniancoinage than the extent to which it was imitated in the Near and Middle East once the Athenian mint had curtailedor cut off exports. Only the regnalcoinages of Philip II, Alexanderand Lysimachuswere copied on a comparablescale. 5Even among museum curatorsthere is no agreementas to where these coins belong: with the Greek material,or the Roman, or as a separatecategory. 6The latest discussion of the chronology is that of J. Kroll, "The Eleusis Hoard of Greek Imperial Coins and Some Deposits from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia42, 1973, pp. 312-333. He dates the inception of the coinage to the reign of Hadrianand its terminationto the Herulianinvasion of A.D. 267.



It is more difficultto understandthe limitedrepertoireof distinctivereversetypes. and architectural The coins of other cities providea rich legacyof topographical representations.7FromPergamumwe have at least six differenttemplesand a detailedrenderingof the great altarof Zeus; from Tarsusa long series of temples,shrines, city walls, and gates; from Corinthnot only eight temples but representationsof Acrocorinth,the harborof Cenchreae,Peirene,the Agora,the shrineof Melicertes,and the tomb of Lais.These were greatcities but so was Athens, and the Atheniancoinageis almosta travestyby comparison.Of all the splendidcivic monumentswhichmighthave been featured,only two are reproducedon the coins:the theaterof Dionysusand the Acropolis. The workmanship is indifferent, and the types themselves are scarcely

modelsof artisticdesign. No greatercontrastcould be presentedthan the juxtapositionof the two Athenian issues (P1.28:1, 2) and one from the obscureThraciancity of Bizya (P1.28:3), whose recordof the topography of the site. bronzecoinageof late datehas left us a remarkable Withimaginationandskill the northerndie-cutterhas reproducedthe entirecivic center surroundedby massivewallsand towers.Withinto the left are two stoas, one above or behindthe other, then a smalladjacenttemple,severalstatuesin the open arealeading to a sizeablebuildingat the right,whichmayrepresentthe publicbaths.The city gate is depictedwith notableattentionto detail,its entranceflankedby nicheswithinwhichwe see a horse and rider, perhapsthe emperor,and a group of three standingfigures, perhapsthe Graces.Above are seven smallerniches,each witha statue,and acrossthe top of the gate a quadrigadrivenby Nike with stridingfiguresto left and right. It is impossibleto believe that the die-cuttersof Athens were incapableof producinga similarlygraphicview of the Acropolisor at least one with a better sense of proportion.As it is, the detailedrenderingof the rocksand masonryof the foundation togetherwith the oversizedstairwaytake up so muchspacethat there is scantroom for the magnificentbuildingson the hill. The Propylaeaand the Erechtheum8 are sketchily depicted;of the Parthenonthere is no trace. Furthermore,the type is standardized. Even when we have what seems to be a view from a differentdirection,showingthe stairwayto the left insteadof the right, it is reallyonly a mirrorimage of the original design,for it is still the Erechtheumand not the Parthenonthat we see. The Acropolis type persiststhroughseveralstages of the coinage, but it is as though one die-cutter simplycopiedthe workof a predecessorwith no thoughtof innovation. It seems strangeindeedthat the most renownedof Greek cities gave so little numismaticprominenceto her splendidbuildingsand monuments.One almostwondersif the dearthof architectural typeswas not in itself an expressionof civic pride.Did Athens feel that her greattemples,stoas and sanctuarieswere so well knownthat no one neededa numismaticreminderof the gloriouspast?Whocan say? 7These have recentlybeen collected by M. J. Price and B. L. Trell, Coinsand TheirCities,London 1977. 8For the identificationof the building see Price and Trell (op. cit.), p. 77. The two Athenian coins illustratedhere (P1. 28:1, 2) are from the British Museum; enlarged reverses are shown as figs. 130 and 133 in Price and Trell.



Architecture,of course,was not the whole story.The AthenianImperialcoin types are predominantlyanimate,and in the beginningat least the choice is imaginative. Some of the earliestcoins reproducecelebratedevents in Athenianlegendand history. On the divine level Athena and Poseidonare shown in their strugglefor the land of Attica.9Three exploitsof the Athenianhero Theseusare depicted:the battlewith the bull.10 Minotaur,raisingthe stone at Troezen,and the subjugationof the Marathonian Finally,on the human level, there are the famous victoriesof two men of Athens: Themistocleson a galley at Salamisand Miltiadesleadinga Persiancaptivetowarda These are the most interestingof the animate'types, but they are trophyat Marathon.11 overshadowedby the numerousbanalrenderingsof variousgods,andagoddessesof the enough,on Athena. GreekPantheonwithemphasis,understandably SincePausaniashas given us an invaluablerecordof the templesatrdcult statuesto be seen in and aroundAthensat the time of his visit in the 2nd centuryafterChrist,it is inevitablethat attemptshave been made to link the coin typeswith the literaryeviand the more recent study by dence. The pioneer commentaryby Imhoof-Gardner Bothdrawobviousparallelsbut bothare someLacroixare basicworkson the subject.12 what guardedwith respectto firm identifications.In essence, the questionis whether the coin types faithfullycopied particularstatues or were merely inspiredby certain sculpturalprototypeswith individualengraversadaptingtheirmodelsas they saw fit. In the finalpublicationof the Greekcoins of the Agora,a discussionof Imperialtypeswill surelybe included.Any detailedanalysisat this pointwouldbe premature,and beyond the author'scapacity,but a few wordsof cautionmaynot be amiss. city or rulerwas a matterof great Clearlythe gold and silvercoinageof a particular of basictypeswas madeat the highthat the choice importance,and it is to be assumed est level. One can scarcelybelievethat anyoneotherthan Alexanderthe Greatdecided the formatof his internationalcurrency,or that it was a mint masteror some other minorofficialwho decreedthe longevityof the "owls"of Athens or the "Pegasi"of message,an associationwith the ruling Corinth.When the coins carrya propagandistic been DemetriusPoliorceteshimselfwho It have authorityis even more implicit. must chose to commemoratehis navalvictoryat CyprioteSalamisby a beautifulseries of tetradrachms showingNike on a galley, and Lysimachusand Ptolemy who chose to their relationshipwithAlexanderby placinghis deifiedheadon theirsilver. underscore Oncethe decisionas to typeshad been madeand perhapsconfirmedby approvalof a particulardesign, it seems that the die-cuttershad a certainamountof freedomin workingout the details.Even the stereotypedmoney of Alexanderand the Successors showsa degreeof deviation:Nike is seen in a stifflyfrontalpositionor advancinggracefully left; she occasionallycarriesa long palm branchinsteadof the customarystylis; 9Sv. 89, 1-18. ?0Sv.95, 16-36; 96, 1-19 and 30-36. "Sv. 97, 1-35. on Pausanias(reprintedfrom JHS 6-8, '2F. Imhoof-Blumerand P. Gardner,A NumismaticCommentary sur les monnaiesgrecques,Liege 1949. de statues Les reproductions Lacroix, L. 1885-1887), Chicago 1964.



the helmet of Athena, normallydecoratedwith a coiled serpent,is sometimesadorned with a griffinor a sphinx.These are mattersof smallmoment;the form of the legend was of greatersignificancebut here, too, there was no rigidconformity.Tetradrachms whiledrachms,with the same control of Side are inscribedBAUIAE01 AAE-zXNAPOY marksand hence contemporaneous,read simplyAAE-ANAPOY.This might be explainedby the smallerflansof the fractionalpieces13were it not that coins of the same size at other mints reveal a similarinconsistency.At Sardesa staterreversewith the title and one withoutit sharean obversedie. To what extent the bronzecoinagewas regulatedis anothermatter.Since it was primarilyfor localcirculationand hence less importantas an instrumentof state policy, the decisionon types may well have been made on a lowerlevel, perhapsat the mint itself. On the large AthenianImperialcoins the obverse type is alwaysthe head of Athena,14but details of the representationseem to have been left to the individual engraver.The great majorityof dies show the goddess facing right, wearinga Corinthianhelmet, and a borderof dots surroundsthe design. On some dies she has "an Attic helmet and althoughthis type is most frequentlyfound on earlyissues, it recurs occasionallyat a laterperiod.In the long bucraniumseriesthereare two coins sharinga reversedie (P1.28:4, 5);15for the obversesone die-cutterhas chosen an Attic helmet and the other the Corinthianversion. A few obverse dies show Athena facing left insteadof right,16and quite clearlythese are the workof the same hand.The wreath, whichreplacesthe borderof dots on variousobverses,has been takenas an indication of specialcommemorativeissues17but here again it seems ratherto have been the personalpreferenceof an individualengraver.In all probabilitythe same man cut the wreathedobversesused with the diversetypes of Athenaand Poseidon,Themistocles on a galley,Miltiadeswith captive,and Theseus battlingthe Minotaur(P1.28:9-13).18 At a laterstage of productionthe obverseof a coin with the runningAthenatype (Sv. 85, 20) is wreathedbut anothercoin from the same reverse die (Sv. 85, 19) has a dottedobverse.Occasionallythere is an isolatedwreathedreverse:one of Athenain a chariot(Sv. 88, 18) and one with the goddessstanding(Sv. 83, 24-26 from the same die). Since other reversesof the same type and the same periodare unwreathed,the additionmust surelybe thatof the individualdie-cutter. It has been suggestedthat the reversetypescommemoratemajorcivic festivalsand that the coins were issued on these occasions.19 A particulartype may, of course,have "It should be noted, however, that die-cutters at other mints were able to place both name and title on their drachms. "4Thesmaller denominationssometimes use a different type such as the head of Heracles or Theseus or a bucranium. '5Sv. 99, 20 and 21. 16Sv. 99, 14 and 22, e.g. 7J. P. Shear, "AthenianImperialCoinage," Hesperia5, 1936, pp. 296-298. '8Stylisticcomparisonsbased on photographsdistributedthrough Svoronos' plates present difficulties. Bringingthe coins themselves together would surely produceadditionalexamples of a single hand at work. The coins illustratedhere are Sv. 89, 3 and 5; 96, 30; 97, 2 and 34. "9J.P. Shear, op. cit. (footnote 17 above), pp. 296-316.



been chosen becauseof an especiallylavish celebrationof a particularfestival, but in generalit wouldbe difficultto drawthe line betweena type inspiredby a festivaland one inspiredby a cult statueassociatedwith the festival.Wasit the GreaterDionysiaor simplya statueof Dionysusthat promptedthe representation of the seatedgod on the coins? Certainlyit is unlikelythat there was any direct temporalconnectionbetween the appearanceof the coin type and the celebrationof the festival.The patternof dielinkagearguesagainstit. Examplesof differentreversetypessharingan obversedie are fairlyfrequent.Even withinthe small collectionof the AmericanNumismaticSociety andwithoutprolongedsearch,the followingconnectionswerenoted: Theseus and Minotaur(as Sv. 96, 34) Miltiadesand captive (as Sv. 97, 32) Themistocles on galley (as Sv. 97, 9) Bucranium(as Sv. 99, 5) Apollo.(as Sv. 93, 8) Athena Parthenos (die not in Svoronos; type of Sv. 82) Athena "Promachos"(P1.28:6) Demeter in chariot (P1.28:7) Bucranium(P1.28:8)

Dionysus(Sv. 92, 17)20 Acropolis (Sv. 98, 22)

Carefuldie comparisonof the Agoracoins would undoubtedlysupplymany additional examples,but even these few linksindicatethat varioustypeswere being issuedat the same time and not spacedto coincidewith the dates of the festivalswith which they mightbe thoughtto be connected.Nor does thereseem to be any ostensiblecorrelation among these contemporaryemissions.It is as though the engraverhad a list of approvedtypes from whichhe was free to make a selection, and this indeed may have been the case. Whateverthe procedurefor choosingthe reverse type, its reproduction,too, was not rigidlycontrolled.Of all types, those depictingAthenaare the most numerousand most varied.Pausaniasrefersto 17 statuesof the goddessand an additionalfour temSvoronos'platesincludean even greaternumples or shrinesdevotedto her worship.21 identifiedwith particular statuesor as differentttypes".The Atheber of representations nianengraverwith Athenaas his subjecthad an abundanceof sculpturalmodelsin and about the city, and he must have been influencedto some extent by these familiar monuments.It would be strangeindeed if that were not the case, but there is always a particular statueand, if so, how accurateis the problem:is he consciouslyportraying the reproduction? OThe die identityderives from Svoronos' plates; there are no comparablecoins in the ANS collection. 2ITheseare listed by Imhoof-Blumer,op. cit. (footnote 12 above), pp. 125-126.



Minorvariationsin adjunctsymbolsare numerous.The type identifiedas Athena Parthenos(Sv. 82 and 83, 1-14) is frequentlyshown with a coiled serpentin the left field;on a few dies the serpentis placedto the rightanda facingbucraniumoccupiesthe spaceto the left; one die replacesthe serpentwith an owl whileothersare withoutsymbol. Svoronos'AthenaMedici(?) may hold her pateraover an altar,over a serpentor over an emptyfield (Sv. 86, 30 and 40-42). These are insignificant differenceswhichdo not affectthe basictypebut one wondershow muchfurtherartisticlicenseextended. It is evident that Svoronosacceptedcertainvariationsin the type itself as compatiblewith a singlemodel.His AthenaParthenosstandsfacing,head to the left, holding a Nike in her outstretchedrighthandwhile her left supportsan uprightspearand a shieldseen side view at her feet. Also identifiedwith the Parthenosis a version(Sv. 83, 15-19) in whichthe shieldis seen face on, obscuringthe lowerpartof Athena'sbody, and the spearis tuckedinto her left armas she holds the shield.Tentativelyassociated with the same statueare variantsof the firstand dominanttypewith Athenaholdingan owl or a paterainsteadof a Nike (Sv. 83, 38 and 40; 87, 13 and 14). One mightsuggest that some of Svoronos' "autre types de lAthena Nikephoros"(83, 20-28) are similar adaptationsof the Parthenoswith Athena'sarmraisedas she holds the spearwhile her shieldmay be shownbehindher or on her armclose to her body. Numerousreverseshave an advancingAthena.Some are describedas the goddess of the east pedimentof the Parthenon(Sv. 85, 8-37 and possibly38-40). If such diverse renderingsas nos. 36-40 are to be construedas adaptationsof the basictype, one mayask whetherotherversionsof the runninggoddesson the same platemay not also derivefromthe same model.The differencesare not great. Assumingthe die-cuttershad an existing statue or sculpturalgroup in mind, it would seem as though the dominanceof a particularrepresentationmight indicatea more or less faithfulcopy, but this is not necessarilythe case. An interestingseries of reversespertainto the Theseus saga. Since Pausaniasmentionsthree monumentson the Acropoliscommemorating his exploitsand since the coins deal with the same three themes,22there shouldbe, primaface, some connectionbetweensculpturaland numismatic representations. All reversesshowingthe hero raisingthe stone at Troezen to uncoverthe proofsof his identityare consistent;23 in all probability the coins furnishan accuratereproductionof the sculpturaltype. The other two exploits are diverselydepicted.On one reversedie (Sv. 95, 23 and 24) Theseusis leadingthe Marathonian bull towarda seatedfigure;all other dies show only Theseusstandingbehindthe bull with upraisedclub.Eliminationof the seatedfigure,if it formedpartof the Acropolisgroup, is understandable in view of the difficultyof compressingan elaboratemotif into a flan 22Pausanias,i.24.1 and i.27.8-10; P1.28:14-19 (= Sv. 95, 17, 23 and 30; 96, 5, 17 and 36). The provenances of Sv. 95, 16 and 17 have been transposed;our no. 15 is the Cambridgecoin (= Sv. 95, 17). Our no. 18 (Sv. 96, 17) is not in the Berlincollection. 23Representationson coins of Troezen are also consistent with the Athenian type. Cf. A CatalogueQf the GreekCoins in the BritishMuseum,Peloponnesus(hereafter BMC followed by the district), pl. 31:5 and 9.



of smalldimensions,but we cannotbe sure thatone imaginativeengraverdid not addit to make the story more explicit.24 Thereare three numismaticversionsof the struggle with the Minotaur.Earliercoins show Theseusand the monsterconfrontingeach other as the battle begins; later dies portraya fallen Minotaurwith Theseus first towering over him with upraisedclub and then kneelingon the prostratefigurewith club tucked into his arm.Versionsone and two are linkedby an obversedie (P1.28:17, 18; Sv. 96, 36 and 17); the strikingchange in representationoccurs within the lifetime of this obverse.It is the thirdversion, however,whichis dominantduringthe laterstages of the coinagedespitethe fact that it lacksthe vitalityof the previousrenderings.Which,. if any, of the numismatictypes is to be relatedto the sculpturalgroupof Pausaniasis a questionthe coinsalonecannotanswer.25 24Thereis also the possibility, here and elsewhere, of a pictorialrather than a sculpturalprototype. Evelyn Harrison,who has kindly read this articleand offered helpful comments, has called my attention to the similaritybetween this rare coin type and the representationon a cup by the Penthesilea Painterwhich she illustratesin "The Iconographyof the EponymousHeroes on the Parthenonand in the Agora," Essays Thompson(footnote 2 above), pl. 6. As she says in a letter, although we have no literaryreference to a paintingof Theseus bringinghome the bull, it is probablethat there was one somewhere in Athens. Without doubt coin types were at times inspiredby paintings.Notable examples include a bronze of Abydus depicting the Hero and Leander legend (BMC Troas,pl. 3:2) and a Heracles medallion published by M. Thompson, "A Greek ImperialMedallionfrom Pautalia,"ANSMN 22, 1977, pp. 29-36. On occasion the decorationon a vase would seem to have provided the model. The fighting-Athena type on coins of Ptolemy I and other Hellenistic rulers has recently been discussed by C. Havelock, "The ArchaisticAthena Promachosin EarlyHellenisticCoinages," AJA 84, 1980, pp. 41-50. Citing (her note 3) L. Lacroix and E. B. Harrisonas against A. B. Brett and others, she rejects the identificationof the coin type as the Athena Alkis statue of Pella and connects it with the fighting Athena of the Panathenaicvases. In this she is almost certainlyright, but I think she goes too far in readingsubtle propagandisticmessages into the choice of the type by Ptolemy and others. For one thing, propagandato be effective needs to be disseminatedwidely. Ptolemy's Athenas did not circulateoutside the country, and indeed Ptolemy's own fiscal policies prevented their moving about freely. Forty-one hoards with coins of Ptolemy I are recorded in An Inventoryof GreekCoin Hoards,edited by M. Thompson, 0. Morkholmand C. M. Kraay,New York 1973, p. 392, with no. 226 omitted since the presence of the tetradrachmof Ptolemy I is uncertain. Of these, 24 were found outside Egypt, and in all but four the type of coinage can be identified. Exactly two deposits contained Athena tetradrachms:one example of a Sidonian issue unearthed at near-by Byblus (IGCH 1515) and more in a hoard from Chiliomodi near Corinth (IGCH 85) where the Ptolemaic garrison of 308-306 B.C. explains their presence. Even less plausibleis the argument that Seleucus I copied Ptolemy's type and used it for the same propagandisticreasons. The Athena of Seleucus appearsnot on his silver or gold, which did travel, but on bronze issues, which could have had little more than local impact since bronze coins rarely circulatedfar from their place of emission. There seems to me nothing particularlysignificantabout the choice of the Athena Promachos type for various Hellenistic coinages. If a king wanted-to stress his military prowess, at home or abroad, an obvious device was the warringAthena, whose representationon Panathenaicamphorasmust have been familiarto his die-cutters. 25A fragmentarysculpturalrepresentationof Theseus and the Minotauris discussed briefly by S. KaMuseum.Collectionof Sculpture,Athens 1968, pp. 43-44. Evelyn Harrison, rouzou, NationalArchaeological who has helpfully checked this out for me, tells me it is a Roman Group in which the Minotaurwas a fountain with water flowing from his mouth. The torsos were found in the area of the "ValerianWall" between the Libraryof Hadrianand the Acropolis;where the figures originallystood is not known. Even if this is a copy of the statues Pausaniassaw on the Acropolis, which is quite uncertain, a detailed recon-



Thereis no need to laborthe point.The AthenianImperialcoins are not uniquein theirambiguity;the same phenomenoncan be observedin the GreekImperialcoinages of Asia Minor.One outstandingexampleis that of the famoustempleof the Ephesian Artemis.This was a populartype, appearingat a numberof cities as well as at Ephesus itself.Thereis no doubtas to whatis beingrepresentedfor the distinctivestatueof the of the facade.The temple goddess is alwaysshown in the centralintercolumniation itself, however, may be distyle, tetrastyle,hexastyleor octastyle.Only at Ephesusis there a fair degreeof correlationbetweenthe numberof columnsand the size of the coin flan but even here there are puzzlingdiscrepancies.At least one die for a coin of largedimensionshas only six columnswhile the engraverof a much smallerbronzeof Nero was able to squeezenine columnsonto his die in an awkwarddesignshowingthe buildingin three-quarterview.26Under Hadrianthere are bronzeswith the octastyle templeand also cistophoroiof only slightlysmallerscale with a hexastyleor tetrastyle Yet one wouldexpect the Artemisionto be renderedwith greateraccuracy building.27 on silvercoinsthanon localbronze. It is clearthat the die-cuttersof the Imperialperiodat Athens and elsewherehad considerablefreedomin composingtheirnumismaticdesigns.Thatthe greatmajorityof these derive from, or were inspiredby, existing monumentsis indisputable.When a particularrepresentationis entirelyconsistentthroughouta series of coins, it is likely that we possess a faithfulcopy. When there are variantrenderingsof what is almost certainlythe same buildingor statue, it is hazardousto assume, without supporting evidence, that any one of the coin types suppliesan absolutelyaccuratereplicaof the basic model. This is not to denigratethe value of the numismaticcontributionto our knowledgeof ancientedificesand worksof art, but like all other evidencewe need to use it with caution,rememberingthat the engraverswere not photographers but artists and adaptingtheirprototypes. exercisingartisticlicensein interpreting MARGARET THOMPSON AMERICAN NUMISMATICSOCIETY

Broadwayat 156th Street New York, NY 10032 struction of the group seems impossible on the basis of the surviving evidence. From what remains, an associationwith the numismatictype of our P1.28:18 is a possibilitybut little more than that. 26SyllogeNummorumGraecorum Deutschland: Sammiungv. Aulock,nos. 7863 and 7879. 27BMClonia, pl. 13:7 and W. E. Metcalf, TheCistophorolof Hadrian,New York 1980, pls. 3, 4.




r i












~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~S-








~~~~~ Pt









/mot V1qOV TE



' a'er

TEVXOVTWVwTas S7,uoq v1TaL 7oktOL alIT? TE TEltXo,

KaXXlX6pOV Ka0lflTEpOEV,



Let all the people build me a great temple and an altar below it beneath the citadel and its sheer wall, above the Kallichoronwell, on a projectingspur of hill.

~JU ITH THESEWORDSin the HomericHymnto Demeter(lines 270-272) the

goddess herself establishesher sanctuaryat Eleusis. A few lines fartheron (296-298) the poet tells us how Keleos, the king of Eleusis,calledthe peopletogether and badethem buildfor Demetera templeand an altaron a projectingspurof hill. Whatis the significanceof the locationchosenfor the temple"on a projectingspur The of hill"?Hithertoit has generallybeen explainedonly in termsof localtopography. commentatorson the passage,whetherthey be editors,archaeologists,or historiansof religion,are all agreedthat the descriptionas a whole appliesperfectlyto the site of Eleusis,and they merelyseek to identifythe landmarksthat are mentioned,the temple and altar,the acropolisandits wall,the Kallichoronwell, and the spurof hill.1 OnlyYves Bequignonhas soughta deeperreason.In an articleentitled"Demeter, dgesse acropolitaine"2 he passes in review a number of sanctuaries of Demeter known

eitherfromactualremainsor fromliteraryreferencesand findsthat they are locatedby preference,not on the summitof a hill but on the flank, sometimeson a hillockor knoll. "Whyare these sanctuariesgenerallyplacedon heights?"he asks in concluding. "Thereis no need for a long commentarysince the HomericHymngives us the elementsof the answer.It indicatesin severalpassages(lines 60, 75, 442) that Demeteris the daughterof Rhea and that she arrivesfrom Crete (line 123). In Crete Rhea is honoredas ,urjrqp opedr, and she has retainedcertainattributesof the GreatMother, goddessof the mountainsbut not the peaks,and in the same way she has exercisedin her turnan influenceon Demeter." This is not in itselfa very convincingexplanation,and in any case the whole theory the Cretanoriginof the Eleusinianworshiphas been shownby Mylonasto be withof out basiseitherin archaeology,historyor linguistics.3 'The most recent discussions are by G. E. Mylonas, Eleusisand the EleusinianMysteries,Princeton 1961, pp. 33-49, and N. J. Richardson, TheHomericHymnto Demeter,Oxford 1974, commentaryon lines 270-272, and AppendixI. 2RA, 1958, II, pp. 149-177. 'ApTco PwovKEpaguolrovoXov,Athens 1953, pp. 3"'H 7TpoE'XEvaq FEpaq rns sXEVGULVLaK^qskavpdaq," 42-53.



I should like to suggest anotherexplanationwhich seems more appropriatefor Demeterespeciallyin the aspectin whichshe was worshippedat Eleusis.The Eleusinian Demeter is the GrainGoddess, and the whole story of Demeter and Kore is an allegoryof the death and rebirthof grain.The GreaterMysteriestook place in Septemberat the season when the autumnrainswere expectedwhichwouldbringnature backto life again.Offeringsof the firstfruitsof the harvestwere madegenerallyto the two Goddesses,and the grainwas kept in largeundergroundstoreroomsin the sanctuary. Stalksof wheat are amongDemeter'sattributes,and the climaxof the Mysteries was the revelationto the initiatedof a reapedear of wheat. Furthermore,Demeterwas the goddessof the threshingfloor as we learnfrom a vivid similein Homer: Even as the wind carrieschaff about the sacred threshingfloors of men that are winnowing, when fair haired Demeter amid driving blasts of wind separates the grain from the chaff, and heaps of chaff grow white.4

Now in the sanctuaryat Eleusistherewas a SacredThreshingFloor.This fact has been knownsince 1883 when the big inscriptionwith the Eleusinianaccountsof 329/8 B.C. was firstpublishedand in whichwe findmentionof Tr'v ciAXTr'v 1Epav.5This entryhas receivedvery little attention,and the commentatorswhen they mentionit at all usually take this SacredThreshingFloor to be identicalwith the ThreshingFloor of Triptolemos knownfromPausanias,i.38.6.6But the ThreshingFloorof Triptolemoswas in the RharianPlain, and the RharianPlain, thoughprobablynear Eleusis, was certainlyneither in the town nor in the sanctuary.The SacredThreshingFloor, on the other hand, appearsto have been in the sanctuary,if we mayjudge from the context in whichit is mentionedin the inscription. And here, perhaps,we have the answerto our questionof why a projectingspurof hill was designatedas the site of the sanctuary.Sucha site wouldhave been suitablefor a threshingfloor as threshingfloors are normallyplacedon projectingspurs of hills wherethey will catchthe breezeso necessaryfor the winnowingprocess.Demeterthus ordersthe Eleusiniansto build her temple on a site suitablefor threshingand winnowingthe grain,an essentialact in the annualcycle. The SacredThreshingFloormust have been locatedat the outerend of the terrace in frontof the Telesterion.This artificialterrace,supportedin historicaltimes by a high retainingwall, representsthe "projectingspurof hill" of the HomericHymnand is the successorof the naturalspur of hill that we may postulatefor the originalsanctuary. The situationis shownmost clearlyin the model of the sanctuaryas it was in the time 4Iliad v.499-504. Translationby A. T. Murray (Loeb Classical Library).Cf. Theocritus, vIi.155, and OrphicaXL.5. 5GI112, 1672, line 233. 'Eo'ApX,1883, p. 122, line 20. 6So J. G. Frazer, Pausanias'sDescriptionof Greece II, London 1898, p. 512 and H. Hitzig and H. Bluemner, PausaniaeGraeciaeDescriptioI, Berlin 1896, p. 357.



of Peisistratosin the 6th centurybeforeChrist7(P1.29). The positionof the two altars on the terraceis not fixed, and they could be shiftedif necessaryto accommodatethe threshingfloor. EUGENEVANDERPOOL AMERICAN OFCLASSICAL STUDIESAT ATHENS SCHOOL

7John Travlos has directed the making of two models of Eleusis, one showing the sanctuaryas it was in the 6th century before Christ, the other as it was in the 2nd century after Christ. Both models are on 1973 [19751,pp. 217-218 and pls. 231-236). exhibit in the museum at Eleusis (HpaKTLKa,










l W t~s'














*0Xfi Aavo ie















NOTEis offeredin honorof ProfessorHomerA. Thompsonin [>HE FOLLOWING recognitionof the obvious:he, like Atheniancultureitself, has had greatinfluence and effectin placeswell beyondthe geographical limitsof Attica. During the excavationsof 1974 a large rectangularblock decoratedwith a single archaisticfigure on each of three sides but plain and undecoratedon its fourth was recoveredin the southwestcornerof theCorinthianforum (P1.30).1 Althoughbuilt into a 10th-centuryByzantinewall not far, apparently,from its originalemplacement,it cannotbe identifiedwithany specificfoundationpreservedin the area. In 1979a secondrectangularbase, resemblingthe first,was foundbetween30 and 35 metersto its south.This new base also has a singlefigureon each of three sides and is plainon its fourth.The secondblockis much more mutilatedthan the first, missing the lowest thirdof its shaft.Its damagedconditionmightbe expected,however,for it was founddiscardedin a pit with modernfill. It probablyhad passedthrougha number of vicissitudesbeforeit was buriedin the 18thor 19thcenturyafterChrist. When the first block was recovered,it was consideredto have been designedto supporta statue,probablythatof Zeus Chthoniosmentionedby Pausaniasin his tourof the Corinthianforum.The existenceof this second base, which is describedin detail below,demandsa re-examination of the hypothesis. T

Rectangularshaft with three archaisticfigures. S-1979-6. Pres. H. 0.97 m. Width of front panel below apophyge, 0.562 m.; width of side panel below apophyge,0.535 m. Upper half of four-sided, white marble block, the front and sides each decoratedwith a single figure, back finished but without figure. Top horizontal surface preserves much of original roughly dressed surface, includingdowel cutting at 0.23 m. in from back face. Pour channel from back face to dowel cutting. Figure 1 (P1. 31:a): standing female on left side of block, helmet pushed back on top of head, shield on left arm, trace of bracelet on wrist. Figure faces front of pier, head in profile,

body in three-quarterprofile. Hair, drawn to

back of neck, is gatheredbehindshoulderby ribbon;two stiffcurlsfall frombehindrightear onto right breast, one from left side to left breast.Traceof pendantpyramidalearringon jaw line, of typewornby DemeterandKoreon the 1974 block.Chitonis buttonedfour times along upperarm and is covered by himation drapedfrom left shoulderto underrightarm. Upper hem of himationfalls across chest in zigzagfolds. Figure2 (P1.32:a):standingfemaleon front of block, facingleft, head in profile,body in three-quarter view. Figurewearspolos, carries cornucopiaat left armwith rightarmextended

IS-74-27. C. K. Williams, 11, "Corinth, 1974: Forum Southwest," Hesperia44, 1975, pp. 23-25, 29, PIS.9-10.



in downwardangle. Hairstylesimilar to that worn by helmetedFigure 1, except that this figure has two curls fallingonto each breast. Chiton with heavy seam around neck, sewn seam along upperarm. Himationis worn over rightshoulderand underleft arm, its top hem endingin gravity-defying zigzagfolds.It fallsin two sets of stackedfolds, in contrastto the singleset of stackedfoldson the himatiaof the Demeterand Kore depictedon the companion base.

Figure3 (PI. 32:b): standingmale on right side of block,thyrsosin righthand.Figurefaces front of pier, head in profile,body in threequarterview.The god is bearded,crownedwith stephanethatcatcheshis long backlock;lockis doubled up with end projectinghorizontally frombackof headover stephane.Twocurlsfall from behindleft ear onto chest. Himationcarried from left shoulderto pass, presumably, under right arm, its upperhem falling from necklinein longruffle.No traceof chiton.

One fact evidentin the base that was found in 1974 is the resemblanceof its one flankfigureto the other.Althoughthese are motherand daughter,the fact is admitted hand. Hair, dress, attributein the appropriate only by the inclusionof the appropriate postureand gesturesare basicallythe same, althoughin mirrorimage.Withthe finding of the 1979 base the principleis clearer.Figure2 is patternedafter or similarto the Demeterof the firstblock,but with the handon hip now holdingthe cornucopia.Note that the horn is superimposedupon the arm, not tuckedinto it. The rightarm is lowered, probablybecausethe figurecarriesa phiale,echoingthat held by Zeus Chthonios. The positionof the phialeis probablythat at the moment of libation.OtherwiseDemeter,Kore, and Figure2 are similar,executedwith varyingtexturesin hair,cloth and variationsin folds. Figure1 is executedon the same principle,but becauseshe (Athena?), apparently,has to carrysomethingin her right hand, probablyspear, phialeor oinochoe, the right arm crosses the body in a descendingdiagonal.'Although this gesturedefiesthe principleestablishedby the otherfiguresthatthe armnearthe viewer shouldfall to the figure'sside, it allowsFigure1 to carryan attributeor objectthatwill relateher to the generaltheme beingpresentedon these two blocks. Figure1 is providedwith the hairarrangementthat is used by Figure2, Demeter and Kore, except that Figure 1 wears over it a helmet rather than a polos.3 Also, she alonehas her upperarmcoveredby a buttoned,ratherthana seamed,chiton.4 2For general discussion and illustrationsof Athena and her attributes,iconographyand areas of activity, see D. le Lasseur, Les dresses armeesdans lart classiquegrec et originesorientales,Paris 1919; A. B. Cook, Zeus, A Studyin AncientReligionIII, Cambridge 1940 (= Cook, Zeus); L. R. Farnell, The Cultsof the GreekStates I, Oxford 1896 (= Farnell), pp. 258-352. 3Athena wears a variety of helmets during her tenure as protectressof Athens. The Corinth relief is badly damaged around the helmet, although the crest is clearly preserved. She does not wear the high crested helmet of the Promachos,nor a variationthereof. One sees preservedon the Corinth relief at 0.06 m. in front of the crest a visor ridge and behind the crest the extension of the helmet which protects the back of the neck. This is the Archaicform of helmet. It is worn, also, by the archaisticAthena from Herculaneum in the Naples Museum. See E. B. Harrison, TheAthenianAgora, XI, Archaicand ArchaisticSculpture, Princeton 1965, pl. 63:d. The Corinth Athena definitely is not wearinga Corinthianhelmet, the type favored by Athena on Corinthiancoins and by her in Attica aroundthe end of the 5th century and later. 4The combination of curls falling onto the breast, buttoned chiton, and himation draped from one shoulder to pass under the opposite arm, as well as the wearing of aegis, appearsnot to be restricted to Athena in any one of her aspectsnor with any overpoweringlogic. She can be born wearingher aegis; see F. Mainz 1963, pp. 122-125. Note the variationsof dress when derParthenon-Giebel, Brommer, Die Skulpturen



Figure3 is executedfollowingthe basiclayoutthat is establishedby the Kore on the 1974 base, at least in that partof the relief which is preservedto us. Certainfacts suggest,however,that he may be a more exact copy of a prototypethan are any of his companions.Unfortunately,Figure 3 is preservedonly in his upper half, while two probableparallelsfrom Athens preservelargelywhat the Corinthfigure lacks.5This beingas it is, the followingobservationscan still be made. Figure3 is not given a kalathosor polos, althougha polos would have filled the expanseof plainbackground abovehis head, somethingthatwas achievedby use of the polos for all the figuresof the first block and on Figure 2 of the second block. His krobylosis executedin flattenedrelief and is more stylizedthan the same lock on the Zeus Chthonios.His two curls, whichfall from behindhis ear onto his left chest, are straightas the thyrsoshe carries,havingnone of the curve that is seen in the locks of the four females.The stackedfolds of the upperhem of his himationare like nothing else to be foundon eitherof the Corinthianbases. Moreover,the forwardthrustof his chest and the three fine folds of his himationacrosschest, waist, and hip, suggesting the projectionof the hip of the weight-bearingleg, recall clearlyan Attic archaistic prototype.The forwardthrustof his upperbody is not found in the postureof his Corinthiancompanions.Figure3 (Dionysos?),then, is at variance,even if only slightly, with the otherfive andseems to be drawnfroma separateline of inspiration. The Zeus on the front face of the blockfound in 1974 and Figure2 on the front face of the blockfound in 1979 each carriesa cornucopia.The male figurefaces right, his femalecounterpart faces left. Becauseof the hieraticcompositionof the two blocks, similarin size and in design, as well as balancedin arrangement,one cannotimagine the two except in close relationship,with the cornucopia-carrying figuresfacing each other.The two basescan only have been executedas partof a singleproject. Whathad been suggestedinitiallyconcerningthe identificationof the male figure decoratingthe front of the first block now is reinforcedby the findingof the second. The beardedfigurewho holds the cornucopia,placedin predominanceamonga range of deitieson plinths,seems logicallyidentifiedas Zeus, and is, in fact, probablydepicted as Zeus in his aspectas guardianof fieldsand crops.In Hesiod,Zeus is invokedas Zeus Chthoniosto insurea good harvest.6At Delos he is offeredsacrificesas Zeus Chthonios and as Zeus Bouleus,alongwith Ge Chthonia,Demeter,Kore, Dionysos,and Semele.7 she accepts Erechthoniosfrom Ge; Cook, Zeus, p. 182, fig. 93, pis. 22-24. In Olympiashe is not always consistent in her dress while helping Herakles.She wears an aegis in the Stymphalosmetope but doffs it in the Hesperidesand Augeias metopes; B. Ashmole and N. Yalouris, Olympia,TheSculpturesof the Templeqf Zeus, London 1967, cf. pl. 153 with pls. 188 and 202. In matters of dress, the Athena on the Corinth block found in 1979 is paralleledat Corinthin an archaisticstatue of laterdate, perhapsaroundA.D. 225 (PI. 31:b). See 0. Broneer, Corinth,X, TheOdeum,Cambridge,Mass. 1932, no. 1368, pp. 117-123, figs. 111, 112. The statue is one of a pair, i.e., with no. 1348, pp. 123-124, fig. 114. This is a left, not a right hand holding drapery.The two may be caryatids,with the himationfallingfrom upperright to lower left on no. 1368; the statue in mirrorimage, representedby fragmentno. 1348, would have her himation fall from left to right. The two probablywere designed to be symmetricalaroundan architecturalaxis. 5See below, p. 181, and footnote 20. 6Hesiod, Erga, 465-476. 7SIG3, 1024; F. Sokolowski, Lois sacreesdes citesgrecques,Paris 1969, pp. 185-186, no. 96.



In the base from CorinthZeus might also be identifiedbest as Chthonianwith Ge Chthoniaas his counterpart on the secondbase.They are accompaniedby Demeterand Koreon the firstblock,by Dionysosand Athenaon the second. Athenais the one figureof the six who does not have an obviousrole amongthe agrariandeities. Her importanceas giver of the olive tree is limited in large part to Attica.8She does have other connectionswith produce,however, and she is closely coupledwith Dionysos, especiallyin the AthenianfestivalEKtppa.9 At Epidaurosthe Kissaiaimpliesconnectionsbetweenthe cult of Dionysosand Athena.'0Her agricultural festivals are the HIXvvTr'pa, fkao-oXoxpa and the Hpoxapto-nIpta." It is probable,

becauseof the companythat Athenakeeps amongthe deities of these two piers, that she is being celebratedhere for her partin the productionof cropsof the fields, less probablyas the giverof the olive. Disregardingat the momentthe functionof the two sculpturedblocks,both must have had a base and a crownmolding.A crowningelement is attestedfor both blocks by the roughlyfinishedtop surfaceand by the existenceof a cuttingfor a dowelat the centerof the top surfaceof eachof the sculpturedblocks.The newlyfoundblockhas its cuttingwell preserved,the dowel being 0.12 by 0.10 m. and 0.08 m. deep. A pour channelconnectsit withthe backedge of the block.Neitherbase nor crowningmember that mightgo with the sculpturedblockshas yet been identified.The formof the moldings is restorable,however,if only in approximation. A good parallelfor the designof the monumentwithmoldingsis a 1st-centuryaltar in the collectionof the Museo Nazionalein Rome."2This is a rectangularaltarwith a singlefigureon each of threefaces;the backface is plain.Also, the Rome altarhas its figures,in this case Charites,on individualplinths.The base moldingsof the altarare half round,cavettoand cyma reversa.The top moldingsare astragaland ovolo. Such sets are found on monumentsof the 1st centuryafter Christin Corinth,as, for example,on the podiumof the Bema, the podiumof the BabbiusMonumentand as the toichobatefor the interiorof TempleF.'3This combinationof moldings,however,does not appearat Corinthon bases designedto supportstatues;a cyma reversaor cyma rectais preferred,manytimes withoutthe half roundbelow.'4In fact, no fragmentof moldingwith half round,cavetto,and cymareversais to be foundamongthe marbles, for a statue base of any sort. A inventoriedor on the site, that might be appropriate 8Farnell,p. 293; Cook, Zeus, pp. 749-764. 9Farnell,pp. 291-292, 390-392. 10Pausanias,i.29.1; relationto Dionysos is suggested by Farnell, p. 292. "Farnell, pp. 291-292. 12B.Candida, Altarie cippinel Museo NazionaleRomano, Rome 1979, pp. 111-114, nos. 47 a-c, pl. XXXVII, dated in the second half of the 1st centuryB.C. 13R.L. Scranton, Corinth,I, iii, Monumentsin the LowerAgoraand Northof the ArchaicTemple,Princeton 1951. For the Bema, see pp. 91-109, figs. 55, 56, pl. 44; for the BabbiusMonument, pp. 17-32, figs. 9, 11; for Temple F, pp. 57-63, figs. 38, 39, pl. 23:2, 3. "4Foran idea of the rangein the moldingsof altarbases, see P. M. Fraser, RhodianFuneraryMonuments, Oxford 1977, pls. 32-91:h. For a largestatue base, 1.40 m. high, with one of the customarysets of moldings, 1926-1950, Princeton1966, p. 97, no. 226, pl. 21. see J. H. Kent, Corinth,VIII, iii, TheInscriptions



conservativerestorationof moldingsfor the two sculpturedblocks might be a base plinthwithcymareversaor cymarecta.The crownprobablywas an ovolo withcavetto. Whicheverof the two types of base moldingsis restoredto the sculpturedblocks, one cannotrestorethe whole as less than two meters tall. Such a height, along with considerationof the generalproportions,makes unlikelythe identificationof the two monumentsas companionaltars. What purpose,then, did the sculpturedshafts serve? In the initialpublicationof the 1974relief, the suggestionwas put forththat the blockfeaturingthe relief of Zeus The findingof a supportedthe statue of Zeus Chthoniosmentionedby Pausanias.15 second block, its front face decoratedwith a representationof Ge Chthonia,raises seriousquestionsaboutthe validityof the initialtheory,since, accordingto Pausanias, the statue of Zeus Chthonioswas one of three statuesof Zeus set up, apparently,in close proximityone to another.It is possiblethat the two blocksnow underdiscussion supportedtwo of the three statues,but it is not as probablethat both wouldhave been decoratedwith a numberof deities all specificallyrelatedto the fertilityof the fields when only one of the statuesof Zeus was to be associatedwith this realm. If the shaftsare sculpturedbases for freestandingstatues, they shouldbe restored to some positionclose to the wallof a buildingor againsta column,for the backsof the piersare not decoratedwith relieffiguresas are the sides and fronts.A temptingposition is a placealong the front, or north, wall of the Long RectangularBuildingwhich definesthe forumbetweenthe South Stoa and the West Shops.'6This structurehas a large,raisedterracein frontof it uponwhichsuch monumentscould have been set. It is here, precisely,where the first blockwas found. No tracesof foundationsfor bases are preservedon the terrace.This is quiteunderstandable, however,for the terracehas been the victim of continuousbothrosdiggingfrom the EarlyChristianperioddown into the 11thand 12thcenturiesafterChrist. An alternativefunctionfor the two blocks is their possibleuse as piers in some buildingof the Romanforum.If the blocksare to be restoredto one of the podium templesat the west end of the forum,then one mightenvisionthe piersin the portico of TempleF or G, if not TempleD at the northwestcorner.These temples,however, are restoredwith columns;one may be portrayedon Corinthiancoins with four columns, not piers,acrossits front.'7The use of the carvedblockson the facadeof one of the temples, even with the additionof a plinthbetween stylobateand base molding, wouldgive extremelysquatproportionsto the facade;the templewouldappearlow and ill proportioned besideany of its columnedneighbors. The Dionysionis the one buildingat the west end of the forum into which the piers in questionmight be fitted withoutignoringthe archaeological evidence.18It is 15Pausanias,ii.2.8. Williams, op. cit. (footnote 1 above), pp. 25, 29. "6C. K. Williams, II, "Corinth, 1975: Forum Southwest," Hesperia45, 1976, pp. 127-135. 17Scranton,op. cit. (footnote 13 above), pp. 68-69, pl. 26. 181bid.,pp. 85-91; Scranton dates the Dionysion "among the earliest structures on the line of the central terrace ... " (pp. 124-132). But pottery is not an aid in the search for the precise date of construction. Scrantontries to relate the stylobate level of the Dionysion with the leveling of the forum itself



sitedat the westernend of the line of low buildingswhichdividesthe upperlevel of the forumfromthe lower. The Dionysion is not a canonicaltemple; ratherit has a central apsidalroom room.The threeroomsare unitedby a flankedon eitherside by a smaller,rectangular commonporticothat opens to the north.It has in frontof it the foundationsof a rectangularaltar.The portico,to whichone mightassignthe two piersunderdiscussion,is designedwitha singlestep, a columnat eitherend and four piersbetweenthe columns. The easternand westernpiersare compositein plan, but the two centralpiers,whose positionand shape are attested by trimmedbeddingson the stylobate,are 0.85 m. square.Eachbed has two dowel cuttingsand pourchannelsfor leading.One thus can restorea rectangularplinthabout0.80 m. squareto the stylobate,a base moldingon the plinthwith a sculpturedpier on that, then a crowningmoldingand epistyle.With the use of the rectangularplinthat the bottomof the pier one can achievea clearance underthe architraveof 2.50 m. or more. The smalldiameterof the end columns,attestedby the beddingson the stylobate, is no more than0.40 m. at base. Sucha smallcolumndemandsthe restorationof a low roof at the ends of the building,with its epistyleno higherthan 3 metersfrom stylobate.By placingthe sculpturedpiersat the centerof this porticoone is able to restorea continuousepistyleto the facadeat the approximatelevel of the epistyleof the shops immediatelyeast of the Dionysion,withwhichthe Dionysionis aligned.19 In the firstpublicationof the 1974blockit was suggestedthat the date of execution mighthave been as earlyas the Augustanperiod.This was consideredpossiblebecause of the completeabsenceof the drill, as well as on pointsof style. The-block found in (pp. 125-126). Tests in 1980 in the northeastcorner of the forum tentatively point to a date in the Flavian period for the marble paving of the forum; the Dionysion could, however, possibly have predated the paving. What does suggest that the building is later than Julio-Claudianis its plan. Cellas with apses or niches are attested in Rome in the Augustan period. See B. Tamm, Auditoriumand Palatium,Lund 1963; also J. C. Balty, AntCl33, 1964, p. 575. See Tamm, p. 160, no. 10, Temple of MarsUltor after A.D. 2, and, possibly, p. 150, no. 6, Temple of Venus Genetrix. The Corinth Dionysion is a different concept in plan, however, being slightly more than a semicircle, not a rectangle with niche or apse. For the difference in temple plan, comparethe Dionysion with Temple F at Corinth, the latter dated at its earliest by P. Gros to the Augustan period. It seems, however, more unlikely now than when Scranton dated it that it can be Augustan. See P. Gros, Aurea Templa,Recherchessur architecturereligieusede Rome a I'epoquedAuguste, Rome 1976, pp. 124-143. Temples with cellas that have curved back walls closer in style to the Corinth building are found in the East, but are dated around A.D. 50 or later. See D. Krenckerand W. Zschietzschmann,RdmischeTemV, Berlin 1938: kieinerBezirkat Hossn Soleiman (exedra), pl. pel in Syrien,DenkmdlerantikerArchitektur 38; Rahle, pl. 95; Burkush, pl. 100; for chronology see pp. 271-275. The closest parallelto the Corinthian Dionysion both in size and plan is the inner room of the temple at Rahle. Regardlessof whether or not one restores to the Dionysion the sculpturedblocks in question, the facade with central element of heavy piers and small flankingcolumns is difficult to parallelin any early Roman public architecture.Note, also, that the Dionysion faces north, suggesting that the building may have been plannedafter the east end of the forum had taken its shape, and thus the Dionysion sited as it was because no space was availablefor it on the terrace with the temples facing east. There are serious difficultiesin maintainingan Augustanor even a Claudiandate for the constructionof the Dionysion. 19Scranton,op. cit. (footnote 13 above), pp. 114-115.



1979 suppliesnew materialby which one can examine the figures stylistically.The Dionysos of the 1979 block is closely paralleledby two figuresin Athens and one in Rome.20The Corinthfigureis the stiffestof the group,perhapsthe result of copying from a cartoonor from a desireto enhancethe antiquityof the subject.His stiff beard is broughtto a pointin frontof him; his krobyloshas been flattenedand shapedinto a triangle.Whenthis krobylosis comparedwith thatwornby the Zeus of the 1974block, one is inclinedto see the addedstiffnessof the Dionysosmore as a personalpreference of the sculptorthanas a chronological criterion. Two pointsmay help to clarifythe problemof chronology,however.The first is a deductionthat can be madefrom the architectural remains.If the two sets of archaistic figureswere set up on the terracein front of the NeronianLong RectangularBuilding, their date of erectionand dedicationmust be Neronianor later, or, if one acceptsthe possibilitythat the blockswere designedas piersin the Dionysion,then, too, logic has it that the blocks were commissionedin the time of Nero or later, probablyin the Flavianperiod.The second point is a deductionmade from the historicalfacts.21The intellectualclimatemightnot have been rightuntil the time of Nero for the erectionof two large monumentscelebratingthe glory of the Greek past of ColoniaLaus Julia Corinthiensis.We do know, however,that by the time of Hadrianit was prestigiousto have "becomethoroughlyhellenized,even as your own city [Corinth]has."22Although archaisingis a style that appearsin one aspector anotherthroughoutGreekart, the use of it on two largepiersas partof the designof a templeor on a pairof monumentsin frontof a buildingdedicatedby a sacerdosof Corinthsuggestspridein declaringa preRoman pedigreefor some officialCorinthiancult or institutionin the Roman forum ratherthan pridein the Romanroots of the population.23 From the logic of these arguments, then, one mightbest placethe two piersin the Flavianperiodand not earlier. CHARLESKAUFMANWILLIAMS,II CORINTHEXCAVATIONS

20ForZeus of the Four Gods Base in the Athenian AcropolisMuseum, see Harrison, op. cit. (footnote 3 above), pl. 64:c. For Aigeus of the tripod base in the Athenian Agora, see ibid., pp. 79-81, no. 128, pl. 30, right. For the Roman example, see W. Fuchs, Die Vorbilder der neuattischenReliefs, JdI-EHXX, Berlin 1959, p. 46; also E. D. Van Buren, "Praxias,"MAAR3, 1919, pl. 72:2, which shows the complete figure of Zeus, close in pose to the Corinth Figure 3, but not exactly alike in details. 21E.L. Bowie, "Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic," Studiesin AncientSociety,M. I. Finley, ed., London 1974, pp. 166-209. I thank most warmly Mr. A. Spawforth,Assistant Director of the British School at Athens, for this reference and for sharingwith me his considerableknowledge in this area. 22Dio Chrysostom, The Thirty-seventh Discourse:The CorinthianOration,Loeb ClassicalLibrary,Cambridge, Mass. 1946 (trans. H. L. Crosby), p. 26. 23Foran example of a totally Roman treatmentof the subject of prosperity,especiallyagrarian,note a rectangularaltar, 0.50 m. high, from Naples (storeroom inv. no. 147827). It has a single figure on each of its four faces, each making a libationwith a phiale; two of the figures also hold cornucopias.The representations are of Bona Dea, Vesta, Mercuryand Genius, who is Roman even to his resemblanceto Augustus. See Adolf Greifenhagen, "Bona Dea," RbmMitt52, 1937, p. 228, pls. 51, 52.



ilk~i' M~L.



i__av~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ir~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~











_< -







2~~~~~~ E~~~~~~



Wrap~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a WI





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~


PAUSANIASAND PRAXITELES to this volume it will give me specialpleasureif I may at the N CONTRIBUTING same time pay tributeto anotherold friend.HomerThompsonand I have walked the streets of Athens with Pausaniasfor over half a century,found him a congenial companionin spite of faultsand eccentricities,and become constantlymore awareof and uniquevalue as a guide, and of the dangersand pitfallswhich his trustworthiness one is aptto encounterif one abandonshim to followa pathof one's own. a Withsome trepidationI take an examplefrom sculptureratherthan topography; seriesof quotationswill introducethe subject. Laterthey set up otherstatuesin the Heraion,includinga Hermesof stone, carryingthe infantDionysos;this is a work (techne, a specimenof the art) of Praxitelesa bronzeAphroditeis a work(ergon) of Kleonof Sikyon. v.17.3. Pausanias,

This followsthe mentionof other statuesin the Heraionat Olympia,which Pausanias calls "very old".

It has sometimesbeen said that by using the word technePausaniasis sayingonly that the Hermesis in the style or mannerof Praxiteles;but an examinationof other instances'showsthathe uses technesimplyas a synonymor stylisticvariationfor ergon. The groupwas foundin the Heraionon the 8th of May 1877and afterone or two initialexpressionsof doubtwasgenerallyacclaimedas a masterpieceby Praxiteles. Casts give no conceptionof the soft, glossy, flesh-like,seeminglyelastic -surfaceof the original,whichappearsto glowwithdivinelife. Lookingat the original,it seems impossibleto conceivethat Praxitelesor any man ever attainedto a greatermasteryover stone thanis exhibitedin this astonishing work. v.17.3 (London J. G. Frazeron Pausanias, andNew York1898). This is the only case in whichwe possessan undisputedoriginal,straight fromthe handof one of the greatestmastersof antiquity. E. A. Gardner,Handbookof QreekSculpture, 2nded., London1915,p. 388.

Berlinand Leipzig1927, pp. 37-48) mainBildhauerarbeit, {CatlBliimel(Griechische the Hermes was not made by Praxiteles that evidence tained on dietailedtechnical himselPtutwas.iaRomancopy. 'Notably .143;,v17.1-2.



AJA 35, 1931 publishedarticlesby six scholars-on the subject,includingBluimel and, for example,the following: It is not a questionwhetherPraxiteleshimselfhada handin it; but whether the Athenianmarble-cutter who copiedthe bronzeoriginallived in JulioClaudianor Hadrianic times. RhysCarpenter,p. 261. If the Hermesis a copyit is one of the best we have;if it is an original,then Praxitelesis a disappointing sculptorwho inventedsome most remarkable technicaltricks. StanleyCasson,p. 268. The stylisticandtechnicalchargesagainstthe Hermesas a workby Praxiteles cannotbe substantiated. The evidencein favor of the identification is too strongto be affectedby a few unusualfeaturesfor all of whichexplanations or parallelscanbe found. GiselaM. A. Richter,p. 290. The parallelsfor the draperyof the Hermesfoundon worksof the fourth centuryB.C.are closerthanthose on Romanworksand thereforethe drapery supportsthe view thatthe Hermesis a Greekoriginal. ValentinMuller,p. 295.

0. Antonsson (The PraxitelesMarble Groupin Olympia,Stockholm 1937) put for-

wardthe theory,basedon technicalevidencefrom the groupitself and representations in minorarts, that Praxitelesmade the groupas a Pan carryingDionysosaccompanied by a nymph,and afterdamagethis was reworkedin imperialRomantimes. This theory has not been receivedwith muchfavour,thoughit is commonlyacceptedthat thereare signsof more superficialreworking. CarlBluimel(DerHermeseinesPraxiteles,Baden-Baden1948) changedto the view thatthe groupis a Hellenisticoriginal,perhapsby a HellenisticPraxiteles;RhysCarpenter in AJA 58, 1954, pp. 4-6 dismissesthis latter-dayPraxitelesas a fictionand insists on a Romanimperialdate~. The styleandtechniqueof the draperyof the Hermesconfirmthe suspicions arousedby;other features-the hair, the polish, the child, the sandal,the pedestal-thatthe statuecannothavebeen carvedin the fourthcentury.The difficultyof findinggood later parallelsdoes not alter the impossibilityof assigningit to a date duringwhichwe know that sculptorswere still employinga universalstyleandtechnique. The manwho carvedthe Hermeswas a first-classsculptor.He may have copieda work by Praxiteles,his name may have been Praxiteles,or Pausaniasmayhavegot his factswrong.It wouldhelpif we couldfix the dateof the statueat all accurately,but for this a detailedstudy-of'thtechnique of


R. E. WYCHERLEY later periods would be necessary.However the base and those statues which furnishsome parallelsto the Hermes indicatea date c. 100 B.C. Sheila Adam, The Techniqueof Greek Sculpturein the Archaicand ClassicalPeriods, London 1966, p. 128. It is a fine Hellenisticcopy. This sad but importanttruth is argued irrefutably by Sheila Adam. Peter Levi on Pausanias,v.17.3 (New York 1971). Whatever grounds have been or may be advanced against accepting the Hermes as an original by Praxiteles, they will be inconclusive so long as no unquestionableoriginalof his time, equal in qualityand as well preserved, is availablefor comparison.... Even those of us who dislike the Hermes must admit that it has remarkable vitality. A. W. Lawrence, Greekand RomanSculpture, London 1972, p. 185. One might say that the Aberdeen head gives the impression that if pressed by a finger its flesh would give, but the flesh of the Hermes appearsfrozen It is to me inconceivable that the Hermes was carved by a sculptor of the ability of the one who carved the Aberdeen head or indeed by any reputable sculptorof the mid-fourthcentury B.C. R. M. Cook, "The Aberdeen Head and the Frank Hermes of Olympia,"Festschrift.fuir Brommer,Mainzam Rhein 1977, p. 77. Few of those who consult the well-compiled and authoritatively written handbookson Greek art have any suspicion that the proud edifice of Greek sculptural history is reared on a quagmire of uncertainty, ambiguity and baseless conjecture.It could not be otherwise. The ancient statuarywhich has survived into modern times is largely anonymous; it carries no label to tell us what it is or whence it came. Rhys Carpenter,GreekSculpture,Chicago 1960, p. vii.

These excerptsrepresentfairlywell the vicissitudesof the Hermes since his disthe first half-centuryhe was placed coveryjust over a centuryago. For approximately on the highest of pinnacles.In the second he has been toppled.Not only has Praxiteleanauthorshipbeen questionedand denied, but simultaneously,in accordancewith sculpturaltastes,his artisticqualityhas been decried.He has not even mid-20th-century been set securelyon a moremodestpedestal;he seems at times to lie flat on his face in Rhys Carpenter'squagmire,as once he lay in the disintegratedbrickworkof the Heraion.



But perhapsRhys Carpenteris too severe. The historyof Greek sculptureis based on foundationssolid enoughas far as they go: firstlythe informationgiven us by reliable ancientwriters,of whom Pausaniasis by far the most important;secondlythe sculpturewhich happensto survive.The troubleis that besides being very far from complete, these two are largelyseparate,with only sporadicpoints of contact.The "quagmire"has been createdby those who tramplearoundon the soft insecureground in between. For manyyearsthe Hermeswas consideredthe firmestof these pointsof contact. At the same time he was exceptionalin that he carrieda clearlabelof origin,affixedby an authoritativeand trustworthyhand. But now a series of criticshave made it their businessto tear it off and to substitutenot one but half a dozen labels of their own devising.ApparentlyFrazerand the earlierwriterswere deluded.Pausanias,alongwith thousandsof others,was duped,not havingthe wit to see that the Hermeswas a substitute-an unacknowledged substitute-lackingthe quality,the true Praxiteleantechne, whichhe saw in the Satyr,the ArtemisBrauronia,the Leto and manyotherworks. PeterLevi considersthe mattersettled.And indeedone mightbe gladto settle for the next best thing,a trulyfine Hellenisticcopy (thoughhow, if the originalis lost, one can tell that this is a fine copy,as distinctfrom a fine piece of sculpture,I fail to see). In fact, the studentwho, when told that the Hermesis not a genuinework of Praxiteles' hands, very properlyasks, "Then preciselywhat is it?" is confrontedby the followingpropositions(more,for all I know): The Hermesis a Hellenisticcopy (fine or not so fine or poor-aestheticjudgments varywidely). It is a Hellenisticoriginal,possiblyby a latter-dayPraxiteles(the laterBluimel). It is a copyof Romanimperialdate. The originaltoo was of marble. The originalwas of bronze. The workwe have differsin importantrespectsfromthe workof Praxiteles,though the extent of the differenceis not agreed. It was made by Praxitelesas a Pan but later after damagewas convertedinto a Hermes(Antonsson). Ourstudentmay well feel that afterpartingcompanyfrom his faithfulguide he is flounderingin the "quagmire".He may have doubtsaboutthe methodswhichproduce such bewilderingresults. If I now take a closer look at SheilaAdam'sdiscussionof the Hermesin the appendixto Technique (pp. 183-184 above), let it not be thoughtthat I am beingparticularlycriticalof her-quite the contrary.One learnsa greatdeal fromher excellentbook; her expositionof the case againstPraxitelesis thoroughand duly cautious.But I cannot accepther uncompromising conclusionquotedabove, in particular her curt dismissalof our prime authorityPausanias.Her statementthat we know that in Praxiteles'day sculptorsemployeda universalstyle and technique,I cannotunderstand.



Mrs. Adam says merely that "suspicions"are arousedby variousfeatures;and afterfull discussionshe admitsthatfor all these one is in difficultybecauseof a "lackof It couldnot be otherwise.We have only a fractionof suitablematerialfor comparison." "classical"5th- and 4th-centuryGreek sculpture;and of that only a fractioncan be datedabsolutely,objectively.And what has survivedis scrappy,fortuitousand highly nearlyall the very best is lost. Of the individualmasterIn particular, unrepresentative. pieces of the great sculptors,of the choice worksselected by Pausaniasfor mention, only one here and thereremains. Pausaniasmentionsover 160 sculptors,most being of the Classicalperiod.Of how statue?Of not one do we have the kindof manydo we have one single authenticated solid oeuvrewhich historiansof art in other periodsvery rightlyrequirebefore they presumeto attemptstylisticanalysis,or attributionand rejection.If we had one hundredthof what Pausaniassaw, or just two or three statuesfrom the handof each of a that would make!The majorsculptors, score of these sculptors,what a transformation above all, were men of supremegeniusand technicalvirtuosity.Whatexper'Praxiteles iments, whatspecialstylisticvariations,whattechnicalinnovations,whetherephemeral or more permanent,are lost to us throughthe vanishingof their workwe can never know. In his excellent essay on the frieze of the Nike balustradesRhys Carpenterhas shown how even in the workof a closely knit, homogeneousgroupone finds striking variations.Severalof the sculptorsare first-rateartists.One shows odditiesamounting to faults,and it has even been suggestedthat his workis a late replacement;Carpenter for our presentsubject,thatit is doubtful will not have this, but he tells us, significantly whetherany expert,withoutknowledgeof provenance,wouldplacethis workcorrectly in periodand school. As CharlesMorganhas remindedus with referenceto Paioniosand Alkamenes,3 we also have to bear in mind that some artistslive to a great age, still plyingtheir crafts,and in the courseof a long workinglife remarkabledevelopmentsand changes take place in their style. Morganhas shown convincinglythat there is no compelling need, on groundsof date or style, to say, as many have done, that Pausaniasmustbe wrongwhen he gives the pedimentsat Olympiato Paioniosand Alkamenes.As promising youngmen they may have been given this assignment,undera suprememaster, and with a groupof subordinates,each with his own artisticpersonality,to share the carving.

On all counts,when discussingthe style and techniqueof the lost masterswe must makeampleallowancefor the meagreness,sometimessheer absence,of clearevidence andfor the consequentuncertainties,and recognizethatwhatwe say is tentative,provisional,indecisive.We are constantlyengagedin a kindof skiamachia,in both senses of the word,fightingin the darkandfightingwithshadows. TheSculptureof the Nike TempleParapet,Cambridge,Mass. 1929. 3"Pheidiasand Olympia,"Hesperia21, 1952, 308-312. 2



Mrs. Adam continues, "This (lack of comparablematerial)is not true for the drapery."This is not the impressionwhichone receivesas one readsher account.What I have said appliesto the drapery-in this too one can expect endless variation.Mrs. Adamcites the ApolloPatroos,probablyby Euphranor,from the Athenianagora.'But that, unlike the Hermes,is a greatcult statue, standingformallyrobed in full dignity. Mrs.Adamsearchesfor parallelexamplesof 4th-centurydraperyand producessix; and it is curiousthattwo othersare the Mausolosand Artemisiafromthe Mausoleum.Now her most powerfulally in takingthe Hermesfrom Praxitelesis probablyRhys Carpenter; and RhysCarpenterinsists5that the "Mausolosand Artemisia"too must be downdated by two centuries,largelybecauseof the "unclassical"style of the drapery.Our studentmay againfeel disconcertedand bewilderedwhen he sees that a very important workwhichhe thoughtwas firmlyanchoredin a historicalcontext is on high authority castadrift;and thattwo leadingproponentsof the theorythatthe Hermesiis a late work contradictone anotherflatly,aboutjust the kindof evidenceon which,theirwhole case depends. In fact we find very frequentdisagreementaboutthe interpretation and use,of the technicalevidence.Againand againMrs.Adamfindsit necessaryto correcther distinguished predecessor,StanleyCasson.On her first page she disagreeswith him completelyabout the use of tools in the early Archaicperiod.One might expect that the marksleft on the stone by varioustools would provideprecise,objectivecriteriaand lead to agreement.It is alasfarotherwise.The use of the "runningdrill"offersa crucial example.Pausanias(i.26.7) tells us that Kallimachos,who was called"katatexitechnic" becauseof the elaboratenessof his art and who workedin the latter part of the 5th century,"firstdrilledstones."This is not literallytrue, but there may be somethingin it. It may be that Kallimachosinvented the use of the "runningdrill". Of modern authorities,some have detectedtracesof the runningdrillalreadyin Parthenonsculpture. Mrs. Adam (p. 66) tells us, "The new techniquemust have been introduced between370 and 350."How can we know,when from the handof Kallimachoshimself we do not have a singleauthenticated work? Othercriteriaare inevitablyless precise.Mrs. Adamwarnsus that the terms "linear" and "plastic",much used by Rhys Carpenterand others in referenceto drapery styles, are "so vague that they are open to misinterpretation." Some criteriaagainare largelysubjectiveand personal.Not that subjectiveimpressionsshould be wholly despised-"transcendingany reasoningconcerningtools, supports,tree-trunksand whatnots," says Miss Richter,6"standsour 'subjective'reactionto the Hermes."Casson7 condemnsthis as "archaeological fundamentalism", which makes the searchfor evidence futile.One mayreplythat, confusedand drivento despairby the conflictingideas producedby 50 years'searchfor evidence, some of us are constrainedto fall backon 4H. A. Thompson, 'Apx'E, 1959, pp. 30-34. ' GreekSculpture,Chicago 1960, pp. 213-215. 6Quoted by Casson, "The Hermes of Praxiteles," AJA 35, 1931, p. 267. 7Ibid., p. 268.



our subjectivereactions-and our Pausanias.Pausaniashimself was no doubt largely guidedby personalimpressionsin acceptingattributionsand occasionallymakingthem; of course he had the advantageover us in that his impressionswere drawnfrom the whichhe hadseen. hundredsof masterworks We may be thankfulthat anotherstatue long regardedas a 4th-centurymasterpiece, the Demeterof Knidos,has been rescuedfrom the fate of the Hermes.She too to the Hellenisticperiod;the draperyin particular was downgradedby Rhys Carpenter8 he regardedas "completelyunclassical".Now BernardAshmole9has effectivelyreinstatedher (I trust). I can make no pretenceof doingthe same for the Hermes.It is beyondme, as an earnestbut inexpertstudentof sculpture,to treatin detailthe varioussubtlecriteriaof style and technique.My properconcernis with Pausanias,the meaningand importance of whathe says and how we shouldtreathis evidence.He tells us clearlythat the Hermes is the workof Praxiteles;and from this we may safelyinfer that it was presented and acceptedas such at Olympia.Whatthe rejectorsseldomif ever tell us is that they are askingus to believethatthe Hermesis not merelya copybut a fake.Pausaniaswas awarethat a masterpiecemightbe removedand a copy or substituteprovided.He tells us what happenedin such circumstancesat Thespiai (ix.27.3).

Pausaniasis a reliableauthor.Frazerdemonstratedhis reliabilityin archaeological matterseightyyearsago and predictedthatthis wouldbe confirmedby furtherresearch. His predictionhas been wonderfullyfulfilled.'We normallytake it for grantedthat a plainstatementby Pausaniasis correct;if we did not we shouldhave difficultyin proceedingwith the studyof the topographyof the Greek sites, or the worksof the great Greek sculptors.However much he is ignored, however often he is brusquelydismissed,he will not go away.His testimonystandsandcarriesgreatweight.Unlikethose who contradicthim, and one another (occasionallythemselves), he walkedon firm ground,and in the light of day. To challengeand disprovea statementby him one needs to be sure of one's ground,to have clear,solid, ancientevidenceand agreement aboutit. Of coursehe goes wrongfromtime to time; but seriousprovenerrorsare few. Moreoften he does not tell us as muchas we wouldwish, or his accountis not entirely clearand precise. Pausaniasis not very cleveror subtle.He has no thesisto argueand prove,no axe to grind.But he is a man of good sense, of good judgmentand good taste, notablyin Lucian,the gift of facileselfmattersof art, thoughhe had not, like his contemporary expression.Frazerin his introductionclearlydemonstratedthe qualityof his treatment of the sculptors,but I shouldlike to add a few furthernotes. To his credithe shows great appreciationof the art of the earlier periods; in this he is closer to modern taste

than to Frazerand the Victorians.The worksassociatedwith the legendaryname of Daidalos,he says, are &To rcOaTEpa,but have a touch of the divine (II.4.5). He partic8Op.cit. (footnote 5 above), p. 173. 9"SolviturDisputando," Festschrftfir FrankBrommer,Mainz am Rhein 1977, pp. 13-20.



ularlyadmiredcertainsculptorsof the firsthalf of the 5th century.Pythagorasof Rhegion, he says (vi.4.4), was a good sculptorif ever there was one. Onatasof Aigina wouldmeanvery little to us but for Pausanias,who singlesout half a dozen remarkable worksfor mention,sayingthatone is a marvelfor size and techne,and that the sculptor is inferiorto none of the followersof Daidalosand the Attic school (v.25.13;viII.42.7). Pausaniassays nothingof the Aiginetanpedimentswhichfor us representthe best of early5th-centurysculpture.In fact he mentionsonly seven sets of pedimentalsculpture and gives creditto the sculptorsof only three. These three includethe Olympia pediments,whichhe describesin some detail,but not the Parthenon.There he merely notes the subjectsof the two pediments,and is silent aboutthe metopesand the frieze, on Pheidias'greatchryselephantine cult statue. concentrating We put it downto good tastein Pausaniasthathe considersbest worthseeingof all the worksof Pheidiasnot the Zeus of Olympianor the Parthenosnor yet the colossal Promachosbut a much more modest and apparentlymore subtle bronzeAthena, the Lemnia.Lucianagreeswith him, and is more articulatein describingher beauty (Eikones, 4), noting in particularTnoarraXovof the cheeks. Now arraXovmeans soft and yieldingto the touch;it wouldnot be used of a formwhich,howeverexquisite,looked rigidor "frozen".So, we mayinfer, Pheidiastoo, waybackin the 5th century,had this trick of the trade at his disposal,and could use, it on suitablesubjects.The Lemnia madethe same impressionon Lucianas the Hermeson Frazerand the Aberdeenhead on ProfessorCook. Pausanias'treatmentof Alkamenesis peculiarand illustratesboth his value and his shortcomings.We have alreadylooked at the Olympiapediment;it is in connection with this that he tells us that Alkameneswas second only to Pheidiasin his skill in makingstatues (v.10.8). The Aphroditein the Gardens,he says (X.19.2),was amongst the thingsbest worthseeing at Athens;once againit is Lucianin the Eikones(6) who gives detailsof the beautyof this work. In ii.30.2 Pausaniastells us that Alkamenes createdthe sculpturaltype of the three-bodiedHekate, makingthe statue of the goddess on the bastionnear the Templeof WinglessVictory.Curiouslyhe does not mention this shrineand statue in his accountof the Acropolis.He mentionsthe Hermes Propylaioswhich stood near by, but he does not name the sculptor;it is generally inferredfrom the inscriptionon a fine HermesPropylaiosat Pergamon,assumedto be a copy, that the sculptorof this too was Alkamenes,but becauseof Pausanias'silence we cannotbe quitesure. In the templeof Hephaistos,Pausaniastells us, the god stood with Athenabesidehim. Almostinevitablythis Hephaistosis usuallyidentifiedwith the very fine statueof the god by Alkamenes,seen by Ciceroat Athens,10and naturallywe 1ODenaturedeorum,1.30. I cannot accept Miss Evelyn Harrison'stheory that the "Theseion" was occupied not by Athena and Hephaistosbut by Eukleia ("Alkamenes' Sculpturesfor the Hephaisteion,"AJA 88, 1977, pp. 139, 421-426.). The impossibilityof findinganother site for the HephaisteionI leave to those who have repeatedlyworked over the area. I am more concerned that Pausanias,though he might have spoken more clearly about the position of the Hephaisteion, places the temple of Eukleia very clearly southeast of the agora (i.14.5; for his use of arrwTE'pw see especiallyii.3.2-6), and Miss Harrisonimputes



tend to assumethat the same sculptormade the Athena.A wordfrom Pausaniascould he does not namethe sculptor. have settledthe matter,but unfortunately is the groupof motherand childfoundon the Acropolis,idenMost problematical tifiedby nearlyeveryoneas the Prokneand Itys seen by Pausaniasand said by him to be a dedicationof Alkamenes(X.24.3).We naturallyassume that this is the famous sculptor,but we cannotbe certain.And did he makehis own dedication?Is it worthyof the second greatest?Opinionsvary enormously.Some have said that it is comparable with the Parthenonsculptureor the Caryatids,othersthatit is very faultyin designand unevenin execution.Some say it is the workof a pupil,or a copy.It certainlydoes not providea safe aphormefor studyof the style of Alkamenes."1 Pausaniasshowsus thatAlkameneswas a very greatsculptor,who in variousways carriedon the workof Pheidiasand, like him, addedto the acceptedideas about the gods. But at several points the incompletenessor unclearnessof his accountmakes troublefor us. There is no sufficientreason,however,to believe that anythinghe says is untrue;and it is exceedinglyodd to takefromAlkamenesthe fine Olympiapediment, definitelyascribedto him by Pausanias,and to foist on him the very dubiousProkne. Pausaniasis less than enthusiasticabout the 4th-centurysculptors.He recognizes the importanceof Praxitelesand mentionsover twentyworks (only Pheidiasis better represented),and he must have been thoroughlyfamiliarwith the sculptor'soeuvreand techne;but he awardsno special mark of commendation.He saw an Aphroditeby Praxitelesat Thespiai(Ix.27.5),alongwith the Eros (andone mightinferfrom1.1.3that he had been to Knidos);but yet againit is left to Lucianto revealthe seductivecharm of a PraxiteleanAphrodite(Eikones,6). To returnto Hermesin conclusion,whatwe have beforeus is not simplya dispute betweenmoderntechnicalexperts.The oppositionis ratherbetweena plainstatement by Pausaniasand half a dozen divergentmoderntheories, of which all but one are boundto be mistaken.Of courseI acceptthat it may be Pausaniaswho is wrong.But the case againsthim is certainly"not proven".I am not saying "case dismissed",in spiteof the deficiencyof evidenceand lackof agreementamongthe witnesses.But it is wrongto set aside Pausanias'evidence, here or elsewhere.He may not have knowna raspfrom a runningdrill, thoughwe are not entitledto make this assumption,but he had a colossaladvantageover us who have never stood before an ancientstatue and to him a flagranterror-the transpositionof an importantmonument to a wholly wrong site-such as is not found in all his descriptionof Athens or as far as I know anywhereelse. To what I wrote in "The Temple of Hephaistos," JHS 79, 1959, pp. 153-156, I would add that the east frieze of the "Theseion" is peculiarlyappropriateas an introductionto Hephaistosand Athena, showing "the sons of Hephaistos taming a land untamed" (Aeschylus, Eumenides,13-14; H. A. Thompson, "The SculpturalAdornmentof the Ilephaisteion," AJA 66, 1962, pp. 341-344.) "1PaceW. Schuchhardt,Alkamenes,Berlin 1977, pp. 9-22. A possibilitywhich occurs to me is that Alkamenes began the group, made a dreadfulmistake in carvingso that the boy appearsto be partlycarved out of his mother's leg, handed over the work to an assistant to finish (the back is said to be inferior), then, unable to dispose of the group otherwise but unwillingto scrap it, dedicatedit himself, unsigned, to Athena, with a vow to do better next time.



been able to say, withknowledge,with true confidence,"Thiswas madeby the handof Kalamis" -or Myron,or Pheidias,or Alkamenes,or Polykleitos,or Skopas,or Lysippos, or-if we takefromhim the Hermes-Praxiteles. Whatin the end is our studentto do? He may find some reassurancein whatwas said to me by one in whose knowledgeand soundjudgmentI place the utmost reliance-reaffirminghis belief that the Hermesis by Praxiteles,he addedthat the question is not afterall so very important,since the qualityof the statue is so outstanding that even if it were a copy it couldwithoutmore ado standin for the original.My own lastword-stay with Pausanias. Heald Green, Cheadle Cheshire, England