Making Kleos mortal: Archaic Attic funerary monuments and the construction of social memory

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles

Making Kleos Mortal: Archaic Attic Funerary Monuments and the Construction of Social Memory

A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Classics

by

Renee Marie Calkins

2010

UMI Number: 3431825

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT Dissertation Publishing

UMI 3431825 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

© Copyright by Renee Marie Calkins 2010

The dissertation of Renee Marie Calkins is approved.

S7(JUJL1L

/ .

JvUlM^

Sarah P. Morris

David D. Phillips

2r •

'

/ .'

/

Alex C. Purves

John KRPapadopoulos, Committee Chair

University of California, Los Angeles 2010

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures

v

Acknowledgments

ix

Introduction: Making Kleos Mortal

1

Sources The Commemorative Toolbox

8 15

Chapter Outline

19

Chapter 1: Homeric Monuments and Ritual

25

Homeric Zriuaxa: Definition, Construction and Function Objects and Kleos The Ideal Funerary Monument The Monument as a Symbol of the Deceased Polysemy The Greek Wall: Dispersal and Destruction of Kleos The Forces of Nature Invisible Death Funerary Ritual and Building the Monument Conclusion Chapter 2: Pots and Pyres: Visualizing Death in Attic Funerary Commemoration

29 33 35 45 50 56 60 64 71 82 83

Iron Age Precursors The Human Figure on Late Geometric Pottery When Monsters Take Over Conclusion Chapter 3: The Living Persona: Iconography, Social Ritual and Sculpture The Sculptural Evidence Documenting Collective Memory in Stone The Institutionalization of Funerary Commemoration The Value of the Generic Type The Sum of All Motifs Conclusion Chapter 4: Little Things that Count: Vases, Plaques and Inscribed Bases

iii

93 106 121 138 140 148 156 160 166 173 187 189

Burials of Children Commemorative Pottery and the Funeral Inscription Conclusion

196 212 226 241

Chapter 5: Social Forgetting: Purposeful Destruction and Redefinition Through Commemoration

242

Purposeful Destruction Before the Persian Wars Redefinition of Commemorative Forms after the Persian Wars Conclusion

248 255 268

Figures

271

Appendix 1: Catalog of Iconography of Seventh- and Sixth-Century B.C. Burials in the Athenian Kerameikos

311

Bibliography

338

iv

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 0. la-b: "Dipylon Amphora," dated ca. 750 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 804.

272

Figure 2.1: Evolution of trench-and-hole grave architecture during the Protogeometric period in the Athenian Kerameikos.

273

Figure 2.2: Cinerary amphora and iron grave goods from the "Warrior Burial," Grave 13 (formerly Grave XXVII) from the Athenian Agora, dated ca. 900 B.C., Agora Museum, Athens.

274

Figure 2.3: Grave goods from the grave of the "Rich Athenian Lady," Agora Grave H 16: 6, dated ca. 850 B.C., Agora Museum, Athens.

275

Figure 2.4: Ekphora scene on a Late Geometric krater with male and female mourners and chariot frieze, dated ca. 750 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 990.

276

Figure 2.5: Mound K and offering trench £ in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 640 B.C.

277

Figure 2.6: Grabbau k with plastered exterior over a cremation burial in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 660 B.C.

278

Figure 2.7: Sphinx on a Protoattic krater (Kerameikos inv. no. 801) associated with Grabbau x in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 630 B.C.

279

Figure 2.8: Antithetical sphinxes, warriors, dancing women, lyre-player and seated figure on a Protoattic skyphos from Dipylon Grave VI, dated ca. 630 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 4881.

280

Figure 2.9: Nude youth confronting a sphinx on a black-figure lekythos (Kerameikos inv. no. 1707) from a child's grave in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 500 B.C.

281

Figure 2.10: Man confronting a siren on a black-figure kotyle (Kerameikos inv. no. 46) from offering place Y in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 580 B.C.

282

Figure 2.11: Monumental Protoattic amphora decorated with scenes recognizable from the myths of Perseus and Odysseus and wild beasts that was used as a burial vessel for a child at Eleusis, dated ca. 650 B.C., Eleusis Museum, no.

283

v

544. Figure 3.1: Panathenaic amphora, dated ca. 490-480 B.C., Getty Villa Museum, Malibu, no. 77.AE.9.

284

Figure 3.2: Horse-head amphora (Kerameikos inv. no. 7056) from a child's grave in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated early sixth century B.C.

285

Figure 3.3a-b: The stele for Antiphanes, dated ca. 530 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 86.

286

Figure 3.4: Inscribed and plastered limestone stele, originally painted, from the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 600-550 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. PI 133.

287

Figure 3.5: Archaic marble lion sculpture discovered near the Sacred Gate in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 590-580, Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P1599.

288

Figure 3.6: Limestone stele decorated with relief sculpture retaining traces of the original paint, fragments discovered at the edges of Tumulus G in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 570-560 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. PI 132.

289

Figure 3.7: Archaic Attic funerary stele with a man holding a spear in the central zone and a gorgon in the praedella, discovered in the Themistoklean wall, dated ca. 560-550 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 2687.

290

Figure 3.8: Kouros for Kroisos, dated ca. 530-520 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 3851.

291

Figure 3.9: White-ground lekythos showing mourners (or a mourner and the deceased?) at a tombstone with stepped base decorated with vases in front of a stylized tumulus, dated ca. 450-440 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 1935.

292

Figure 3.10: Painted stele for Lyseas, dated ca. 525-500 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 30.

293

Figure 3.11: Equestrian statue that may have stood on the inscribed base for Xenophantos, dated ca. 530-520 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P6999 and 1389.

294

Figure 3.12: "Riders Base" for a stele with relief decoration, discovered in the

295

vi

Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 560 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P1001. Figure 3.13: "Athletes Base" for a kouros with relief decoration, dated ca. 510 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 3476.

296

Figure 3.14: "Apobates Base" for a kouros with relief decoration, dated ca. 500 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 3477.

297

Figure 3.15: "Lion-Attack Base" for a kouros with relief decoration, dated ca.

298

510 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P1002. Figure 3.16: Early Athenian coins featuring gorgoneia.

299

Figure 4.1: Black-figure phormiskos decorated with a prothesis scene, dated ca. 510 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. 691. Figure 4.2a-c: "Brother and Sister Stele," dated ca. 530 B.C., Metropolitan Museum, New York, no. 11.185a-d, f, g, x.

300 301

Figure 4.3: Wrestlers on a black-figure lekythos (Kerameikos inv. no. 1472) from a shaft grave in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 540 B.C.

302

Figure 4.4a-b: Kore for Phrasikleia and inscribed base, dated ca. 550 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 4889.

303

Figure 4.5: Black-figure loutrophoros by the Sappho Painter showing prothesis, burial, tomb scene and chariot race, dated ca. 500-490 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 450.

304

Figure 4.6: Black-figure pinax decorated with a prothesis scene and chariot race, dated ca. 500 B.C., Metropolitan Museum, New York, no. 54.11.5.

305

Figure 4.7: Black-figure "Areios" pinax, decorated with a valediction scene, dated ca. 530 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 2410.

306

Figure 4.8: Valediction scene on a black-figure plate (Kerameikos inv. no. 1909) from the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 550 B.C.

307

Figure 4.9: Black-figure pinax decorated with a prothesis scene, dated ca. 500 B.C., Louvre, Paris, no. MNB 905.

308

Figure 4.10: Detail of the inscribed base for the kouros for Kroisos, dated ca. 530-520 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 4754.

309

vii

Figure 5.1: View of the column drums and metopes from the destroyed temple that were later built into a retaining wall on the slope of the Athenian Akropolis.

viii

310

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Commemoration lies at the heart of this dissertation, and thus it is fitting to remember those who have inspired and patiently guided me throughout its production. The seed of this project first took root in one of John Papadopoulos' graduate seminars, and the extent of its growth is a direct result of the discerning criticism and thoughtprovoking insight that he has provided ever since. The project would not have been possible except in a department that embraces interdisciplinary approaches to the classical tradition, and Sarah Morris made me feel particularly welcome when I began exploring the material side of ancient Greek culture. Both Professor Papadopoulos and Morris have been consistently generous with their time and knowledge, and I am greatly indebted to their tutelage, which has extended beyond UCLA to the Getty museums nearby and across the world to Athens. This dissertation also could not have taken shape without the philological expertise of Alex Purves, who has provided direction in literary theory, and David Phillips, who could always be counted on for attention to detail in matters of translation and the subtleties of Athenian law. I am indebted as well to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens for the opportunity to participate in the Summer Session program under the direction of Judy Barringer and Hans Goette. Their enthusiasm for multidimensional approaches to the ancient Greek world was a great source of inspiration to me as I began learning to engage with the material evidence first-hand. I am additionally grateful to Professor Barringer for the many conversations in Athens beyond the conclusion of the program. Her acuity was

ix

tremendously helpful as I struggled to focus an interdisciplinary approach to funerary commemoration. It was the languages and literatures of Greece and Rome that initially provoked my interest in Classics, and I must include a note of thanks to the many faculty members in the Classics department at UCLA whose doors have always been open for quick (and sometimes not so quick) consultations on different aspects of my training and research. In particular, Michael Haslam, Steven Lattimore, Katherine King, and Bernie Frischer nurtured my curiosity about the ancient Mediterranean in its early stages; Kathryn Morgan, Sander Goldberg, Robert Gurval and Amy Richlin have taught me how to translate that curiosity into enthusiasm in the classroom. The translations and photographs in this dissertation are my own except where noted otherwise. Citations of literary sources follow the Oxford Classical Text editions, with the exception of the citations of Pindar, which have been taken from the Teubner edition. Transcripts of Attic inscriptions are from IG I3 {Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno anteriores, 3rd ed.). For images that are not my own, I am particularly indebted to Jacquelyn Clements for the photographs she took at the Metropolitan Museum in New York and Dr. Joachim Heiden of the German Archaeological Institute (Deutsche Archaologische Institut), who has been very generous in granting me permission to use copies of photographs and illustrations from the Institute's archives.

x

VITA 1993

B.A., Literature-Writing UC San Diego San Diego, CA

2005

M.A., Classics UC Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

2003-2006

Graduate Research Fellow, UCLA Experiential Technologies Center

2007

American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Summer Session II Field Scholarship recipient

2008

C.Phil., Classics UC Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

2009

Ohio State University Summer Epigraphy Seminar

2010

UCLA Classics Department Teaching Assistant Consultant

xi

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Making Kleos Mortal: Archaic Attic Funerary Monuments and the Construction of Social Memory

by

Renee Marie Calkins Doctor of Philosophy in Classics University of California, Los Angeles, 2010 Professor John K. Papadopoulos, Chair

Greek funerary monuments have traditionally been analyzed from an art historical perspective or for any evidence that they may provide of belief in an afterlife. These approaches have made valuable contributions, but have tended to approach funerary commemoration piecemeal and not as fully integrated into the lived experiences of community members. When the constituent elements are instead viewed as invocations of various social matrices, the complete funerary assemblage becomes clear as a means of locating the deceased within a gendered social hierarchy and providing a model for the

xii

living taking over his or her vacated social roles. Through the study of literary, material and epigraphic evidence structured by the theory of social memory, the Archaic Attic gravestone emerges as a focal point in the landscape of the living community through which individual identity was ritually defined and family relationships displayed. More than just a means of dealing with grief at the loss of a family member, the funerary rites and monuments gave the dead a presence in close proximity to the living and were instrumental in the re-allocation of social roles among surviving community members that was necessitated by the loss of one of their own.

xiii

Introduction Making Kleos Mortal

The reference to kleos aphthiton in the title of this study derives not from an interest in contributing to the scholarship on Homeric formulae and the Indo-European tradition of heroic poetry, but rather from the desire to bring the discussion of funerary commemoration out of the heroic and eschatological spheres and into the realm of Archaic Athenian realia within their social context. Throughout the development of the Archaic city, real people commemorated real decedents as part of their efforts to negotiate the matrix of resources, status and identity in the community. Funerary rites and monuments stand at the center of these social negotiations and thus provide the focus for this inquiry. Few people in western Europe or North America today would justify claims to social status or property through reference to the funerals that they organized for deceased family members, let alone cite tombstones in cemeteries in order to verify their citizenship status. But these are exactly the sort of things ancient Athenians did do. They constructed many aspects of identity in relation to the dead: where to live, what property they possessed more generally, what occupation(s) to pursue, who would be friends, who rivals, and whom to marry. Remembering the dead was part of life in Archaic Athens, but not everyone was remembered with an equal investment in commemoration. I have adopted an interdisciplinary approach incorporating studies by Jack Goody, James Fentress and Chris Wickham, and Peter Metcalf and Richard Huntington in order to highlight the interaction between funerary commemoration and the institutions of a

2

gendered social hierarchy through which the living defined their identity in relation to the dead.1 Perpetuating memory of the deceased with an earth mound and public rites is a primary motif in the poetry of Homer, in which kleos, the repute of great heroes, becomes immortal. After it was recognized that the phrase kleos aphthiton (undying fame) had a parallel in the Rigveda, the expression found a prominent position in studies by scholars like Gregory Nagy and Calvert Watkins, who have connected the phrase to the common theme of heroic fame in Indo-European poetry.2 Other scholars, such as Margalit Finkelberg, Anthony Edwards and Katharina Volk,3 have debated where the expression should be located along the spectrum of formulae and formulaic language in oral tradition. These linguistic discussions of the expression have built on the important contributions of Albert Lord and Milman Parry, who originally elucidated the influence of oral compositional techniques on the Homeric poems.4 The tradition of heroic fame in Indo-European poetry, however, has little bearing on the present study, which examines the value of funerary commemoration to the living within the context of Archaic Athens. Scholars traditionally have analyzed Greek tomb markers for what they can tell us about afterlife beliefs and social structure, or from an art historical perspective for the development of naturalism and narrative in Greek art. These studies have revealed how the Greeks may have thought about death, whether they believed in an afterlife, how beliefs likely changed over time, and influences on the depiction of the human form in 1

Goody 1962; Fentress and Wickham 1992; Metcalf and Huntington 1991. Nagy 1990: 122-127; Watkins 1995: 173-178. 3 Finkelberg 1986 and 2007; Edwards 1988; Volk 2002. 4 Lord 2000 [I960]; Parry 1987 [1971]. 2

3

art. The bibliography on the topics is extensive, but a selective discussion of scholarship will demonstrate the major trends. Emily Vermeule,5 for example, has brought out the inconsistencies in representations of the underworld in early art and literature, and some of the ways grave cult mediated the relationship between the dead and the living. Her observations make important connections between literary representations of the afterlife, artistic representations, and the close associations between poetry, lamentation and memory. Her ultimate conclusions are eschatological—that treatment of the corpse took precedence over the fate of the soul before the fifth century B.C. Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood similarly adopts a Panhellenic approach but focuses on grave markers, symbolic representation of the dead, and patterns in epitaphs from their first appearance into the Classical period.6 An important result of her work is that she highlights the large number of early epitaphs commemorating those who died before completing a full life cycle. Once again the central argument is eschatological; her conclusion is that the monument compensates for an unfulfilled life through survival in the memory of the living.7 Katharine Derderian, who has also undertaken a broad survey of funerary commemoration from Homer to Classical Athens, argues that the development of inscribed markers in Archaic Attica is in some ways a response to the polysemic funerary mounds described in Homer. She ties social developments to commemorative forms and sees in the Archaic epigrams "a marked emphasis on the collective relevance of individual death."8 A focal point of her argument is that the 5

Vermeule 1979. Sourvinou-Inwood 1996. 7 Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 288-290. 8 Derderian 2001: 95. 6

4

changes in funerary commemoration were a reflection of the subjugation of women in Archaic Attic society. She thus argues that the ritual acts at the tomb, and lamentation in particular, were a temporary female mode of commemoration, which was subordinated to lasting "male" tomb-construction and speeches. Dederian does not address the full array of commemorative strategies that were operative during the Archaic period, and Karen Stears has cautioned against interpreting female roles in commemoration as in any way subordinate.9 This study thus combines an anthropological approach to funerary commemoration with an interdisciplinary examination of its various elements. The Archaic monumental assemblage—the sum of earth works, grave goods and gravestone—thus emerges as a multi-faceted marker of collective memory with an authoritative presence in the living community. Sculpture and pottery were important components of the funerary assemblage, but early scholarship tended to focus on classification schemes for each category separately with little consideration of the broader social context. Adolf Furtwangler10 concentrated on the attribution of sculpture to artists known from the literary record, and Nicolas Coldstream11 produced a valuable foundation for the classification and chronology of Geometric pottery. John Beazley employed even more subtle stylistic distinctions in order to classify black- and red-figure vase-painting by artists.12 Rather than categorization by attribution, Gisela Richter, who worked under the assumptions that naturalism was the goal and adequate techniques to achieve it were only progressively 9

Stears 1998. Furtwangler 1964 [1895]. 11 Coldstream 1968. 12 Beazley 1963 and 1978. 10

5

acquired, produced several influential handbooks that arranged extant sculpture into a relative chronology based on stylistic features for each major genre: kouroi (nude young males), korai (clothed young females), and gravestones (focused on the relief sculpture of stelai).13 Subsequent scholars have reassessed the trend towards naturalism in both sculpture and vase-painting, and the general consensus currently is to see realism as "almost the accidental by-product of their progress towards the most effective symbols or images of their men and gods."14 Artistic representation was directly connected to the interests of the society that produced them. Social phenomena are the primary concern of anthropologists, and the universal human confrontation with death has led some to look for universal patterns in the way the loss of community members is negotiated. Arnold Van Gennep, in a seminal 1908 study, applied his three-fold division of rites of passage to an interpretation of funerary ritual.15 The result was an unexpected observation that rites marking the transitional period, in which an individual moves from being recognized as one of the living to one of the dead, frequently are more elaborate than the initial ritual marking death as separation.16 Elaborate rituals that redefine the status of the deceased are a feature of many cultures, but there has also come to light an awareness that the practices of any social group cannot be separated from their cultural context.

13

Richter and Richter 1970 [1942]; Richter 1988 [1968] and 1944. Boardman, 1978: 66; Hurwit [1985: 22] also denies that realism was the goal and judges "that Archaic art headed toward the naturalistic despite an obstinate struggle to maintain the rule of schema and pattern." Neer [2002: 28-32] warns against viewing the more naturalistic style of Classical vase painting as the goal of Archaic artists, who would not have been able to conceive of a style that had not yet appeared. 15 Van Gennep 1960 [1908]. 16 Van Gennep 1960 [1908]: 146. 14

6

Ideas about death as a transitional process and rituals reflecting that process are not universal, and other anthropologists like Robert Hertz, who was similarly concerned with the transitional phase of ritual,17 recognized early on the importance of examining funerary rites within their context of application. Hertz thus focused his studies on the significance of secondary burial on the communities of Borneo, where the period during the transformation of the corpse into dry bones was viewed as intermediary between life and death.18 The expression of grief and beliefs about the afterlife are central concerns in the work of Van Gennep and Hertz and cannot be denied an integral role in funerary ritual, but they do not explain all the observed variations in mortuary practices. Metcalf and Huntington summarize the problem well: [T]he need to release aggression, or break ties with the deceased, or complete any other putatively universal psychic process does not serve to explain funerals. The shoe is on the other foot. Whatever mental adjustments the individual needs to make in the face of death he or she must accomplish as best he or she can through or around such rituals as society provides. No doubt the rites frequently aid adjustment. But we have no reason to believe that they do not obstruct it with equal frequency.19 Detailed examinations of community members involved in mortuary rites, the ritualized tasks they perform, and what strategies, if any, they use to perpetuate memory of the deceased in different cultures have highlighted the broader social concerns that may be addressed through funerary ritual and commemorative objects. Jack Goody incorporated Hertz's model of redefinition in formulating one of the central questions he sought to answer, namely how funerary rituals reconcile the ongoing

17

Van Gennep [1960:190n] recognized their shared interest. Hertz 1907. 19 Metcalf and Huntington 1991: 62.

18

7

nature of society with the impermanence of its constituent members. Goody does not deny the eschatological beliefs at work in the funerary rituals of the people he studied, but his work brings to light the important role played by mortuary practices in reformulating the structure of social groups to accommodate the loss of a member. The goals of his study on the LoDagaa culture of Ghana closely align with my own interests in Archaic Attic funerary commemoration. His detailed examination of a culture that, like Archaic Athens, relied on oral tradition and monument construction in order to perpetuate memory of the dead selectively thus provides a valuable source of cross-cultural comparison. More than just a means of dealing with grief at the loss of a family member, the rites and monuments of Archaic Attica were instrumental in reallocating social roles and resources necessitated by the death of particular community members.

Sources By the end of the Archaic period in Attica, the stele on an inscribed base had emerged as the dominant form for elite funerary markers, though statues were also common and share many of the same basic elements. The inscribed bases, nearly always separated from the sculpture they originally attended and removed from their original context, provide the best contemporary textual evidence but offer frustratingly little information regarding the rites marked by the construction of the monument. The Homeric poems, in contrast, the result of a continuously evolving oral tradition that seems to have been fixed sometime in the eighth or seventh century B.C., provide

20

Goody 1962:26.

8

tantalizing details about funerary ritual but cannot be firmly tied to a specific cultural context. The poems nonetheless have been shown to have Panhellenic significance during the period under investigation,21 and Richard Seaford in particular has argued that the versions of the poems we possess were strongly influenced by the development of social institutions in Archaic Athens.22 He examines the Homeric epics along with Attic tragedy and concludes that "we may detect in the tradition of Greek epic poetry a development culminating in our Iliad and Odyssey, that was influenced by the development of the citystate."23 Ideology preserved in the poems thus is of use for elucidating the connections between monuments and perpetuation of collective memory, the knowledge shared by members of a community that is central to the value of commemoration among the living. Whether or not the Homeric poems provide any reliable evidence for the practices of ancient Greek communities has long been debated by scholars on two primary fronts: descriptions of artifacts and institutions in the poems have been compared to the archaeological evidence, and the poetic composition has been compared to modern studies of cultures that rely on oral tradition rather than writing to transmit knowledge to successive generations. Archaeology has confirmed that the practices described in the Homeric poems do not precisely match the customs of a specific ancient Greek community in any period, and one of the most extensive discussions regarding the historical elements in the poems has been provided by Hilda Lockhart Lorimer in Homer

21

In the fifth century, Herodotos, credits Homer and Hesiod with creation of the canonical Greek pantheon (2.53.2). The influence of these two poets, furthermore, has been connected by scholars to the rise of Panhellenic sanctuaries and festivals at which poetic competitions were held in the eighth century (Snodgrass 2000a: 421; Nagy 1990: 10 and 36-38). 22 Seaford 1994. 23 Seaford 1994:144.

9

and the Monuments.

After comparing numerous aspects of the material record (ethnic

interactions, burial practices, metal craft, writing, weaponry, etc.) from ca. 1700 to 700 B.C. to descriptions provided by the poems, she concluded that fewer features of Greek Bronze Age culture are preserved in the poems than had previously been supposed. Alan Wace, editor of the first Companion to Homer, endorsed the view that the substance of the Homeric poems had been largely derived from Bronze-Age practices, even though the Companion was published long after Lorimer's study.25 Other scholars have followed the work of Lorimer, with the result that some practices in the poems, such as certain elements of war craft and the use of bronze, have been shown to reflect Bronze Age Mycenaean traditions, but others bear a closer resemblance to the practices of the Early Iron Age. The realm of mortuary customs provides some of the most striking examples of a mixed tradition and has gained some measure of support through the material record. Contemporary with Lorimer and more specifically focused on burial practices, George Mylonas proposed that Homeric funerary mounds were inspired by Mycenaean tholoi (beehive-shaped tombs) covered with dirt, while cremation and single burial were derived from the poet's own time.26 More recent excavations have uncovered Neolithic cemeteries at Souphli Magoula and Platia Magoula Zarkou in Thessaly,27 which include cremated remains buried in pots and evidence of funerary offerings. The cemeteries 24

Lorimer 1950. Wace and Stubbings 1962: 327-328. Morris and Powell [1997: xiii-xiv] note that World War II and the death of Wace in 1957 likely contributed to the outdated views in the Companion when compared to evaluations of the archaeological evidence, Parry's theories of oral composition, and information provided by the decipherment of Linear B. 26 Mylonas 1948. 27 Gallis 1975; 1982:221-244.

25

10

provide some of the earliest examples of cremation in Europe or the Near East, but inhumation was the standard practice during this period. Inhumation remained standard later in the Bronze Age as well when elite members of Mycenaean communities normally inhumed their dead in multiple-burial tholoi or chamber tombs. As a result of comparing textual with archaeological evidence, a general consensus has emerged that the poems are inspired by stories and material remains dating back to the Mycenaean Period, but likely include descriptions of practices and technologies from the era when the poems were written down as well, ca. 750 B.C. In the New Companion to Homer edited by Ian Morris and Barry Powell, John Bennet has summed up the conflict between poetic and material evidence for burial practices as follows: Most striking, in contrast to the picture in Homer's epics, is that inhumation was the exclusive rite throughout Mycenaean Greece in the Bronze Age until its very end, when cremation creeps in. Moreover, tombs designed for multiple use are typical from the late Middle Helladic onwards: the shaft grave type, the tholos tomb, and the chamber tomb. Bennet goes on to explain that Middle Helladic tumuli in Messenia where the dead were buried in pots do in part resemble Homeric descriptions, such as those of the burial mound for Achilles and Patroklos that includes deposition of their cremated remains together in an urn (//. 23.91-92; Od. 24.73-76). Royal burials in the Early Iron Age cemetery at Salamis on Cyprus also show many similarities to the Homeric descriptions, but at least one scholar has attributed the common characteristics to influence by the

Bennet 1997: 250.

11

poems. In the organized settlements of Attica, burial practices most similar to those described in Homer have been documented during the Early Iron Age. Cremation became standard in the first millennium B.C., when single, inurned, cremation burial was the dominant practice for adults in the Athenian Kerameikos and continues until ca. 760 B.C.30 The fact that the Homeric poems describe social institutions that are largely invisible to archaeology is one of the qualities that makes their use as evidence so attractive. In addition to comparing descriptions in the poems with the material record, support for the poems as evidence of social institutions has frequently involved the scholarship of two other disciplines: linguistics and anthropology. Evidence from one category, however, sometimes appears to be in conflict with another, and poetic coloring may further obscure any historical reality preserved in the poems. Whereas most archaeologists argue from the material record that cremation is a reflection of the poet's own time period, Nagy has explained the consistent application of cremation in the poems as a remnant of pre-Greek Indo-European practice that was preserved through oral tradition.31 Further complicating the use of the poems as evidence for actual practices is the poet's creation of what James Redfield calls "epic distance," which results from fantastic and seemingly ancient elements that differentiate the world of the heroes from that of the audience.32

29

Coldstream 2003: 349-350. 1. Morris 1987: 18. 31 Nagy 1990: 85. 32 Redfieldl994:36. 30

12

In addition to the archaeological evidence, support for the influence of contemporary social practices on the oral tradition preserved in the poems has come from other linguistic and anthropological studies.33 Modern studies of societies that rely on oral transmission rather than writing to pass on stories and institutions valued in their cultures have shown that the stories are unlikely to contain many elements without contemporary referents. Institutions that have become unfamiliar or irrelevant tend to drop out of the tradition, and changes to the oral record have been observed to occur even when memorization has been institutionalized through formal training to ensure that the "correct" version is transmitted.34 Physical elements like places, in contrast, are more likely to persist because the places continue to exist, though they may lack their former prominence.35 The influence of changing cultural institutions on oral tradition prior to the Early Iron Age when the poems began to be written down makes it likely that the poems contain elements familiar, though not necessarily identical, to those of Early Iron Age Greece. The study of ancient societies can never satisfy the anthropological ideal of observing cultural institutions directly, but the importance of the unique context does not invalidate cross-cultural comparison; instead it provides the limits for its application. As Alison Wylie proposes: My thesis, then, is that though a candid appreciation of limitations is appropriate where analogical inference is concerned, its use in archaeological contexts is neither dispensable nor radically faulty. It can play a legitimate, constructive role in archaeological inquiry if used subject to the methodological constraints that 33

The work of Lord [2000/1960] and Parry [1987/1971]has provided the foundation for studies involving oral poetry by many later scholars, including Jack Goody, Gregory Nagy and Ian Morris. 34 Part of the Bagre oral "text" contains instructions for faithful memorization (Goody 1977). 35 1. Morris 1986: 90; Goody 1977: 37.

13

have been emerging, under pressure of increasingly sharp criticism, since the inception of a methodologically self-critical archaeology.36 The patterns discerned in the study of one culture may provide useful insight into the perspectives of another for which similar social institutions produce similar material expressions. The parallels are especially valuable in the study of ancient cultures, accounts of which must be pieced together primarily from incomplete material remains. Goody gives unequalled attention to the details concerning the transmission of rights and property precipitated by the death of community members occupying particular social roles in the LoDagaa culture. His study thus enables both parallels and points of distinction from ancient Greek practice to be clearly delineated in a cross-cultural comparison. Archaic Attic funerary monuments after all would never have been seen by the deceased. They were constructed by living community members who may, in part, have been responding to afterlife beliefs and taking into account the wishes of the deceased. But the burying group also would have had some very basic needs to satisfy, such as documenting the transfer of social roles and property from the deceased to survivors. The funerary assemblages incorporate a variety of traditional referents in order to represent the position of the deceased within the gendered hierarchy of the community iconographically. The monuments also provided a focal point for the living whose identity was based in part on their relationship to previous generations. Social ties were displayed during funerary rituals that assigned performative roles based on the relationship to the deceased. Collective memory of the rites, and the transfer of social 36

Wyliel985:64.

14

roles and property from one generation to the next were subsequently "documented" through the commemorative assemblage that was constructed at the location of burial. Through the material remains we can see how the living disposed of their dead, the commemorative markers they built, and sometimes the remains of rites performed at the graveside. Archaeology alone, however, cannot tell us which members of the surviving community participated in the funeral and what roles they played. The combination of commemorative ideology expressed in the poems, and comparative evidence from anthropological studies, therefore, provides an avenue for supplementing the burial evidence from Attica in order to fill out the social context that produced the monuments. While Attic rites and monuments do not match the Homeric descriptions in every respect, it is nonetheless likely that the poetic descriptions reflect ideals and commemorative strategies that were similar to those of elite community members in Archaic Athens.

The Commemorative Toolbox In the cemeteries of Greece today one often sees a photograph of the deceased within a shrine on top of the tomb. Such pictorial representations of the deceased did not occur in Archaic cemeteries, nor would they necessarily have been desirable had they been available. When figural representation enters the commemorative repertoire, the emphasis is on identifiable cultural referents drawn from communal ritual and oral tradition, not on depiction of the individual. The so-called "Dipylon Amphora" (Figure 0.1) in the National Museum at Athens most clearly illustrates how pride of place was

15

given to the prothesis scene (lying in state) on Late Geometric funerary vases. The deceased only appears as a shrouded corpse whose qualities are communicated through depiction of the rites performed (or perhaps only claimed to have been performed) in his or her honor. Of particular value to understanding this sort of commemorative program are the structural and thematic parallels between oral poetry and iconography, which were a feature of contemporary Greek society. Both types of composition are based on a system of "traditional referentiality"38 that has been most thoroughly elaborated in the scholarship on orally composed and transmitted poetry. Oral composition takes as its building blocks "noun-epithet formulas [that] are keys or switches—not unlike links on a Web page—that summon a larger context via specialized code. They bring the named persons or objects or places to center stage by idiomatically accessing their traditional identity .. ." Susan Langdon has recently elucidated a similar formulaic system, derived from initiation rituals in particular, that operated in the iconography on a variety of commemorative objects from the Late Geometric period.40 She argues that a demonstrable connection exists between iconographic motifs and social classification: The adoption of Orientalizing monsters into Late Geometric art was not an issue of access but of need. The hero contest provides a new paradigm for maturation that had special meaning for the rising states: the tales are fundamentally about social order.41

Ahlberg-Cornell [1971: 171] observes that the prothesis scene is almost always located in the decorative zone between the handles. Such placement makes it the focus of the overall decorative scheme of the vase. 38 J. Foley 2002: 117. 39 J. Foley 2002: 113 and 121. 40 S. Langdon 2008: 11. 41 S. Langdon 2008: 123.

16

Michael Shanks, who has focused on the iconography of Archaic Korinthian pottery, has similarly argued that animal friezes were not simply decorative. Dangerous animals represent an opposition to social order, and "animal friezes stylise and de-animate their animals, place them under a code, lined up in formal sequence."42 Artistic motifs thus may be a reflection of contemporary social concerns, and the depiction of duels with monsters on terracotta vessels may be an alternative strategy for expressing (consciously or unconsciously) an interest in maintaining social order. When depicted on Archaic Attic funerary objects, the scenes may invoke the heroic paradigm and initiation rites that located the deceased within the gendered social hierarchy and provided a model for the living who would fill the vacated social roles. Invoking traditional referents on commemorative objects, moreover, accords well with the creation and perpetuation of what has variously been termed "collective" or "social" memory. One of the most influential of the early theorists on memory was Maurice Halbwachs, who argued that all memory is structured by group identities and therefore collective.43 Fentress and Wickham prefer to concentrate on "social memory." They accept Halbwach's contention that groups "establishi[sh] an agreed upon version of the past" but argue for an important distinction between the individual cognitive act of recall and commemoration, which is their focus.44 They define the latter "as the action of speaking or writing about memories, as well as the formal re-enaction of the past"45 and additionally make the useful point that societies without writing do not conceive of 42

Shanks 1999: 124. Halbwachs and Halbwachs Alexandre 1950. 44 Halbwachs and Halbwachs Alexandre 1950; Fentress and Wickham 1992: x. 45 Fentress and Wickham 1992: x. 43

17

knowledge as stored in texts.

It is instead stored within people's minds and transmitted

through personal communication, as would have been the case when ancient Greek witnesses testified to having observed the proper performance of funerary rites in Attic courts.47 Theories about the construction of social memory have received increasingly more attention in ancient Greek scholarship, though less than in other areas of historical and archaeological inquiry. In several works on prehistoric England and Scotland, Richard Bradley and Andrew Jones independently of one another have surveyed the mnemonic power of monuments and the transformation of their embodied ideas over time.48 Patrick Geary instead has focused on "historical memory" in medieval Europe and emphasizes the need to recognize the filters through which we receive information about the past.49 He also brings up the possibility of competing claims based on textually and orally transmitted memory.50 The topic of memory and its relevance to the study of antiquity was reviewed by Jocelyn Penny Small and James Tatum in 1995, who were optimistic about the benefits of applying a multidisciplinary approach to Classical Studies.51 Among Classical archaeologists, Susan Alcock has embraced the possibilities of studying ancient Greek culture from the perspective of social memory and presented several case studies in Greek history through which she surveys the function of landscape in memory 46

Fentress and Wickham 1992: 10. Although testimony was originally given orally, ca. 380 B.C. written depositions, such as Isaeus (2.3637), were read in court instead for witnesses to confirm (MacDowell 1978: 242-243; Todd 1995: 96, n.20). 48 Bradley 1993 and 1998; Jones 2003. 49 Geary 1994. 50 Geary 2002. 51 Small and Tatum 1995. 47

18

conservation.

More recently, Michael Jung has drawn on Pierre Nora's theories about

lieux de memoire in his analysis of the evolving commemoration of the battles of Marathon and Plataia throughout antiquity.53 He compares and contrasts the largely Athenian significance of Marathon to the more Panhellenic significance of Plataia. The theories regarding social memory and commemorative landscapes have much to contribute to understanding the significance of funerary ritual within the living community and the role the monument plays as a focus for perpetuating memory. But just as my interest lies in bringing the discussion of kleos down to the level of the lived experiences of real Greeks, my interest in social memory seeks to move away from largescale events, like pivotal battles or the sack of Athens, in order to focus on the value of collective memory and the strategies for its perpetuation in the living communities of Archaic Attica. Chapter Outline As background for the material evidence from Attic cemeteries to be examined in the following chapters, the first chapter surveys the elements of Greek funerary commemoration preserved in the Homeric poems and the relationship between the construction of monuments and memory. In the world of the poems, a highly visible funerary monument is designed to become a landmark and make the kleos of the deceased hero immortal through provoking mention of his name. The poems also express an awareness, however, that an earth mound may fail to perpetuate kleos due to the limits of human memory and the non-specific nature of the monuments. A key example of this 52 53

Alcock 2002. Jung 2006; cf. Nora 1984.

19

occurs in Book 2 of the Iliad, where the poet describes a landmark called "Thorn Hill" among men that is recognized as the grave mound of Myrina by the gods (7/.2.811-814). Because the earth mound cannot be distinguished from a natural hill and human memory is limited, Myrina, who fought at Troy in an earlier generation, has been forgotten by all but the immortals and the poet whom they inspire. In terms of ritual, the tumulus marks the culmination of the funeral, during which the persona of the deceased is defined through the objects that accompany his or her interment, and the conventional postures and words of survivors that declare their relationship with the deceased to the larger community. The formulaic nature of the funerary lament has been brought to life by Margaret Alexiou54 and is particularly evident during the description of the rites for Hektor. Andromache, Hecuba and Helen take turns leading the dirge by addressing Hektor and stating their relationship to him while holding his head (//. 24.719-763). Through both word and gesture they testify to Hektor's identity, their own, and their status within the living community. As well as verifying and communicating the identity of the deceased, therefore, the lament provides an occasion for the identities of women closely related to the deceased to be reinforced in the shared knowledge—the collective memory—of the surviving community. The remaining chapters focus on the burial evidence from Attica and the innovations in technologies of representation that begin at the end of the Early Iron Age, ca. 750 B.C. Early Iron-Age funerary commemoration, like that described in the Homeric poems, relied on a combination of conventional objects and performative display in order 54

Alexiou 2002 [1974]. Other scholars, most notably Holst-Warhaft [1992], have since focused on the lament in order to elaborate the role of women in ancient Greek society.

20

to establish the persona of the deceased in collective memory. In the case of young women in Athens, Langdon has identified patterns of association between young, female decedents and certain grave goods that make up a standard "burial kit."55 As well as hair spirals that are unique to female graves, terracotta models of boots, dolls, chests and baskets are also common items in the graves of young Athenian women and likely have ritual associations. The entire assemblage displayed during the funeral identified the deceased as an unmarried female and reinforced the loss of a potential mother in the shared memory of the community. At the conclusion of the funeral, however, the lament was over, and the commemorative assemblage was buried under an earth mound. The second chapter focuses on early figural representations that began in the Late Geometric period ca. 750 B.C., when above-ground markers appeared with iconography that identified the mounds as indisputably funerary. The formulaic iconography was largely derived from funerary ritual but may reflect other communal rites as well. Like the objects in the kit identified by Langdon, the iconography of the markers both located the deceased within the gendered social hierarchy and provided a model for the living who claimed the vacated social roles. Common tradition recorded in heroic poetry was part of the cultural milieu that made it possible for simplified images to evoke complex associations. By the seventh century, often called the Orientalizing period, an assemblage of figured pottery adorned Grabbauten (mud-brick tomb structures) and incorporated Eastern and heroic motifs for

55

S. Langdon 2008: 130-131.

21

the commemoration of men in particular. The same motifs later appear as supplemental decoration on the elaborate marble stelai that represent the pinnacle of development for sculpted Archaic funerary monuments and are discussed in the third chapter. The primary difference between the personae represented on pottery and those in stone is that the stone monuments depict living archetypes rather than the display of the corpse during the funeral. As Jeffrey Hurwit has highlighted through comparing the modes of thought expressed in Archaic literature with trends in the visual arts, it was not so much the desire to represent an individual in a naturalistic fashion, but rather an interest in ordering nature and creating "legible" images that drove the Archaic artist.56 The depiction of a live generic type on a commemorative monument arose, therefore, not because of any desire to produce a likeness of the deceased as he or she existed in life, but rather because a living representation carried with it clear indications of social persona. The combination of a live representation in the main decorative zone with heroic motifs and inscription in subsidiary zones made it possible to perpetuate the memory of personae through analogy to the heroic paradigm on a durable, above-ground monument. The central generic figure of the sculpture or stele identified the primary social role(s) of the deceased; and supplemental motifs and/or inscription further specified the position of the deceased in the social hierarchy through conventional associations. The monument supported perpetuation of collective memory, because the composition continued to be seen and "read" in the living community long after the funeral had concluded.

Hurwit 1985: 28.

22

The fourth chapter focuses on the supplemental elements of the Archaic funerary assemblage and addresses the disproportionate number of young men, women and foreigners commemorated with elaborate monuments. These patterns, I argue, in part result from a need to negotiate vacancies in social roles that were vital to the perpetuation of the living community. A related manifestation, which becomes explicit in Classical literary sources, is the high value placed on citizens having children survive to adulthood. The ideal course of life for an Athenian male, for example, is given by Herodotos' description of Tellos, who was moderately wealthy and lived to see his children have children before dying honorably in battle.57 When people lived to old age and were able to transfer social roles and property before or at death, essential positions would have been transferred before they had been vacated. But when a productive or potentially productive member of society died, survivors were compelled to negotiate the transfer as well as their grief in order for the community to reproduce itself. Through representation of the deceased as a living generic type, complemented with motifs derived from communal ritual, and additional objects commemorating the rites performed in his or her honor, Archaic funerary assemblages perpetuated the collective memory of the deceased and burial group that had been displayed during the funeral. The beginning of the fifth century, however, witnessed radical changes to funerary commemoration in Attica. Many of the motifs associated with the heroic paradigm disappeared from the monuments, others were transformed, and the production of funerary sculpture seems to have become less common for a period of time as well.

57

Herodotos, 1.30.

23

The connection between purposeful destruction of funerary monuments and forgetting previously established collective memory is addressed in the epilogue, along with the attendant possibility that elite Athenians were content to have visible ties to the Archaic social hierarchy obscured from view.

24

Chapter 1 Homeric Monuments and Ritual

25

The Homeric poems represent perhaps the ideal result of ancient Greek commemoration, and the fact that they continue to transmit knowledge of the heroes even today is a testament to their power to prolong memory of individual identity. The modern proverb, "a picture is worth a thousand words" did not have the same conventional meaning in the Homeric (or, I would argue, Archaic Greek) world. Archaic Greek artists did not strive for the inclusion of realistic details too numerous to mention in a written account; their compositions were instead focused on defining characteristics. Hurwit, in addressing the reappearance of figural art in Late Geometric Attica, has judged that "a tradition of image making now began because images had meaning again. They had acquired a social function: they served the aristocratic ideal."1 Image-making for the sake of commemoration does not seem to have much meaning in the Iliad and Odyssey. In the world of the poems, oral poetry is the supreme medium of commemoration; there is only one example of pictorial commemoration in the Iliad,2 Helen's tapestry: . . . H 5E ndyav icrrov ucpaivE . . . She was weaving a great web, twofold BiTTAccKa Tropq>upEr|v, TroXeas 5' EVETTaaaEu aESXous purple, and she was weaving in many contests Tpcbcov 9' i-rrrroSaMcov Kai Axaicov XCCAKOXITCOVCOV, of horse-mastering Trojans and bronze-clad ou5 E8EV EIUEK' ETraaXov im' "ApnoS TraAapacov G r e e k s w h i c h t h e y w e r e suf f eri ng on her (Iliad, 3.125-128) account under the hands of Ares.

The contests woven into Helen's tapestry commemorate the war waged over her, but the images are generic. Ann Bergren has seen the suspension of linear time in the nature of

1

Hurwit 1985: 70. There is of course other image-making in the poems, most notably Achilles' shield made by Hephaistos in Book 18. Although the shield is pictorial, there is no indication that its images are meant to provoke recognition of and thus commemorate a specific individual or event. 2

26

the tapestry, which only shows frozen action without the progression of movement.3 The tapestry thus becomes a paradigm for epic composition and the timelessness ofkleos. There is a striking difference between the representations of battle on the tapestry and descriptions of duels in the poem: combatants are nameless in the tapestry, but named in the poem, even if their only purpose in the narrative is to die. During Diomedes' aristeia (display of battle prowess) in Book 5 of the Iliad, even opponents who otherwise have no role in the narrative are named: Phegeus (77. 5.11), Xanthos and Thoon (77. 5.152), for example, have no role in the poem except to be victims of Diomedes. Their kleos is to have been killed by one of the "great" heroes in the Iliad. The account of the battle(s) given in Helen's tapestry, in contrast, does not name anyone individually. The actors are distinguished by physical attributes alone into one of two classifications on the battlefield: Greek or Trojan. A spectator viewing Helen's weaving would not be able recognize individual heroes. Only Helen would be able to identify them individually by supplementing the visual representation with an oral account, just as she identifies the heroes for Priam from on top of the wall in the following episode (77. 3.161-242). Tapestries, if they were displayed prominently, are more likely to have been hung up inside than outside and thus would have been viewed by a limited number of people.4 If broad transmission of kleos in terms of time and space is the ideal, then Helen's weaving, which lacks an attendant oral account and highly visible public display, would be largely ineffective as a commemorative medium. 3

Bergren 2008a: 46-47. Closterman [2007] has recently synthesized the evidence from a vase painting on a loutrophoros (NM 450) in Athens with the burial record and argued that the display of textiles may have been a part of Archaic Attic funerary ritual. Here too public display of the fabric likely was limited, probably to the period of pre-burial activities. See Chapter 4: 216. 4

27

The inability to produce recognition (and therefore commemoration) of specific heroes or battles is an inherent quality of the tapestry and resonates in the following scene, when Helen is interrupted at her weaving and called to the Trojan wall so that she can identify the Greek heroes for Priam (77 3. 161-242). The lack of logic in this scene, occurring as it does in the tenth year of the war is well-known,5 and Bergren argues that its anachronistic placement in the narrative makes it "a 'generic epithet' of all wars against walled cities."6 But the juxtaposition of the scene on the wall with the previous scene does more than invoke the timelessness of KA-EOS aq>8iTov (undying fame), it also suggests that an oral account is more effective for perpetuating kleos than a pictorial one. Priam recognizes the men and their exploits only after Helen verbally identifies them by name. Her weaving similarly would be more effective as a commemorative object if it were accompanied by an oral account that identified the heroes by name or an individualizing attribute rather than as generically Greek or Trojan. Helen's weaving has much in common with the funerary monuments described in the poems, an essential characteristic of which is their dependency on oral tradition. After exploring the vocabulary used to describe the monuments and their construction, various aspects of funerary commemoration in the Homeric poems will be surveyed: the interaction between objects and kleos, qualities valued in funerary monuments, and an awareness that monuments may be vulnerable to oblivion. The final section of this chapter will explore the relationship between the funerary monuments and the creation of collective memory through funerary ritual. The attitudes toward commemoration and 5 6

Bergren 2008a: 43, n. 2-3. Bergren 2008a: 47.

28

descriptions of funerary ritual in the poems, though not entirely historical, nonetheless provide a useful backdrop for the discussion of the burial record in Archaic Athens.

Homeric Zriuaxa: Definition, Construction and Function Ilos' mound, due to its multiple occasions of mention in the Iliad, is particularly useful for exploring the vocabulary used to describe this type of funerary monument in the Homeric poems. It is called a sema (ofjua) in three of four appearances and a tumbos in the last to which a stele has been added. Sourvinou-Inwood has explained the variety of terminology by arguing that a tumbos specifically designates the earth mound that may cover a single or polyandron burial, whereas sema is only used to designate a single burial and "names the grave monument in terms of its function, not, like tfujmbos, in terms of the physical object that constitutes it."7 Other funerary monuments mentioned in the Iliad and Odyssey are variously called semata or tumboi, and there is one mention of an erion (fipiov), when Achilles describes the joint tomb for himself and Patroklos (//. 23.126).8 Additional markers, stelai, are only mentioned in conjunction with tumboi, though a tumbos does not seem to require a stele.9 The material from which the supplemental stelai are constructed is unclear. Stones act as boundary markers elsewhere in the Iliad and are desirable in terms of

7

Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 135. The remains of the two heroes are placed in an urn (oopos, //. 23.91) then interred in a mound (fipiov, //. 23.126). Each term occurs only here in Homer (Autenrieth and Keep, 1982; Richardson, 1985: 176 & 181). For further discussion of the term erion, see: Sourvinou-Inwood 1996; 126-127; Immerwahr 1967:262264. 9 Tumbos and stele at//. 11.371,//. 16.457,//. 16.675,//. 17.434 and Od. 12.14. 8

29

longevity,10 but wood markers are also a possibility. Examples of stone stelai are archaeologically attested as far back as the Mycenaean era by the stelai with relief decoration from the shaft graves at Mycenae.11 Markers crafted of wood, or even planted trees, are another possibility, but wooden artifacts rarely survive in the material record. Examples of wood markers or trees associated with tombs in the poems include: the elm grove around Eetion's mound, the turning post / grave marker constructed of stones leaned against a stump that Nestor describes during the funeral games for Patroklos, and the oar used to mark Elpenor's mound on Circe's island.12 Eric Brulotte has compared the turning post described by Nestor to the wooden 'Pillar of Oinomaos' at Olympia described by Pausanias and suggests that the pillar may have been designed as a turning post with the appearance of a funerary column.13 The failure to mention a stele with a tumbos or sema specifically does not necessarily mean that a stele is absent. In the case of Ilos' mound, a stele is mentioned in only one of the four descriptions of the monument (//. 11.371). Sema thus may refer to a mound with a supplemental marker as well as to a mound alone. The vocabulary describing construction of the variously termed monuments is the same: semata and tumboi are both generally either "heaped up" (x&v) or simply "made" (7toieTv).14 It is unclear whether the audience is meant to understand the mounds as being fabricated entirely of loose soil or supported by some kind of internal structure. Hektor's

10

Boundary stone at//. 21.403-405. Mylonas 1948: 71 and 1951; Gallou 2005: 123. 12 Eetion's tomb at//. 6.419-420; terma I sema sill. 23.327; Elpenor's mound with oar at Od. 11.77. 13 Brulotte 1994: 58, n.35; //. 23.327-331; Pausanias 5.20.7. 14 Compare //. 7.336 and 7.435: the former uses XETV and the latter 7toieTv; both refer to the polyandron tumbos suggested by Nestor. 11

30

monument, the construction of which is described in Book 24, is the only one that includes large closely-fitted stones over which the mound is piled (77. 24.797-799). The potential absence of a secondary marker suggests that the mound itself was adequate as a commemorative monument but supplemental markers could be added to it. The idea that a stele was secondary to the mound itself makes sense if the most important aspect of the monument is its visual prominence. Given the emphatically large size of the mounds described in the poems, they would dwarf stelai of the size familiar from either Mycenae or the later examples from Archaic Attica. The mound of Aisyetes serves as a look-out point, which suggests significant height, and Nestor advises the Greeks to build a defensive wall fitted with gates through which horses could be driven over the mass tomb of Greek dead (77. 2.792-793; 77. 7.331-343). The mounds would have to be massive for such additional uses to be feasible. Stelai on Homeric funerary mounds, therefore, seem merely to distinguish burial mounds from natural hills. As markers that seem to lack any painted or inscribed indication of their purpose, however, stelai are just as dependant on an attendant oral account for proper recognition of their significance as the mounds are. No mention of construction method is given for the erion burial of Achilles and Patroklos, although a later description suggests that a mound is a component of the monument (77. 23.126 and 23.245-247).15 As for other vocabulary used to describe the erection of funerary monuments, the verb xapxueiv is applied to setting up a tumbos and stele for Sarpedon (77.16.457 and 675) and to the funeral Hektor imagines will occur after he defeats a Greek hero in single combat. In the latter case quoted below, however, the

15

See Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 126-127.

31

action of heaping up a mound has been separated from the action designated by Tctpxueiv: vfias EUOOEAHOUS aiToScbDco, 6q>pa E Tapxuacooi Kapn KC-HOCOVTEJ Axaioi, afjud TE oi XEUCOOIV ETTI TrXaTEi 'EAAriaTrovTcp.

I shall return the corpse to the well-decked ships so that the long-haired Achaeans may give him funeral

TOV 5E VEKUV ETTI

r i t e s md

(Iliad 7.84-86)

h e a p u p a t o m b for h i m o n m e b r o a d

Hellespont.

The two occasions employing this verb seem to call for different interpretations of its meaning: TapxuEiv applied to Sarpedon seems to include the construction of a monument; whereas when applied to the unnamed hero, monument construction is a separate act. Sarpedon, moreover, as a son of Zeus receives special treatment from the gods and his home community alike that seems unwarranted in the case of an unnamed hero.16 Nagy draws on the etymology of the verb to harmonize the two different occasions in which TCCPXUEIV is used, suggesting that a better translation involves 'being honored like a god'. He goes on to explain its application to burial of the unnamed hero in Book 7 as a reference to Achilles who is 'best of the Achaians', even though he is currently sitting out of the fighting.17 The sense does seem to favor treatment of the deceased over construction of a monument, inasmuch as TccpxuEiv takes the deceased as its object (accusative case) and the monument only as an instrument (dative case) (77. 7.85, 16.476 and 16.674). This verb, therefore, does not seem to describe the manner of erecting a monument so much as the performance of funerary rites, one part of which is the erection of a monument.

16 Watkins [2008: 136-137] has recently connected the use of Tapxueiv together with TupfkjD TE OTTIXTI TE that describes the commemoration of Sarpedon to uniquely Lycian funerary monuments. 17 Nagy 1990:132-133,138, n. 66.

32

Objects and Kleos Mounds, like other forms of commemoration in Homer, are connected to the transmission of kleos, the knowledge of identity and personal history that is transmitted orally through living communities of men. As Redfield has pointed out, kleos may belong to objects as well as people, and the dead as well as the living.18 When objects have kleos, there is often some slippage between the fame of the object and that of the person associated with it. The shield of Nestor and Diomedes' breastplate can be used to illustrate this point. When urging on the Trojans in Book 8 of the Iliad, Hektor tells them: aKK EcponapTeTTov xai OTTEVSETOV ocppa A&fkonEv aorriSa NEOTOPETIV, TT\% VUV KAEOJ oupavov I'KEI traoav xpuoEiriv E'UEVCH, Kavovas TE Kai auTiiv, avrrap air' cbuonv AionriBeos hnroSduoio 5m5dAEOV ecopjiKa, T6V 'Hcpa.oTos KaME TEWXCOv. Ei TOUTCO KE Aa(3o,MEv, SEATTOJMTIV KEV A X a,o U 5 auTovuY'vncov ETriBnoEUEV coKEiacov. r ,.,. , „ . „ . „ „ ,

But follow closely and hasten on so that we may take the shield of Nestor, the fame of which goes t 0 heaven, being all golden, both the handles and t h e s h i e l d i t s e l f - a n d t h e e l a b o r a t e breastplate from ^ s h o u l d e r s o f horse-mastering Diomedes, the one H haistos w r o ht w i t h toil If w e shou,d . ,r ^ ,. ° ,, .. . . take these two things, we would expect the Greeks to embark on their swift ships this very night.

Though kleos is specifically mentioned only in the case of Nestor's shield, Diomedes' breastplate has a story and fame as well, having been made by Hephaistos. It is not just the splendor of the objects themselves, however, that makes them so powerful that Trojan capture of them could end the war, it is also the fact that they are tokens of two of the most prominent Greek heroes. Sight of these objects in Trojan hands would signal the death of two instrumental leaders: one famous for his counsel, the other for his battle prowess. In addition to the kleos the objects themselves possess, the objects are tokens representing the kleos of the men customarily bearing them. 18

Redfield 1994: 31-33.

33

Great men often possess great objects, but when such objects change hands, their kleos becomes possessed by a new owner. More explicitly than in the case of the shield and breastplate above, this phenomenon is evident in the case of armor willingly or unwillingly transferred between heroes. Carrying famous armor into battle can even make a warrior powerful beyond expectation. Because Achilles had made his armor synonymous with battlefield victory, when Patroklos wears it, the Greek forces regain their fortitude and turn the tide, even though Patroklos is not the warrior Achilles is. The kleos of the armor gives Patroklos the power to drive back the Trojans as Achilles himself would have done. As would eventually be the case for Achilles according to another poem of the epic cycle, it is only when the god Apollo intervenes that Patroklos and the famous armor are defeated (77. 16.784-805).19 When famous arms are captured on the battlefield, the transfer of kleos has an additive effect. The victor's kleos increases to include the story about the capture of the arms. The famous objects thus become tokens of a great victory and enhance the victorious hero's kleos through the stories associated with them. Hektor's capture of Achilles' armor from Patroklos signals his preeminence on the battlefield and shifts success in battle to the Trojan side. The reputation of a famous object and its possessor are thus closely linked, and the kleos of an object can enhance that of its possessor whether given freely or captured as a token of victory.

The death of Achilles at the hands of Paris aided by Apollo is foretold in the Iliad by his horse Xanthos at //. 19.408 and described in the Aethiopis.

34

The Ideal Funerary Monument The mound of Achilles and Patroklos is the funerary monument par excellence, and its description, in Book 24 of the Odyssey, explicitly ties visual prominence together with commemorative efficacy: &nq>' au-roTai 5' eirEiTa uEyav xai apuuova Tuy(3ov XEuauev Apysicov iep6$ cn-paTos aixunTacov dKTfj ETTI -rrpouxouorj, ETTI TTAQTET 'EAAncmovTcp, cos KEV TTiXecpaviis EK TTOVT6 feoth ±Qse whQ Uve n o w md ^ w h o w i u U v e fa m e foture_ 0f

The physical characteristics of the monument emphasize its visual prominence within the landscape: it is large (u£yav) in size, located in a prominent position on a headland (dxtfi eju jtQOi)x°^aTl)' a n d can be seen from far-off (T/nXe4>avf|c;). Visual prominence makes the monument a landmark within its geographic setting for both contemporary and future inhabitants and visitors in the Trojan plain, much like a modern lighthouse perched on a rocky coastline. This ideal monument is designed to be seen by as many people as possible so that the kleos of those interred will be carried by travelers to their subsequent destinations. The visibility of the monument in the landscape is designed to cause passersby to inquire about, remark on, and thereby transmit memory of its occupant(s). Because of its visual prominence, the monument provokes mention of the stories associated with it by the living who view it. The phrase, EOOOUEVOIOI Tru0Eo8ai (for future people to inquire about), seems to sum up the commemorative function of a grave monument, although the only funerary monument to which it is applied verbatim is the sema for Elpenor (Od. 11.75-76).20 In

20

Redfield 1994 32-34.

35

general, however, the phrase reflects concern with how one will be remembered by future generations. Agamemnon and Hektor use the phrase in the Iliad in reference to the stories that will be told of them as a result of their actions during the war. Agamemnon, when testing the men in Book 2 of the Iliad, says that Zeus bids him to return to Argos with ill-repute (8\)OKXea from SVOKXETH; at 77. 2.115), which will be shameful (aioxpov) for future men to inquire about (77. 2.119). When Hektor realizes that he has been tricked by Athena into standing and facing Achilles, he wishes not to die without kleos (uf| uccv do-rrouBi ye KCCI CJKAEIGOS cnroAoiuriv, II. 22.304) but instead after performing some great deed for future men to inquire about {II. 22.305). In the Odyssey, Eurymachos laments that future generations will hear about how he was unable to string Odysseus' bow, while Eupeithes laments that they will hear how the dead suitors remained unavenged (Od. 21.255 and 24.433). Provoking speech in the future is also closely associated with Homeric funerary monuments even without the phrase EOOOUEVOIOI TTU0Ea8ai: Agamemnon imagines a future Trojan boasting over Menelaos' tomb; the monument of an unnamed Greek imagined by Hektor would provoke mention of his own name by a future viewer; and Achilles' monument also is to be visible to future men (77. 4.176, 7.87-90; Od. 24.84). The association between the monument and inquiry may be conventional, however, as Redfield has suggested in the case of Elpenor's monument (Od. 11.76).21 This monument is particularly unlikely to provoke mention by future men, since it is located at the ends of the earth on Circe's island, but the details Elpenor includes in the description also

21

Redfield 1994: 34, n.15.

36

reflect concern with influencing how he would be remembered by future generations after an unheroic death. It seems intentionally ironic on the part of the poet that Elpenor, who did not die gloriously in battle or even fighting monsters, is the only one of Odysseus' men to receive a funerary monument. The inglorious story of Elpenor's death should perhaps be counted as a shameful account connected to one's name in oral tradition of the sort that Agamemnon, Hektor, Eurymachos and Eupeithes sought to avoid. Elpenor's request that his mound be marked with an oar, a token of his honorable service in Odysseus' navy as a rower (Od. 11.77-78), may be interpreted as an attempt to counteract the story of his shameful death. Making the oar part of the monument would influence the inquiries by future passersby, however unlikely their appearance. Upon seeing the oar, they would be more likely to ask on whose ship the dead man served than how he died. In this way, tokens characterizing the deceased in a particular way could be added to the monument to influence which story would be passed on to future generations. In the case of Elpenor this would mean bringing honorable service to the fore and subordinating a shameful death. As it stands, however, Elpenor's mound is lost to the eyes of men on the goddess Circe's island, while the account of his inglorious death is perpetuated in the Homeric poem. The ironic episode makes the poet's own method of commemoration superior to a burial mound since it does not depend on visual prominence to perpetuate memory of the deceased. Irony is again at play in the following quotation from the Iliad in which Hektor imagines his own kleos being perpetuated through the monument of another man. Such a

37

possibility demonstrates not only the power of the monuments to provoke transmission of the story, but also the fact that the dead have no control over the transmission of their kleos: ctvSpos MEV T65E afjua TraXai KaTaTE9vr)coTos, 6v TTOT' dpioTEuovTa KaxeKTave <pai5iuo5 "EKTCOP. cos -rroTE TIJ epEEi- TO 6' EHOV Kkios ou TTOT' OXEITQI. (Iliad, 7.89-91)

This is the marker of a man who died long ago, an excellent man whom shining Hektor once killed, S O someone will say some day, and my fame will not ever perish.

Ruth Scodel suggests that the description evokes a written epitaph that is not actually present and finds the "tour guide formula" problematic since the poem does not specify either the speaker or the future auditor. 2 She thus discounts the possibility that the Homeric marker was meant to provoke inquiry about the person commemorated rather than to be read,23 but this is to ignore the relationship between distinctive objects and oral tradition. As already discussed in the case of armor, the history of the object is preserved orally; when it falls into enemy hands, the kleos associated with the object is modified to accommodate its new function as a token of victory.24 In her discussion of the imagined sema for Menelaus that Agamemnon sees as a source of shame to himself (//. 4.176-182), Scodel acknowledges that burial in hostile territory may result in the perpetuation of shame rather than glory because there is no control over the future speech act.25 As is the case with the mound of a defeated enemy imagined by Hektor, the oral tradition of the local community, the Trojans, likely would perpetuate the shame of Agamemnon's loss rather than Menelaos' glorious death in battle. The purpose of the mound is to provoke inquiry about the deceased, but these 22

Scodel 1992: 59-61. This passage was first described as epitaphic in Classical literary sources (Ps.Plutarch, de vita Horn. 135). 23 Scodel 1992: 60-61. 24 See pp. 29-31. 25 Scodel 1992: 64.

38

episodes illustrate that its commemorative function is susceptible to redefinition to suit the needs of the local community, which may change over time. The kleos of the deceased provoked by a mound is only as stable as the oral tradition associated with the monument. Human memory is limited by lifespan, and future generations may not accurately interpret the original function of a monument or may even redefine its function in order to suit the needs of the local living community better. This is possible because the Homeric monument is unable to speak for itself and depends on the living to interpret its function properly and transmit the kleos of the deceased. The living community in closest proximity to the monument Hektor imagines is the Trojans, who would have a greater interest in perpetuating Hektor's association with the imagined mound than in remembering a deceased Greek. Perpetuating memory of the former would enhance the reputation of their community, while the latter would be of no consequence. It is thus reasonable for Hektor to imagine that the local community would favor passing on stories of his victories in battle, which would continue to be a source of glory for surviving members of his family and Troy itself. For the unnamed Greek, Hektor's description of the monument is what Scodel identifies as an "anti-epitaph" along with a similar phrase that Hektor uses in an earlier episode when he describes Andromache's fate after his death.26 rH5s yuvr] (this is the wife) takes the place of x65e af}u.a (this is the tomb) when Hektor tells Andromache: Ka! TTOTE T15 srnriaiv iScbv KCXTCX S&Kpu x e o u a a v "EKTOPOS fjSE yuvn 65 dpioTEUEOKE naxeaSai Tpcbcov nTTroSdMcov OTE "IXIOV au9EU&x oVTO 26

Someday someone looking at you pouring down tears will say, "This is the wife of Hektor, who was

Scodel 1992: 59-63.

39

(Iliad, 6.459-461)

the best of the horse-mastering Trojans when they were fighting around Troy."

The imagined passerby does not learn of Hektor's fate by asking the widow, nor is she inscribed with an epitaph. The spectator only sees her as one would a tombstone. Andromache herself is not imagined telling Hektor's kleos; it is her visibility alone that provokes (re-)telling the story by some unnamed future viewer. As Scodel points out, the relationship between mourner and monument has been inverted; it is Andromache herself who grieves.27 The funerary tone of this passage intensifies in the description that follows of Andromache returning home and rousing lamentation (7605) among the handmaidens as if performing a funeral for Hektor while he is still alive (II. 6.497-502). Whether epitaphic formulae such as, T68S orjua of x, first appeared in the oral tradition of the Homeric poems and were then emulated in epitaphs or the reverse is unlikely ever to be securely ascertained.28 Archaeological and epigraphic evidence support the view that the alphabetic script likely came to Greece little before its earliest attestation in the middle of the eighth century on the Dipylon jug.29 This earliest appearance of alphabetic writing in Greece occurred in an Attic grave on pottery, and the earliest monumental grave markers attested in Attica were also pottery. If late eighthcentury Greeks had been interested in producing epitaphs, the monumental Late Geometric grave markers suggest that the technology and medium were available. There is no evidence, however, that the Middle and Late Geometric grave markers were inscribed. The earliest inscribed grave markers (of stone) were found on Thera and have 27

Scodel 1992: 64. The appearance of epic formulae in epitaphs has been well-documented by scholars such as Friedlander andHoffleit 1948: 10-13, no. 2 & 3d. 29 Sass 2005: 150; Jeffery and Johnston 1990: 16. 28

40

been dated to the mid-seventh century B.C.30 The earliest inscribed Attic gravestone31 appears shortly thereafter, contemporary with the latest period in which the poems are thought to have been written down. Although it is possible that epitaphs could have been painted or inscribed on wood or some other perishable material, no evidence for such a practice survives. The "apparent echoes of epitaphic language in the epic"32 are thus unlikely to be the result of familiarity with epitaphs unless the passages were composed after the middle of the seventh century. As a result, I prefer to focus on the passages as a reflection of eighth- and seventh-century attitudes toward funerary commemoration. From this perspective, the absence of the dead man's name in the first passage and the comment prompted by the sight of Andromache in the second underscore the role that oral tradition played in perpetuating memory of the deceased for whom a monument had been constructed. In addition to emphasizing the importance of the living for the transmission of kleos, Hektor's words highlight the role that the visibility of a monument plays in transmitting fame. By becoming a landmark for present and future generations, the monument has the power to transmit the name of the deceased beyond immediate kin and community to include those who may visit the region and learn something of its geographical features. As already discussed in the case of Achilles' monument, the mound itself is a mnemonic device that provokes transmission of kleos and requires the living for interpretation. Transmitting the 'proper' signification of a monument takes the

30

Jeffery and Johnston 1990: 52. Jeffery [1962: 129] dated the stele of Keramo to ca. 650 B.C. 32 Scodell992:61.

31

41

form of an unbroken oral chain constructed of witnesses viewing the monument, then hearing and retelling the story. If the chain is ever broken, for example by invaders supplanting the current society, the monument is likely to lose its original significance. The Greeks represent just such an invading population in the Iliad and do in fact redefine monuments to suit the needs of their own community. Such redefinition is most easily seen in the case of the turning post chosen by Achilles for the chariot race in the funeral games for Patroklos. Nestor questions whether the monument was originally a gravestone or had always been a turning post, because he does not know the stories that the local community tells about the landmark (77. 23.327-333). What may originally have been set up as a grave marker continues to be a landmark through its visual prominence, but the oral chain of stories defining its function has been broken. The same thing is true for the opposite reason in the previously mentioned case of the Greek monument imagined by Hektor (//. 7.89-91). The monument would have been erected by the invaders, but Hektor imagines that it will be redefined by the local community once the foreigners leave. This potential for a monument to lose its original significance thus is recognized in the Iliad through examples such as the turning post and the mound imagined by Hektor. An ambiguity of purpose is additionally connected to the polysemic nature of Homeric funerary monuments to which I shall return.33 Visual prominence makes a monument a landmark within the local geography and provokes transmission of memory. Without a local community interested in remembering the identity of a dead man in its oral

33

See 45-51.

42

tradition, however, a monument is unable to fulfill its purpose of perpetuating memory of the deceased. Proximity to a frequently traveled route, another feature of Achilles' mound on the Hellespont, combines with visual prominence and contributes to making the grave marker a landmark. The large tumulus in the Trojan plain would be a striking feature in the landscape whether viewed from land or sea, and such visibility to travelers makes it more likely that the monument would provoke oral transmission of Achilles' name and history beyond the local community. Its prominence on the shoreline would make the monument useful as a navigational aid for sailors, as well as for people visiting the Troad by land. As long as Achilles' name continues to define the landmark, his name would continue to be heard by new visitors to the region. The usefulness of such monuments as landmarks is demonstrated directly in the Iliad when tumuli are used to locate events within the plain. Their prominence in an otherwise relatively flat landscape makes the mounds useful for locating objects or actions within the plain. A location specified as 'east of tumulus x,' for example, is much more specific and vivid than simply 'in the eastern part of the plain.' Not only does mention of a specific monument provide a location for certain events, it can be mentioned in combination with other landmarks to give a sense of the distance traveled. When the audience hears of the Trojans fleeing past Ilos' mound during their retreat from the Greek ships, the listeners get a sense that the army has traveled a certain distance from the ships but still has some way to go before reaching the city (77.11.166). A vivid impression of

43

the hasty retreat is made on the audience in part through recognition that the mound is located within the plain between the Greek ships and Troy. The poems also illustrate the way using the monuments as landmarks adds to their commemorative power. Every mention of the tomb as a feature in the landscape transmits the identity of the deceased for whom the monument has been named, and there are several hills so named within the Trojan plain.34 Ilos' mound is the most frequently mentioned in the Iliad and provides the best demonstration of how a monument, as a landmark, perpetuates a hero's name by virtue of being named after him. As a visually prominent feature within the plain, Ilos' mound functions similarly to the fig tree that marks the weakest point in the walls of Troy or the springs outside the city that mark the circuits completed by the heroes as Achilles chases Hektor.35 The mound of Ilos provides a common point of reference to locate physically certain events of the Iliad within the Trojan plain: the location of the Trojans' battlefield deliberations as they get closer to the Greek ships, the progress of their retreat, Paris' position when he shoots Diomedes with an arrow, and the place where Hermes meets Priam.36 Every time the poet mentions the monument to locate some action within the Trojan plain, Ilos' name is transmitted to the audience. The same would be true of tombs along the roads and walls outside a living community in Archaic Greece; the more visually prominent the monument is, the more likely it is to become a landmark and continue to transmit the name of the deceased through the generations of a living 34

Mound of Aisyetes at//. 2.793; of Myrinaat//. 2.814; and of Ilos at//. 10.415,11.166, 11.372 and 24.349. 35 Fig tree at//. 6.433; springs at//. 22.208. 36 At//. 10.415,11.166,11.372 and 24.349 respectively.

44

community. The tomb defines the location where family meets regularly to perform rituals in honor of the dead, but as a landmark it also can be used to define a meeting place for two unrelated parties outside the city walls. The more prominent the location of a monument on a well-traveled route, therefore, the more well-known it and its occupant(s) would be. The stories (kleos) a monument in a prominent location provokes thus are more likely to be retold frequently and to be spread by a large number of passer sby.

The Monument as a Symbol of the Deceased Just as landmarks indicate physical position within the landscape, so do funerary monuments, as a sign of the deceased, indicate position within the social landscape. The concepts of location and identification are bound together in the word sema, the standard term for grave monuments in the Homeric poems and early funerary inscriptions. Sema is applied to marks on the tokens (KATIPOU ofjua) with which the heroes draw lots (//. 7.189), the mark of Odysseus' discus throw among the Phaiacians {Od. 8.195), and to Odysseus' scar from the boar {Od. 21.217; 23,73), as well as to burial mounds and ultimately the sculpted marble tombstones of Archaic Athens.37 Homeric semata, however, have varying degrees of specificity. Signs can distinguish similar objects from each other, as the ownership marks do in the case of the lots drawn by the heroes, and the mark of Odysseus' throw, but they still require sight and interpretation. In her discussion 37

Sema is also used of the wicked signs (a^uctTcc Auypa) written on a folded tablet that call for Bellerophon's death (//. 6.168). Scholars have argued both for and against semata in this passage as an indication of written language. For discussions of the implication for literacy, see Bellamy 1989, Goebel 1989 and Spier 1990.

45

of Odysseus' bed at Odyssey 23.184-204, Froma Zeitlin observes that any sign invites decipherment, and identifies those able to recognize its significance as distinct.38 In the case of the marked tokens, each hero first views the one drawn from the helmet then acknowledges whether or not it belongs to him (II. 7.183-189). The comment that Odysseus' discus throw would be discerned even by a blind man feeling about (KCU K' ctXaos TOI, £ETVE, SiaKpiveie TO afjua | aucpacpocov, Od. 8.195-196) suggests that tactile perception is less acute than visual but would still be adequate for making the determination. The morphology of a burial mound complicates recognition because it cannot always be distinguished from a natural feature of the landscape. Even when Homeric monuments are clearly man-made, however, they remain dependent on oral tradition preserved in human memory to connect them to a particular individual. The accounts of the monuments in the poems reveal an awareness that the connection between oral tradition and a polysemic marker may be severed and thus fail to preserve memory of the deceased indefinitely. Nagy, drawing on the work of Sinos, identifies the tomb as a "sign of the dead hero" and uses a linguistic argument to connect sema with thought and recognition. In his formulation, epic poetry is an oral monument, the function of which parallels the funerary mound. He argues that poetry itself, therefore, "is a sema that requires the noesis of those who hear it."39 The need for recognition highlights the fact that epic poetry is as dependent on mortal memory for perpetuating its proper significance as the earth mounds are, and an unbroken oral tradition is at the core of 38 39

Zeitlin 1996: 22-23. Nagy 1990: 216 and 222.

46

preserving memory in either form of commemoration. If the chain of transmission is ever broken, new interpretations may arise. Both a funerary mound and the stories preserved in oral tradition may be assigned a new significance in order to suit the needs of the new community in residence, for the dead have no presence to be seen or voice in order to be heard to preserve the connection between the monuments and themselves. Where Nagy sees a parallel between the monument and oral poetry, Andrew Ford sees the markers as a paradigm for the use of writing to fix oral tradition: In the worlds of Homer and Hesiod, stones can be a machine to preserve kleos: a physical rock is the solid counterpart to a speech handed down in time as a way of preserving meaning. And if a new machine is found, if it is possible for writing to fix fame and endure unchanged through time, it will be on the model of these strange objects on the ground.40 Although not entirely impervious to the forces of nature, in general the earth mound undoubtedly does convey a sense of physical permanence, which forms the basis for Ford's comparison. Once kleos has become fixed in writing, it becomes as immutable as an earth mound. In the case of Homeric funerary monuments, however, the connection between the sema and kleos is tenuous. The case of Myrina's mound in the Iliad, as we shall see, demonstrates that the signification of an earth mound is not always permanent. There is no writing on the monuments to indicate their purpose to those ignorant of the account of their construction preserved in oral tradition. While the physical monument is highly resistant to change, therefore, its signification is vulnerable to redefinition. The literary and archaeological evidence for the meaning of sema have been brought together by Sourvinou-Inwood, who has argued for the merge of indexical and

40

Ford 1992: 141-142.

47

symbolic meanings in the case of funerary monuments. The monuments both mark the location of the grave and, as "sign of the dead person," are an aid to preserve memory of the deceased in the living community.42 The possibility that the dead may continue to have a visible presence among the living leads to some important questions with regard to the purpose of the monument: What is the nature of the continued presence of the deceased? Is individual identity retained by the monument, and for how long? SourvinouInwood focuses on the eschatological role of the sign, in particular for individuals who have not completed a full life-cycle, and ultimately argues that the monument compensates for an unfulfilled life through survival in the memory of the living.43 The benefit of the monument from this perspective thus applies to the dead alone, while for the living the monument represents an obligation with no tangible benefit. Eschatological concerns are likely part of the motivation for mortuary practices. The work of anthropologists has shown, however, that funerary monuments and rites can serve some very basic needs of the living as well. Some possible benefits to the living of the "sign of the deceased" are suggested by comparing ancient Greek practices to those surveyed in Goody's landmark study of LoDagaa mortuary practices in twentieth-century Ghana. In particular, Goody has elucidated some of the ways a living social group may use mortuary practices to accommodate the loss of its members through death. In the case of the LoDagaa, the "sign of the deceased" is a carved wooden stick, and the construction and treatment of

41

Sourvinou-Inwood 1996:136-139. Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 139. 43 Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 287-290. 42

48

this shrine are intimately involved with the reallocation of the social roles of the deceased to surviving community members. Only individuals with living children are provided with such a shrine at their death, and it is carved by the children who will take over her/his various domestic and community roles. Construction of the monument is thus a ritual performance with communal significance. It both honors the parent and puts the children on display in the community so that their identities may be known. These various scholars all recognize the funerary monument as a symbol of the deceased but do so from different perspectives: Sinos and Nagy focus on the tomb as "a physical manifestation of his [the hero's] kleos 'glory' as conferred by poetry"45; Ford sees the monument as a model for fixing poetry through writing; and Sourvinou-Inwood focuses on the eschatological role of the sign.46 In each case, the role of perpetuating memory within the living community is a key component. Goody's study addresses the role of monument construction in the self-perpetuation of the social group and suggests that funerary monuments also play a significant role in redefining status and the transfer of social rights and obligations to surviving members of the community. The tomb provides a focus for the rituals which are the mechanism for this transfer, and the monument becomes a marker of the transfer as well as of the identity of the deceased in the collective memory of the community. I shall address this process in more detail when surveying the funerary rituals described in the poems. For now I return to the monument itself and the characteristics that make it vulnerable to redefinition in the poems. It is my

44

Goody 1962:221-240. Nagy 1990: 215; Sinos 1980: 47. 46 Ford 1992: 141-142; Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 287-290. 45

49

contention that the evolution of Archaic Attic funerary monuments was in part motivated by the desire to respond to the limitations of human memory and the potential for the monument to be misidentified or redefined as expressed in the Homeric poems.

Polysemy The monument is a sign of the deceased but frequently an unclear sign. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the Homeric grave monument is dependent on an unbroken chain of oral testimony to achieve the ideal transmission of memory. Any interruption in the chain of transmission makes proper identification of the marker particularly vulnerable because of its generic form.47 The typical funerary monument described in the poems, composed of a mound with or without an additional marker, has few distinguishing features other than size and location to identify it as commemorating a specific individual. The poems provide multiple examples of monuments conspicuous for their size and location becoming landmarks named after the deceased occupant. It is the oral tradition of the living community, however, that maintains the distinction between a funerary mound and a natural hill. Even if additional markers of stone or wood have been added to the mound, they may only be recognized as funerary by the community that set them up. Memory of the deceased relies entirely on the living community actively passing on such information through stories from one generation to the next. Such information may be lost if a family dies out, if the community is destroyed through natural disaster or

47

Derderian2001:52.

50

war, or if it becomes subject to an invading population that redefines the landmarks to suit its own needs. The episode involving Odysseus' oar in the Odyssey (11.121-131; 23.267-277) highlights the intimate connection between social context and the interpretation of semata. Alex Purves has pointed out that the oar, unlike the various burial mounds, suffers relocation, and that relocation results in the redefinition of the sema from oar to winnowing shovel.48 In the case of an earth mound, the original signification may be lost if a new community occupies the landscape; in the case of the oar, the sema suffers redefinition when is transferred into the landscape of a new community. Redefinition (or misidentification) of the sema results in both cases because of a change in social context. Perpetuation of the original signification depends on continuity of the community that initially constructed the sign. The Iliad in particular recognizes the vulnerability of the funerary monument to polysemy by acknowledging the different significations conferred on the monuments in the plain by distinct communities. We are told in Book 2 that a landmark called 'Thorn Hill' by men is recognized as the grave mound of Myrina49 by the immortals (//. 2.811814). In this case, the Trojans no longer distinguish the mound from a natural hill within the plain. Myrina was not native to Troy, and there would not have been members of her own community perpetually in residence to maintain the oral chain identifying the hill as her burial mound. In the case of Myrina's mound, morphology indistinguishable from that of a natural hill has been coupled with the lack of a community invested in memory

48

Purves 2006: 13. Little is known about Myrina. She is identified as an Amazon in Strabo, Geo. 13.3.6 and Lesbonax (Blank 1988:13 A).

49

51

of the deceased and resulted in the local community forgetting the original signification of the monument. The hill continues to be a landmark for the Trojans, but due to its polysemic form, Myrina has been forgotten. The poet's dual identification of Myrina's mound thus contrasts human and divine memory and demonstrates that the short lifespans and memories of mortals may be insufficient for eternally maintaining the signification of a polysemic monument.50 It is not only mounds that resemble natural hills that are vulnerable to polysemy. Even when 'unnatural' markers have been set up, different communities of men may interpret them in different ways. Another case of generic ambiguity is demonstrated by Nestor's description of the turning post chosen for the chariot race during the funeral games for Patroklos. Nestor advises his son Antilochos: eoTTiKE E,v\ov ctuov ooov T ' opyui' UTTEP aiTis n Bpuos n TTEUKnr TO MEV OU KaTairu6ETai 6u|3pcp, ACE 5E TOO EKOTEPBEV EpnpESaxai Suo AEUKW EV Swoxfjoiv 6Sou, AeTos 5' lirmJBpopos ducpljrj TEU ofma PPOTOTO TrdXa. KaTaTEevr,coToS) r, TO y E vyoaa T^TUKTO E-TT, rrpoTEpcov avepcorrcov, Kai vuv TEpnaT E6riKE TfobapKric 6105 AYIAAEUJ. r//?11?7 1lll

Some dry wood of either oak or pine stands an arm-span distance above the ground. It is not rotted by rain, and two white stones have been leaned up o n e i t h e r s i d e o f i t a t t h e meeting of the roads. The ^ ^ [s smQQth Q n b o m s j d e s E j m e r k .g m a r k e r Qf s o m e m a n w h o d J e d , Qr a . . , ... r • ^ r v° turning post built for men of an earlier time. Now swift-footed, godlike Achilles has made it a turning post.

Construction out of stones leaned against a tree stump indicates that the landmark is manmade, but the original purpose of the monument is unclear to the Greek invaders. Nestor suggests two possibilities based on his own cultural experience, but there is no guarantee that these are the only possibilities in a foreign context. The landmark does not seem to include a mound, but it nonetheless has attributes that Nestor recognizes as potentially 50

Ford [1992: 60-61] discusses the distinction between mortal and divine memory in reference to Iliad 2.484-486 in which the poet asks the Muses' help in naming the Greek heroes as he begins the catalog of ships. Vernant [2006: 116-117] attributes knowledge of both the distant past and the future to the poet being possessed by the Muses.

52

belonging to a grave marker. Nestor's speech, therefore, suggests another possible configuration for a Greek grave monument, namely a vertical wooden element with stones leaned up on either side. Archaeology has not provided any close parallels for funerary monuments constructed in this particular way, but Elizabeth McGowan has argued that this configuration has much in common with Archaic Greek funerary columns.51 Drawing on this passage in conjunction with a survey of the columns, she has suggested that Homer may have inspired a tradition of high-status burials on or near racecourses.52 An alternative possibility is that games, originally funerary in nature, were established at the tombs of some prominent individuals. The evidence is limited, and the surviving columns are made of stone rather than wood, but the shapes, inscriptions in hexameter verse, and contexts suggest a parallel. Like the mounds in the Trojan plain, the wood and stones of the turning post for the race are a visually prominent feature within the landscape, but the original signification of the monument is unclear due to its polysemic morphology. Myrina's name has passed beyond human memory, and the history of the turning post is unknown to the Greeks. While the monument is clearly man-made, the invading Greeks lack the oral tradition necessary to identify its local signification. As part of the landscape of their community, the Trojans may have stories that identify the landmark as a grave marker for a specific individual, a turning post, or something else entirely. The original signification would have been maintained as long as the kleos of the monument

51

McGowan 1995. McGowan [1995: 615-616, n. 2] provides a list of Archaic Greek funerary columns and fragments from the 6th to early 5th centuries BC throughout the Greek world. 52

53

itself, or that of the individual it commemorates, continued to be a part of local oral tradition. Even the Trojans may have forgotten its original function, however, as demonstrated by their designation of Myrina's mound as 'Thorn Hill'. For the Greeks, it is not only unclear whom the wooden stump and stones are meant to commemorate but whether the structure is meant to commemorate anyone at all. Without a continuous oral tradition to identify the landmark explicitly, the newcomers assign it a signification based on their own needs. In this case Achilles makes the monument a turning post. Polysemy has a historical manifestation in the case of Achilles' mound, which is arguably the most famous funerary monument in Greek mythology. Agamemnon gives the account of its construction in Book 24 of the Odyssey (Od. 24.80-84). Based on the description of the monument as a prominent feature of the landscape at the margin of the sea and Trojan plain, I have argued earlier in the chapter that it was meant to achieve its commemorative goal through visual prominence in the landscape.53 As was the case for Myrina's mound and the turning post in the Iliad, however, it too lacks any other unique features to identify it conclusively as the mound of Achilles and Patroklos. An archaeologically verified tomb of Achilles has in fact never been discovered, but that has not stopped ancient and modern people alike from labeling various mounds in the Troad as belonging to Achilles to suit their own purposes.54 The oral tradition preserved in epic poetry has in effect become a part of the collective memory of later periods, though it has

53

Purves [2006: 14] has pointed out that funerary mounds are located at the boundary between the sea and land on multiple occasions in the Homeric poems, cf. //. 7.86; Od. 11.75 and 24.82. 54 Burgess [2009: 112-126] has reviewed the often contradictory archaeological and historical evidence for a tomb of Achilles in the Troad and concluded that there is no single tomb of Achilles. There are instead many tumuli taken as his tomb depending on the needs and desires of different people in various time periods.

54

been deprived of the original context via broad transmission through time and across geography. In some cases the poetry even seems to have motivated the creation of later ritual practices, such as the construction and placement of Archaic funerary columns suggested by McGowan. Homeric inspiration for cult activity may not have been limited to ritual practices at tumuli of Achilles. Sarah Morris has recently suggested two additional cases of later cult activity in the Troad that seem to have been inspired by the epic cycle: the Lokrian Maidens and the walls of Troy that Homer said were built by Poseidon and Apollo (II. 7.451-453).55 In both cases, cult activity by later communities seems to have been performed as atonement for crimes committed by mythological ancestors whose actions had been transmitted through epic poetry. In the case of the Lokrian maidens, said to have been sent to Troy as recompense for Ajax's rape of Kassandra in Athena's temple, Morris concludes that the practice represents "repeated civic commitments from selfstyled descendants, centuries after an alleged and mythological event took place."5 These examples show that appropriation and redefinition was actively practiced in the ancient Greek world, at least as far back as the Early Iron Age. The Homeric poems themselves address the possibility of appropriation and redefinition through recognizing that polysemic morphology may lead to redefinition or misidentification of funerary monuments in particular. The plural identification of monuments like Myrina's mound, the turning post, and Odysseus' oar show that semata are dependent on continuity of social context and oral tradition to perpetuate their original signification. When their 55 56

S. Morris 2007. S. Morris 2007: 62

55

morphology is not unique, funerary monuments, like other semata, may not maintain a connection with the person for whom they were constructed, even if the monument itself stands for many generations.

The Greek Wall: Dispersal and Destruction of Kleos The fortification wall that Nestor advocates erecting over a polyandron burial of unnamed Greek dead (77. 7.327-343) provides another example of a polysemic object—it is both defensive structure and tomb marker. Both the construction and later destruction (II. 12.17-33) of the Greek wall have attracted the attention of many scholars for the poetic, archaeological and mythic implications.57 The reference to bringing home the bones of the dead (77. 7.332-338) is central to the debate regarding the date and location in which the passage was written down or even composed.58 Robert Garland has observed that the poems otherwise "indicate that it was the normal practice for the invading army to leave the ashes of the deceased on foreign soil."59 The discussion here, however, will focus on the wall as an object with its own kleos that is distinct but not separable from its role as a funerary monument rather than on the historicity of transporting the dead back to Athens. Within its narrative context, the kleos of the wall is in fact amplified through the large number of men it commemorates. 57

Ford 1992: 147; Redfield 1994: 167-169; S. Morris 2007: 62-67; Scodel 1982; and Bremmer 2008: 105. Shive [1996] summarizes the arguments supporting the view that the Greek wall and the custom of bringing home the bones of the dead at//. 7.332-338 is an interpolation and, citing Aeschylus (Ag. 433455) as an allusion to the passage, argues for an early date. Seaford [1994: 146], in contrast, supports the view of Kirk [1985: 10] that the passage must have been composed substantially later than 700 B.C. and cites the wall passage as evidence of Athenian influence on the written form of the epic. Thucydides (2.34.5) suggests that "bringing home the dead" had always been standard practice in Athens, but it is impossible to verify to what extent it occurred in actual practice (Hornblower, 1991: 294). 59 Garland 1984-1986: 16. 58

56

As a funerary monument, the wall will not provoke the account of a single warrior, but rather the KAECC avSpcov, the stories of multiple men, such as the tales Achilles sings while passing his time apart from the fighting (77. 9.189). The kleos of wall thus is multiplied by the large number of fallen warriors it commemorates. The potential for notoriety is in fact so great that it threatens even the god Poseidon, who fears that the kleos of the Greeks' wall will bring oblivion to the wall previously built by himself and Apollo at Troy: TOU 8' nxoi KAEOS Ecrrcn Soov T' ETriKiSvaTcu T)CO5' TOO 5' ETTiArioovTai TO Eyco xal (PoT^os ATTOAACOV fipcp AOOMESOVTI iroXiaaausv dGAiioavTE. (Iliad, 7.451-453)

To be sure, the fame of it [the wall] will extend as far as dawn diffuses, while the fame of the one Phoibos Apollo and I wrought with toil for the h e r o Laomedon will be forgotten.

The wall around Troy is famous because it had been built by gods, but its kleos is singular and tied to the local community. The kleos of the Greek wall, in contrast, has the potential to travel and multiply through the vast number of 'stories' associated with it, one for each man interred underneath it whose bones will be returned to Greece. While the Greek community is still at Troy, the wall protects both the lives of the living and the identities of the dead among the Greek survivors. Its size hinders enemy attacks on the camp, but also makes it a highly visible monument within the landscape to remind the living Greeks of their companions who have died while the army has been encamped at Troy. The need to remember the dead warriors at Troy is temporary, however, as the poet tells the audience that the bones are to be carried back to the men's families once the war is over. The wall ensures that the dead are properly remembered at Troy, but only until they can be commemorated by surviving family members at home in Greece. At the departure of survivors, the kleos of the wall will "scatter like the dawn

57

light" (77. 7.451) all over Greece as it is carried along with the bones of the dead warriors when they are returned to the warriors' home communities. In this unusual case, therefore, the bones have the potential to spread the kleos of the monument as much as the monument protects the kleos of the dead among the Greek community at Troy. The kleos of Apollo's and Poseidon's wall, in contrast, is local. Known primarily to inhabitants of the Trojan plain, its repute would only spread abroad passively through mention by visitors to the region (or, as is actually the case, in poetry). The kleos of the gods' wall would be even less likely to spread, furthermore, if a competing monument remained present. Poseidon and Apollo will in fact destroy the wall and any trace of it in the landscape (//. 12.15-33), thereby eliminating its potential to obscure the fame of their own wall within the Trojan plain. Not all the bones, moreover, would make it back to Greece. The poet tells the audience that the race of "demigods" was washed away with the monument (//. 12.23).60 While the dead whose bones make it back to Greece can be expected to have a commemorative monument erected for them in their home community, at Troy the memory of any warriors left buried under the wall would vanish with the wall. Similar to the way the kleos of armor is closely associated with the kleos of the hero who possesses it and can become a token of victory on the battlefield, the kleos of the Greek wall is tied to the dead men commemorated by it. The fame of the wall, therefore, has the potential to be carried back and dispersed throughout Greece with the bones. It is this diffusive potential that makes the kleos of the Greek wall a threat to the 60

The term rmiSeoi occurs only here in the Homeric epics, although it also appears in Hesiod (Works and Days 160) and several of the lyric poems, including Simonides' fragmentary poem (fr. 10-11, West) commemorating the Battle of Plataia. Clay [1996:245] argues that the term "suggests a retrospective vision, looking back at the legendary past from the vantage of the present."

58

Trojan wall built by Apollo and Poseidon, the kleos of which only travels beyond the local community through the transmission of epic poetry. As a funerary monument, the Greek wall demonstrates both one of the greatest characteristics a monument can have for perpetuating memory, visual prominence, and the vulnerability of features in the landscape to the forces of nature. The wall barricades the Greek ships on the shore61 and was built literally and figuratively to rival Troy itself across the Trojan plain, the walls of which had been built by gods. As a vertical mass rising up on the opposite side of the plain from Troy, its visual prominence in the landscape parallels the threat the Greeks pose to the Trojans. While it stands, the wall protects the memory and physical remains of deceased Greeks as a commemorative monument and the lives of Greek survivors as a defensive bulwark. The defensive function of the wall would disappear when the Greeks left, but its kleos would have continued if the gods had allowed it to remain standing. Although the names of the dead commemorated by the wall would have returned to Greece with their bones, the visual prominence of the wall would have remained and become a reminder of the Trojan defeat. Opposite the Trojan ruins, a surviving Greek wall would have attested to the Greek victory, even though the Greek dead likely would have received new monuments in their home communities.62

51

Clay [2007: 239-246] reconstructs the wall. To the extent that the poems were perceived as connected to historical reality, the poet may have been obligated to destroy the wall to explain why it was no longer visible in the Troad.

62

59

The Forces of Nature In addition to the polysemic nature that makes a monument susceptible to redefinition, the Homeric poems recognize that the perpetuation of kleos through monuments is vulnerable to destruction by the forces of nature. The Iliad provides examples of this vulnerability in two remarkable episodes. In the first, an uncharacteristic look into the future describes the destruction of the Greek wall in a flood created by the gods.63 The second involves the fantastic personification of the river Scamander that threatens to make Achilles' death invisible by burying him in mud. As previously mentioned, Apollo and Poseidon are threatened by the potential kleos of the Greek wall and eager to see it destroyed (//. 7.446-453). Zeus advises them to destroy the wall once the army has returned to Greece (//. 7.459-463), and the poet later gives a prophetic description of the destruction: TTEp6£To 8E TTpiduo\o TT6XI$ 5EKC(TCP EviauTcp, ApyEToi 8' EV vr|ual cpiXr)v E$ TraxpiS' E'(3r|aav, 8^ TOTE ur)Ti6covTo TToaEiSdcov Kai ATTOXXCOV

TETXOS duaASOvai TroTaucbv HEVOJ EiaayayovTEs. Saaoi air' ISaicov opEcov aXa 8E irpopEouoi, 'Pf}aos 9' 'ETTTocrropos TE Kdpr)a6s TE 'Po8io$ TE Tp^viKoj TE Kai AiariTTOs 5T6$ TE ZKd|aav8pos Kai SiiaoEis, 60t TroXXa fiodypia Kai TpiKpdXgiat KdTTTfEaov EU Kovir)oi Kai riniOdcov yEvos dvSpcov TCOV TrdvTcov opoaE aToiaaT' ETpaiTE OoT^os ATIQXXCOV, Evvfjiaap 5' E$ TETXO^ VEI p o o v UE 8' a p a Ztiis OUVEX^S, 6 if h e h a d b e e n o v e r c o m e a m o

CQ

ions in t h e

iand

of T

or in t h e

TCO KEV 01 TUMpov MEU EiTomaav TTavaYaioi, , , nr- ., c, , , . , ... -, ,,., , » r s, , -v, „ , , , hands of family after he completed the war. Then riOE KE Kai co iraioi |iEva KAEOC npaT OTTIOOCO. 11*1.1 ui * ,• , (CM 19^4 940. Achaeans would have made him a tomb, and he would have earned great kleos for his son afterward as well.

This passage highlights the problems created for Telemachos by Odysseus' unseen and thus unknown fate. If Odysseus had died at Troy or at home (for this is the contrast intended by trrdpoiai and cpiAcov), there would have been witnesses to his death, and they would have constructed a monument to mark the certainty of his death. The monument would provide visible testimony for the completed transformation of his corpse into bones and a visible counterpart to his kleos transmitted through oral poetry. With his death certified by the monument, Odysseus' social roles and property could formally pass to Telemachos along with his father's kleos, the stories and knowledge of his identity.73 As it stands, Odysseus is both out of sight (aioTog) and out of hearing (a-rrucrros, Od. 1.242). There is no sema for men to view or inquire about. His death has not been witnessed by any of his companions at Troy, no monument has been erected for him, and his fate after the war has not been carried back to friends and family 73 Atchity and Barber have argued that a mixture of pre-Indo-European and post-Homeric traditions are visible in the depictions of women in the Homeric poems. Telemachos is specifically identified as heir to the estate and position of his father {Od. 1.387), but Atchity and Barber [1987: 21] contend that the challenge to Odysseus' kingship by the suitors reflects the earlier Aegean uxorilocal system of succession.

69

as kleos. Although his deed during the war have been carried back to his family in poetry, the poetic account is insufficient to effect the transfer of his social roles within the community. Odysseus' invisible fate has left the palace in a state of limbo, because his roles as husband, father and king cannot properly be taken over by anyone else until his death has been confirmed and made visible in the community through ritual and a sema. The next reference to Odysseus' tomb occurs when Athena advises Telemachos about how to resolve his uncertain status, advice which Telemachos repeats when he announces his plans at the assembly.74 Athena tells him: ei 6E KE TEOVTICOTOS aKouarjs nrjS' ET' EOVTOJ, vooTtioas 8fi ETTEITCC v ccrroXeTs KXEOJ, dXXa \&kT\at\% / aq>6iTov avGpcbTroia' aiev e'xcov ovoua (Not even in death will you ever lose your repute, but you will be a care for men and always keep your undying onoma.) 45

210

who cites the Persian invasion of Attica as the context under which the sculpture was buried,46 Jesper Svenbro argues that the pottery fragments discovered with the sculptures rule out burial in the pre-Persian War period.47 Svenbro thus prefers the Alcmeonid exile described by Isokrates,48 the same one cited by Richter regarding the destruction of the "Brother and Sister" stele,49 as the occasion calling for protective burial of the Phrasikleia kore. Richter, based on the state of preservation of fragments from the stele at the Metropolitan Museum, similarly argued for burial shortly after the monument had been set up. In contrast to the protective burial that scholars have argued for in the case of Phrasikleia, however, Richter argued that the stele for Me- and his sister was purposely destroyed before being buried.50 Whatever the specific circumstances that brought about the burial of these sculptures may have been, the commemoration documented by the monuments may have been worth protecting by some members of the community and worth destroying by others. The literary parallel from the Hymn to Demeter coupled with the iconographic and inscriptional parallels provided by the Phrasikleia kore suggest that the girl represented on the "Brother and Sister" stele is not intended to be interpreted as a child. The iconography of both figures draws on traditional referents derived from communal rites of initiation in order to locate their personae within the hierarchy of the community. Regardless of how old the pair were when they died or even if they represent a brother and sister, the burying group chose to represent them as socially integrated young adults: 46

Hurwitl985:334,n. 10. Svenbro 1993:12; cf. Mastrokostas 1972: 324. 48 Isokrates 16.26. 49 Richter 1944: 72-74. 50 Richter 1944: 72-74. 47

211

the athlete suggests participation in festivals such as the Panathenaic Games held to celebrate Athens and her patron goddess, and the girl is represented as a marriageable young woman. The emphasis, therefore, is not so much on commemorating the pair as unique individuals, but rather on the loss to the community that results from their deaths. They are, moreover, the personification of idealized social roles for elite young men and women that were claimed by the burying group.

Commemorative Pottery and the Funeral The number of graves which contain vessels depicting mourners declines radically in the seventh and sixth centuries, and this phenomenon may suggest, via the connection between iconography and ritual, that commemoration of the deceased and commemoration of mourning activities had become separated to some degree in the Kerameikos cemetery.51 Only three seventh-century monuments (Appendix 1: cat. nos. 1, 6 and 8) and four sixth-century monuments (Appendix 1: cat. nos. 44, 72, 77 and 129) have vessels with mourners on them, and all come from either an offering trench or offering place, not the grave. No pottery depicting mourning activities of any kind have been found deposited in seventh- or sixth-century graves. Among the scattered finds in the Kerameikos that may originally have been displayed above-ground, in contrast, additional pottery types have been discovered, such as the loutrophoroi to which I shall turn shortly, that do depict mourning activities. The positive evidence is slight, but the 51 Systematic publication of grave assemblages from Archaic Attic cemeteries outside Athens is lacking. My discussion of the terracotta finds in particular thus will focus on the evidence from the Athenian Kerameikos with the caveat that the patterns observed in the Kerameikos may not hold true for other Attic cemeteries.

212

negative evidence is striking and suggests that some distinction in iconography on commemorative objects was made between motifs associated with the deceased and other motifs associated with the performances of mourners, a distinction that does not seem to have existed for commemoration in the Early Iron Age. Pottery depicting the actions of mourners seem to have been restricted to the foci of mourning activity—offering trenches and offering places (Figure 2.5). The apparent contrast to Early Iron Age practices, in which vases with prothesis and mourning scenes were deposited in graves, may be a result of a modification to the ritual practices. In Early Iron Age burials, the site of lamentation and the funeral feast likely was the graveside. With the advent of offering trenches and offering places adjacent to the monument, the activities of mourners seem to have been separated from the grave itself. Similar to the monumental Late Geometric vases already addressed, the ritual deposition of pottery carrying images of mourners performing commemorative rites reinforces collective memory by producing the "double-encoding" described by Connerton.52 The twofold commemoration in the assemblage mimics the nature of the funeral itself in reflecting the relationship between the deceased and mourners. It is thus desirable, in terms of "documenting" collective memory, to deposit commemorative objects at the site of the activity that they are meant to recall to the minds of spectators. The black-figure vase painting technique dominates decorated pottery throughout the sixth century B.C., and, although Corinth has been credited with the invention of the technique, Corinthian vases appear less frequently in Athenian cemetery deposits as the

52

Connerton 1989: 27; Chapter 2: 98.

213

Archaic period advances. Beazley's landmark studies that have attributed black-figure pottery to specific painters remain the dominant method of categorizing these objects and locating them within a relative chronology based on style.53 According to his chronology of style, the black-figure technique reaches full-development in Athens at the end of the seventh century. The technique continues to be used on vessels with ritual significance, such as the Panathenaic amphorae, long after the red-figure technique has passed out of practice.54 It is Attic black-figure pottery that is most commonly found in and on the monuments in the Kerameikos over the course of the sixth century.55 Black-figure loutrophoroi (vessels associated with carrying water for ritualized bathing), pinakes (terracotta plaques) and lekythoi (terracotta flasks) are all vase shapes with traditional funerary associations, but lekythoi are the only shape among these three that have been found deposited in the graves themselves in the Kerameikos. All three shapes have been discovered among the scattered finds, offering places and offering trenches, the ritual foci of mourning activity. They thus may have been added to the assemblage either at the time of the funeral or during future visits to the tomb. Whether goods deposited in the grave or displayed on top of it, these pottery shapes all fall into the category of supplemental objects and frequently carry decorative motifs connected to their ritual function. Prothesis and mourning/valediction scenes occupy the primary decorative zones of loutrophoroi and pinakes, while scenes of heroic exploit, warrior and athletic scenes, or Dionysiac activities take center stage on the black-figure lekythoi

53

Beazley 1978. Beazley 1986:2. 55 Beazley 1986:1-2. 54

214

discovered in the Kerameikos. Orientalizing motifs do not entirely disappear from funerary iconography in the sixth century, but they tend to appear on the commemorative objects depicting a living persona (stone markers and lekythoi) more commonly than on objects representing mourning activities. Loutrophoroi and pinakes seem to be connected to the activities of mourners in particular, while the motifs on the black-figure lekythoi suggest a connection to communal activities in which the deceased (and/or members of the burying group) would or should have taken part. The iconography of these objects thus tends to separate them according to their commemorative objective within the larger assemblage: either the motifs derive from performative ritual undertaken by the burying group, or they derive from social rituals that classify personae within the gendered hierarchy of the community. As the case of the stone markers surveyed in the previous chapter suggests, commemorative objects placed above-ground are very susceptible to displacement from their original context, and this applies to pottery as well. Only two pinakes (one now lost) have a secure provenience in the Kerameikos,56 and fragments of six funerary and one nuptial loutrophoroi have been discovered among the scattered finds of the cemetery.57 Like the sculptures and inscribed bases discovered built into the Themistoklean wall, none of the loutrophoroi can be connected to a specific grave. The location of the fragments and their iconography suggest, however, that most, if not all, of the funerary loutrophoroi originated in grave assemblages. Additional Attic examples, undoubtedly 56

Kerameikos Inv. 677 (stolen) and 690 were found together in debris that Kunze-G6tte, et al. [1999] have attributed to Offering Trench 8 associated with the female and child graves 465 and 466 (Appendix 1: cat. no. 129; Lullies 1946/1947: 56). 57 Karydi 1963: 100-103 (Inv. no. 1673, 1681, 1680, 1682, 2523,1699 and 1697).

215

created to be displayed in a cemetery, are known from museum collections but lack a secure provenience. Based on the system of classification pioneered by Beazley, however, scholars have been able to attribute both loutrophoroi and pinakes to known vase-painters in many cases, with the result that we are safe in assigning them an origin CO

in the same Attic workshops as other black-figure pottery. Like kouroi and korai, loutrophoroi and pinakes have been found in votive as well as funerary contexts. Unlike the statues, however, the iconography of the pottery is specifically tied to the ritual function of the objects, and distinguishes the funerary variety from the votive. Loutrophoroi, for example, are depicted in scenes of ritual bathing that occur during both weddings and funerals. Kurtz and Boardman have noted that the name, loutrophoros, comes from a passage in [Demosthenes] 44.18, and may derive from the person carrying the water vessel, rather than the vase shape itself. The iconography in the funerary and nuptial sub-categories of this shape is strikingly different. Black-figure funerary loutrophoroi are distinctive in that they typically have a prothesis scene in the central decorative zone, often supplemented with another mourning scene on the neck. The neck-scene on a vase by the Sappho Painter in the National Museum at Athens (Figure 4.5),59 for example, shows female mourners at a stylized tumulus, who have their arms raised in the same gesture as their Geometric predecessors (Figure 2.4). The vase standing on the tumulus, moreover, is a loutrophoros like the one on which the scene is depicted. A similar neck-scene on a loutrophoros in New York shows female 58

Lydos, for example, painted a funerary loutrophoros (Kerameikos Inv. 1673) as well as a pinax from Spata (Beazley 1978: 113.84) (Karydi 1963:94). 59 National Museum, Athens, no. 450. 60 Shapiro 2007: Figure 14, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, no. 27.228.

216

mourners carrying a loutrophoros like the one on which the scene is depicted. In both cases, placement on a tomb would have reinforced collective memory of the ritual performances by the burying group. In reference to the cloth held over the coffin in a scene on the reverse of the vase in Athens, Wendy Closterman has recently argued for the significant role that textiles may have played in Attic burial ritual.61 She ultimately concludes that, [a]s a tomb marker, this loutrophoros, covered with a remarkably complete set of funerary scenes, not only would have memorialized the burial site of the deceased, but, by means of its depictions, it would have also memorialized the funerary rituals on behalf of the deceased.62 The purely commemorative function of this vase is made all the more likely by the fact that its base was open so that it could not have been used to carry water.63 The iconography of these vases virtually guarantees their placement in a funerary context, but their absence from graves suggests that this vessel shape would then have been placed on the tomb or offering place to commemorate the actions of the mourners. There is no way to confirm, however, whether such vessels were restricted to the graves of those who died unmarried, as the passage from [Demosthenes] stipulates.64 As already noted, pottery of any shape depicting mourners is, in fact, rarely deposited below-ground during the sixth century in the Kerameikos. The iconography of the pinakes, like that of the funerary loutrophoroi, follows the tradition of the Late Geometric grave markers in that they only depict the deceased, when 61

Closterman 2007. Lending support to her argument, though not cited in the article, is the fact that "[c]lear traces of the warp and the woof of the fabric were visible on some of the pieces of iron" in the "Warrior Burial" from the Classical Agora (Blegen 1952: 281). 62 Closterman 2007: 61. 63 Closterman 2007: 56. 64 Kurtz and Boardman 1971: 151-152.

217

present, as a corpse. In addition to the two pinakes discovered in the Kerameikos, several others have been attributed to the adjacent context of the Classical Agora.65 A few more have a provenience in the Attic countryside, but most entered the antiquities market in the last century with little context beyond a general vicinity. The pinakes began to be produced at the end of the seventh century, and Boardman classified the known examples as from a series or single.66 Brooklyn subsequently revised this classification by dividing production of the plaques into three phases: a formative phase in the first half of the sixth century B.C. during which the plaques were produced in a variety of dimensions with and without attachment holes, a standardized phase (ca. 560-530/525 B.C.) when the plaques were made in series without attachment holes, and a final phase (ca. 530/525-480 B.C.) of single plaques often with attachment holes.67 They go out of use ca. 480 B.C., about the same time as the white-ground lekythos becomes common as a grave gift, a fact that Brooklyn suggests is connected to the use of the single plaques as grave gifts added to an existing monument.68 Some support for this hypothesis comes from the fact that whiteground lekythoi, unlike the black-figure variety found in Archaic grave contexts in the Kerameikos, do carry scenes of mourning activities similar to the scenes depicted on black-figure loutrophoroi and pinakes.

According to the study by Brooklyn [1981], the pinakes discovered in or near the Kerameikos are: Berlin Antiquarium, nos. F1811-1826 (fragments of up to 12 plaques in series); National Museum, Athens, nos. 2414-2417 (fragments thought to be from a series) and nos. 2410,2412-2413 (the 'Areios' series); Agora Museum, Athens, no. P20754 (thought to be from a series); Kerameikos Museum, Athens, nos. 690 and 677 (single plaques). 66 Boardman 1955. "Brooklyn 1981: 68-70. 68 Brooklyn 1981: 116.

218

The range of themes depicted on this class of pottery suggests that they have much in common with the funerary loutrophoroi in terms of commemorative function. Compare, for example, the loutrophoros from the National Museum in Athens (Figure 4.5) with the black-figure funerary plaque in the Metropolitan Museum in New York (Figure 4.6). Both objects have a prothesis scene occupying the central decorative zone and a chariot race in a subordinate zone. As is the case with Late Geometric vases, the deceased only appears as a corpse, and it is uncertain whether the chariot races represent a part of the funerary rites or the claim to a particular social status for the deceased, although it should be stressed that this plaque is the only extant example with a subsidiary zone of decoration. All other surviving funerary pinakes have only a central decorative zone, and the motifs are limited to the ritual actions of mourners: prothesis, ekphora, mourning/valediction, and women mourning at home. According to SourvinouInwood, the scenes on the pinakes represent a shift toward "a smaller scale representation involving the deceased's family, and thus represented a less public, less community involved and more family-centered, death ritual."69 Such an interpretation, however, assumes that the plaques are the iconographic focus of the monument rather than one element within the commemorative assemblage, as I have been arguing here. While not so numerous as the number of warriors represented in friezes on Late Geometric vases, the number of men represented on the Archaic terracotta objects carrying valediction scenes (scenes of male figures only, apart from the prothesis with one or both arms raised in mourning) suggest that the rites commemorated may involve more than just immediate

69

Sourvinou-Inwood 1996: 276.

219

family. Examples of objects with valediction scenes include the Areios pinax (Figure 4.7) and a black-figure plate (Figure 4.8) from Offering Place 42 in the Kerameikos, which depict ten and five men respectively. The hypothesis that the plaques originally had been mounted on built tombs was put forward early and broadly accepted by scholars.70 Richter argued that the popularity of the pinakes was connected to a perceived decline in sculptural production at the end of the sixth century, citing legislation described by Cicero (De Leg. 2.26.64-65) that she attributed to Solon.71 No pinakes or potential mounting devices for them have been discovered on the built tombs, however, and Brooklyn has proposed that the single plaques at least may have been hung on stelai or some other type of marker.72 The two plaques discovered in the Kerameikos are both single plaques and were found together in debris, which Knigge has attributed to an offering trench connected with the grave of a woman as previously mentioned.73 Each pinax carries a prothesis scene, as does the clay phormiskos from the same context. The corpse depicted on the phormiskos is labeled with the name Myrina.74 The presence of attachment holes suggests that the pinakes could have hung on display for a period of time before deposition in the trench, but it is unlikely that they were ever mounted on a built tomb.

'"Richter 1942; Boardman 1955: 52; Beazley 1986: 65. Richter 1942 and 1945. Brooklyn [1981: 59-60; 141-142] alternatively suggests birth and death taxes said to have been instituted by Hippias as well as the Persian War may have influenced the perceived decline in sculpture (cf. Aristotle, Economics 1347.a.l6). But subsequent scholarship, as we have seen, suggests that there was no such decline in sculptural production (Chapter 3: 162-164). "Brooklyn 1981: 81-85;Boardman 1955: 51. 73 Appendix 1: cat. no. 129; Lullies 1946/1947: 56, Taf. 1. 74 Lullies 1946/7: 65, Taf. 13. 71

220

Several plaques have painted inscriptions identifying the figures in the various scenes. One of the series plaques seems to include part of a dactylic hexameter inscription of the epitaphic formula, tode sema . . . , already discussed with regard to its appearance in Homer.75 The preserved portion of the inscription reads:. . .- vo$ ; aiua T 6 5 ' EOTI

= a/ApEio (Figure 4.7).76 It is uncertain whether Areios is a personal name or

an adjective, but the epitaphic inscription, in conjunction with the mourning figures, supports the use of the plaque series as part of a funerary assemblage. While a prothesis is absent from the surviving fragments, both Boardman and Brooklyn hypothesize that it must have been represented on a missing plaque.77 Other formulaic elements familiar from earlier funerary iconography, however, are present. Underneath the inscription is a double row of male mourners. Although decorated in the black-figure technique, the linear arrangement and single-arm-raised valediction gesture attests to ritual tradition continuing from the Late Geometric period.78 As on the funerary loutrophoroi, formulaic scenes of funerary ritual connect the plaques to the actions of mourners. The deceased, while always represented as a corpse in a generic prothesis scene, can be made specific through the addition of dipinti such as the one on the Areios plaque. Specific names, however, only appear on six of the 36 single plaques or plaque series collected in Brooklyn's catalog; a plaque now in the Louvre in

Chapter 1:38-41. Boardman 1955: 60. Boardman 1955: 60; Brooklyn 1981: 80-81. For the gesture on Geometric vases, see Ahlberg-Cornell [1971: 265].

221

Paris labels the figures with kinship terms only (Figure 4.9). The addition of the kinship terms does not prevent the pinax scene from being generic but is particularly illuminating with regard to the ritual actions of mourners around the bier that had been composed in much the same way in Attic vase painting since the Late Geometric period. Boardman, indicating the kinship labels, describes the scene as follows: Among the approaching men one is the brother (AAEAOOE): they are greeted by the father (IIATEP), who faces them at the foot of the bier .. . The mother (METEP) holds her dead son's head, and beside her is her second daughter (AAEAOE). At the head of the bier stands the grandmother (®E®E), and three other mourning women are each designated aunts (©EEIS), one of them on the father's side (ITPOmATP[02).8° The labeled scene thus supports and clarifies the traditional gestures and the placement of figures around the bier. The mourning gestures of women are conventional, as is the placement of women and children related to the deceased nearest the bier. Although the deceased is male on both the Areios and Louvre pinakes, the full catalog of extant examples suggests that these objects complemented the assemblages of women as often as those for men. Of the 24 plaques depicting a prothesis scene, the gender of the corpse has been identified as female on ten of them and male on six.81 Though we can never know how faithfully the scenes represent the deceased and his or her familial ties, the

"National Museum, Athens, nos. 12352, 2410, 2412-2417; Antiquarium, Berlin, nos. F1811-1826; Louvre, Paris, no. MNB 905, kinship terms only; Paris Market (no number); Serpieri-Vlasto Collection, Athens (no number), names and kinship terms. See also, Boardman 1955: 58 and 63, nos. 3 and 39. 80 Boardman 1955: 62, no. 28. 81 Female corpse: Metropolitan Museum, New York, 14.146.3a and b (series); Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 27.146 and 147 (series); Louvre, Paris, CA 255; Brussels Museum A5,6 and 7 (series); Antiquarium, Berlin, F1811-1826 (series); Skulpturensammlung, Dresden, 814; Serpieri-Vlasto Collection, Athens, MVB 52 + Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, 1366; Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, no number; Kerameikos Museum, Athens, 677; David and Alfred Smart Gallery, Chicago, no number. Male corpse: National Museum, Athens, 2410, 2412-2413 (series); Vienna Museum, no number; Metropolitan Museum, New York, 54.11.15; National Museum, Copenhagen, no number; Brussels Museum, A 3369; Louvre, Paris, MNB 905. For additional details, see Brooklyn 1981: 162-219, nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15,18, 21, 22,23 and 28.

222

indication of specific relationships and names through inscription remove the suggestion of the depiction of a scene from Homer that persists for Late Geometric representations. The pinakes with specific names given to the figures presumably must have been completed at some point after the funeral, given the time that would be required for the potter and painter to produce what must have been commissioned works. The plaques found in the trench in the Kerameikos did not carry labels for the figures, but, as already mentioned, the phormiskos accompanying them did (Figure 4.1). Not only does the specific name make it unlikely that the vase was produced before burial, it also raises the question of when the offering trench ritual would have been performed. The inclusion of commissioned pottery suggests that it would not have been part of the burial portion of the rites if the prothesis was restricted to a single day.82 The specification of the roles that kin play in funerary rites on objects commemorating those rites supports the view that citizens of Archaic Athens were concerned with the display of family relationships at the funeral and reinforcing memory of ritual performances through the use of commemorative objects. The deceased, therefore, is not the only target of commemoration within the assemblage. Although the dominant position of representation within the assemblage likely would have been reserved for the deceased, supplemental objects were used to reinforce memory of performances by mourners. The rituals performed by the burying group are reinforced in collective memory through terracotta objects decorated with motifs derived from the

82

[Demosthenes] 43.62 attributes a law to Solon in which the ekphora is prescribed to occur on the day following the prothesis, which generally has been interpreted to mean that the prothesis was limited to a single day (Garland 2001: 26).

223

rituals themselves and displayed at the site of performance. The juxtaposed representations of the persona of the deceased and the rites performed by mourners within the monumental assemblage perpetuate communal memory of the transfer of social roles from the deceased to members of the burying group. The monument which provides a focus for the rites themselves thus becomes an instrument for renewing and transmitting knowledge of the identity of survivors that is constructed in relation to the deceased.83 In contrast to the black-figure loutrophoroi and pinakes, black-figure lekythoi are commonly found in sixth-century graves as well as at the foci of ritual activities performed by mourners. Unlike both their Late Geometric predecessors and their whiteground descendants that become common as grave goods during the Classical period,84 however, mourning scenes are entirely absent from the black-figure examples discovered in the Kerameikos. Instead of inspiration from funerary rites, these vases seem to derive their motifs to a large degree from the heroic paradigm and social rituals of the living community as separate from funerals. Although there seems to be a connection between the decoration of sixth-century black-figure lekythoi and the heroic paradigm, there also seems to be a shift in iconographic focus when compared to seventh-century Orientalizing vases. The shift, like the absence of mourning scenes from objects placed in the graves, may be connected to a modification of the ritual practices from which the motifs are derived. 83

While the prothesis scene may identify close family members, it admittedly does little to represent the social persona of the deceased. If the plaques were in fact hung on stelai or part of the terracotta assemblage adorning a built tomb, however, it may have been unnecessary for the plaques themselves to represent the persona if it was provided by a statue or stele. 84 For example, the white-ground lekythos showing mourners at the tomb (Figure 3.9).

224

Hybrid monsters and heroic trials do not entirely disappear, but direct representation of communal activities—battle, athletics and ritual activities—becomes very common on lekythoi deposited in both graves and offering trenches in the Kerameikos cemetery during the sixth century B.C. The shift in thematic emphasis of motifs on the objects placed in adult graves, moreover, may reflect a shift in the social rituals that were the mechanism of classification in the Late Archaic social structure of the city. The increased prominence of athletic competition and Dionysiac rituals that have been attributed to Peisistratid promotion of festivals that already existed on a smaller or more rural scale85 results in new motifs that are put into the service of locating the deceased within the gendered social hierarchy. Although many cults rose to new prominence in the Archaic period, "none grew so explosively as that of Dionysos."86 Seaford has argued for an increase in rites that have both rural and city foci, such as the rites for Dionysus Eleuthereus and the Eleusinian Mysteries, during the sixth century that was integral to polis development.87

85

Shapiro [1989: 86] argues that the Peisistratids did not establish new cults but rather expanded some that were already well established early in the sixth century B.C. 86 Shapiro 1989: 84. 87 Seaford [1994: 243-248] has argued for an increase in rites that have both rural and city foci, such as the rites for Dionysus Eleuthereus and the Eleusinian Mysteries, during the sixth century that was integral to polis development.

225

Inscription The extant evidence suggests that some early gravestones may have lacked inscriptions entirely,88 although others may have included a dipinto on the stele itself as was painted on the sixth-century marble stele of Antiphanes (Figure 3.3).89 Along with the increase in marble sculpture, inscribed bases for funerary markers also become more common in Athenian cemeteries. The question of when the use of writing began in Attica is still an open one, but surviving inscriptions and dipinti on vases suggest that the use of writing had become common in these two media at least by the middle of the sixth century B.C.90 The earliest example of Greek writing in Attica, the Dipylon oinochoe dated by Jeffery to the second half of the eighth century, was in fact discovered in an Athenian grave,91 but the earliest, extant, inscribed gravestone, the aforementioned stele of Keramo, does not appear until about 100 years later. The most complete evidence for the development of the use of writing in Attica, however, fills out the sequence to some extent. The collection of inscribed sherds from the Mount Hymettos sanctuary includes examples dated to ca. 700 B.C.92 There is a high frequency of so-called "egraphse" and "abecedaria" inscriptions on the early sherds dedicated as votive offerings, which Langdon attributes to the novelty of the alphabet in the early seventh century. He explains "the fact that the dedication happened to be on a 88

The poros stele with linear decoration may have lacked an inscription (Figure 3.6), and the stele bases found in situ seem to have been sunk into the mound and so lack an inscription (Appendix 1: cat. no. 12 and 16). 89 IG I3 1230, National Museum, Athens, no. 86. 90 See Jeffery and Johnston [1990: 1-21] and Sass [2005:133-152] for a discussion of the possible origins of the Greek alphabet. M. Langdon [1976: 47] suggests that writing may have come to Athens by way of Aigina. 91 Jeffery, however, doubted that the inscription on it was Attic and suggested that someone who had come from Posideion may have written it instead (Jeffery and Johnston 1990: 16). 92 M. Langdon 1976.

226

mere sherd mattered little: it was the writing itself which was the gift." In this period at least, inscription seems to be an attribute that can make an ordinary object special. Although the Dipylon oinochoe was found in a grave, the inscription, written retrograde around the body of the vase does not specify the object as a grave gift. The inscription begins with a dactylic hexameter line, which has prompted some scholars to connect it with epic.94 The vase itself is unremarkable, but the subject of the epigram is someone who excels at dancing. It thus has been proposed that the jug was a prize in a dancing contest or indicated involvement of the deceased in a particular cult, for which dancing was part of the ritual activities.95 The depiction of a stag and bird on the jug prompted Lilian Lawler to suggest a connection with an Athenian cult of Artemis.96 After the introductory relative clause, however, the second line is uncertain, which led Jeffery to suggest that it may have been inscribed by a different hand.97 Regardless of the meaning of the second line, the mere presence of the inscription certainly would have made the vase a special object among the assemblage of grave goods in much the same way as the sherds inscribed with abecdaria and dedicated at the Mt. Hymettos sanctuary would have been special. But since the inscription was scratched onto the surface of the finished vase, rather than painted on before firing, it is unlikely that the vase originally was created as a prize vessel in the manner of later Panathenaic amphorae. The initial hexameter line of the inscription on the jug shares the meter of the more elaborate early epitaphs, such as the one already examined in conjunction with the 93

M. Langdon 1976: 46. Or perhaps the writing made the sherd a gift. Friedlander and Hoffleit 1948: 54-55, no. 53. 95 Friedlander and Hoffleit 1948: 54-55, no. 53. 96 Lawlerl947:51. 97 Jeffery and Johnston 1990: 68. 94

227

kore for Phrasikleia. But even elaborate epitaphs are not replete with individualizing details. The inscription rather enhances the statue as the depiction of a social ideal. The inscription accompanying the kouros for Kroisos (Figure 4.10, cf. Figure 3.8), for example, in addition to providing the name of the deceased likens his social persona to the heroic paradigm through correlation of the visual features of the sculpture with the linguistic features in the inscription." Although Jeffery judged the inscription inferior to the well-ordered physical features of the kouros, there are indications that the inscriber attempted to mirror the nature of the statue with the inscription in verse on the base. Word divisions at the end of lines are respected, and each letter lines up over the corresponding one in the line below it whenever it does not split up a word. The result is that the inscription achieves a visual order that combines with the auditory order of the poetic composition. The kouros and inscribed base thus reflect the emphasis on patterning that Hurwit has argued is characteristic of Archaic Greek thought.100 As a supplemental element of the funerary monument, the inscription documents the name of the deceased, emphasizes a sense of order, and also creates an analogy to mythic heroes through the use of epic vocabulary. The word promachois (fighters in the front line), in particular, is familiar from the Iliad}01 As emphasized by Mary Stieber, who argues that the Kroisos kouros was created in accordance with the ideal physique indicated by descriptions in the Homeric poems, promachos is a poetic word and not used

98

IGI 3 1240 and 1261. Statue and base: National Museum, Athens no. 3851 and 4754; inscription: IG I3 1240; Jeffery, 1962: 143 no. 57. 100 Hurwit 1985: 257. 101 Examples include: x^>Pr\aav 5' UTTO TE Trpouctxoi KCCI 9ai8iMos "Eicxcop (The front-fighters and shining Hektor gave way) at//. 4.505, 16.588, and 17.316. 99

228

by prose authors.

Like the lion combat scene on the kouros base discussed in the

previous chapter (Figure 3.15), the inscription does not compare Kroisos to a mythical hero directly. The comparison is indirect, casting the dead man as a mortal counterpart to the heroic model. The monument for Kroisos, therefore, would have claimed a particular role in society for the male members of his family and served as a model for subsequent generations to fulfill that same role. The inscription accompanying the Phrasikleia kore would provide a similar generic paradigm for women. Like the inscription for Kroisos, Phrasikleia's name is the only truly individual detail. The rest of the inscription reinforces the representation of what the burying group has lost, a young woman about to become a bride and mother, a social role that must remain occupied in order for a living community to reproduce itself. Inscription also permitted elements of the lament to be incorporated in the monument, so that oral tradition could transmit the name of the deceased beyond the burial attendees. In the Odyssey, Agamemnon claimed that the prizes set out by Thetis during the funeral games as well as the monument for Achilles would perpetuate his name indefinitely, but this would only occur if the objects continued to be linked to the oral tradition preserved in epic poetry.103 Archaic Attic monuments, in contrast, were often supplemented with an inscription attesting to the collective memory created by the performance of the lament during the funerary rites. Collective memory of identity, furthermore, would be renewed and transmitted through subsequent visits family members made to the tomb, even among family members who never knew the deceased 102 103

Stieber 2005/2006: 5. Od. 24.80-94.

229

personally. Joseph Day draws on the encomiastic tradition preserved in Pindar in order to argue that funerary sculpture and epitaphs both praise the deceased and commemorate the funerary ritual.104 He furthermore argues that "the prominence they [prose epitaphs] give the dead person's name confirms that memorialization of an important individual was the monument's central function."105 This seems to hold true in many simple inscriptions, but the variation regarding named individuals in the epitaphs suggests that the deceased as a unique individual is not the only target of commemoration. The deceased, in fact, may not be named at all. There are approximately 100 Archaic Attic epitaphs dated to before ca. 480 B.C., and they do not give extensive biographical details.106 The simplest ones give only the name of the deceased in the genitive case.107 The use of the genitive case seems to imply the common epitaphic phrase already discussed in relation to Homer, "this is or I am (EIUI / eon) the marker (ofjucc / uvfjucc / orr|Ar|) of X."108 The name of the father of the deceased is also frequently given, either in the genitive case as well or in the nominative case as the person who erected the monument. Whoever sets up the monument, relative or not, frequently also has a prominent position in the epitaph. IG I 1266 is an extreme example in which the father who commissioned the monument is named, while his

104

Day 1989. Day 1989: 17. 106 This estimate is based on the IG I3 corpus. The level of detail preserved varies, however, and many inscriptions do not preserve any legible details. 107 IG I 3 1195,1209,1217,1230, 1230bis (+ rim), 1232 (+ sculptor's name), 1244,1246,1247,1256 (+ sculptor's name) and 1368 (+ ethnic). IG I3 1252 and 1272 are exceptions that seem to give the name of the deceased in the nominative. 108 Chapter 1:40. 105

230

deceased children remain anonymous.

The sculptor's name is also given in many

cases, a few of which include proud boasts.110 Stewart suggests that the signatures may be connected to Solonian encouragement of artisans.111 It may also be regarded as selfadvertisement, but presumably the person commissioning the inscription could prohibit such an addition if it was felt to detract from the status represented by the monument. It seems possible that the opposite was true, namely that a statue by a well-known sculptor would enhance the status perpetuated by the statue. In the inscriptions for both Kroisos and Phrasikleia the names of their fathers are strikingly absent. Svenbro, however, endorses a connection to the Alkmeonid clan for Phrasikleia based on the frequency of £/eos-derived names in their lineage and interprets her name as "she-who-pays-attention-to-£/eos."112 He subsequently identifies two avenues of immortality in ancient Greek culture, kleos and procreation, and notes that for "those who do not accomplish an exploit so great as to match the heroes of the oral tradition, procreation is the only means of achieving immortality."113 The idea of procreation as an avenue to immortality is elaborated through an analysis of the onomastic traditions preserved in the literary and epigraphic evidence from ancient Greece, in which the naming of children commemorates the exploits of their father.114

109

Jeffery 1962: 136, no. 41. IG I3 1251 commemorating a woman (' Oouafii a r e m o s e o f t h a t m a n rpdysseus]. And just now Mu6E6unv, o a a KETVOJ oT^uoas EUoyr,OEV indeed jw a s rememberi md t e U i about «W swoi, a u r a p o TTUKVOV u n o 9 P u a . 5a K puov ET|3E, od about h o w thi h e suffered vAaivav Tfopq)uperiv OVT ocpoaAyouv avaaYcov. , J , ' .. , , . 1 X .., *: . . . . , T ,„, 4 148 1S41 when he toiled on my behalf. Yet this man sheds a thick tear from under his brow while holding the purple mantle before his eyes.

Instead of bringing happiness, recognition of Odysseus' son overtakes everyone present with the desire to lament (TOTOI 8E TTCCOIV vy' I'uepov cbpae yooio, Od. 4.183). They all begin to grieve for Odysseus as if they were viewing the hero's corpse on a bier instead of his son's living body. The funeral atmosphere is made explicit as the scene continues when Nestor's son reminds the group that they are not at a funeral (Od. 4.190-202). The mourning behavior prompted by the sight of Telemachos highlights the options for enduring repute that Svenbro has proposed for the Homeric heroes: kleos through oral tradition and progeny through biological reproduction.1 The two options are not mutually exclusive, and Svenbro has argued that Odysseus achieves immortality through his son as well as through the kleos perpetuated through epic poetry. The link between the two, according to Svenbro, is provided by traditional Greek naming conventions. In accordance with common practice, "[t]he primary meaning of the name Telema[c]hos refers not to the newborn child or the young boy who bears it, but to Odysseus, his father, whose part in the Trojan War constitutes one of his essential

1

Svenbro 1993: 65-68.

244

exploits."2 Telemachos has been marked with the attributes of his father by virtue of his parentage and his name and becomes the sema of his father as well. As a result, sight of the young man provokes an account of Odysseus' kleos in the same way as a tumulus would have if it was linked to an unbroken oral tradition. Helen's and Menelaos' response to the sight of Telemachos-as-,«?/wa thus highlights the connection between funerary monuments as vehicles that perpetuate memory of the deceased and progeny, who define themselves in relation to that memory within the living community. The initial response of Telemachos' hosts is lamentation. But Odysseus is not dead (according to the prophecy that Menelaos had received from Proteos), and Helen takes it upon herself to dispel the funeral atmosphere of the gathering by drugging their wine. The drug takes away sorrow and anger, and causes forgetfulness of all ills (vnTTEv8Es T' &xoA6v TE, KctKcov ETT(Ar|0ov cnravTcov, 4.221), specifically so that those under its influence may view loved ones in death without grief (Od. 4.224-226). Telemachos is a monument for "he-who-fights-far-away," and Helen's drug is an antidote to potentially destructive impulses among the living that the sight of Odysseus' son/sema may provoke. The source of these impulses is anger at the death that cannot be directed at a specific enemy outside of the community. Under parallel circumstances in Archaic Athens, Seaford in particular has argued that funerary monuments may have provided a focus for inciting retaliatory violence within the community. In examining the "new" end

2

Svenbro 1993: 69. The name the Trojans give to Hektor's son in the Iliad provides another example of a son named after the exploits of his father. The son whom Hektor calls Skamandros is called Astyanax (lord of the city) by others "because Hektor alone was preserving Ilion" (oTo$ yap epuETo "lAiov "Eiorcop, //. 6.403), cf. Nagy 1999: 146, §9n.2.

245

of the Odyssey" as a paradigm reflecting the establishment of polis institutions, Seaford has drawn on ethnographic parallels to argue that the funeral was a means of affirming group solidarity through "collective anger and collective participation in the state of the dead."4 If the killer and victim were members of the same community, and the homicide was unresolved because the killer had not been punished, the resulting anger of the burying group has the potential to produce violent retaliation within the community.5 In a pre-polis community without institutionalized justice, a family might use the funeral as an occasion and the tomb as a focus for gathering their forces and avenging the deceased.6 Some support for this interpretation comes from the homicide laws of Athens and literary sources, which provide evidence of the responsibility that a victim's family had to seek retribution for his death.7 In the case of Odysseus, however, it is not his death that must be avenged, but the plundering of his oikos (household), which the suitors had been treating as though it belonged to an enemy. They are in fact treated as enemies in the "new" end of the poem, and the threat of continued violence in the community results. Anger in the community resulting from killing the suitors can only be directed inward at Odysseus and the members of his household who assisted him instead of outward at an external enemy. The retaliatory violence thus would be directed within the community as well and may destroy it as a result. Because of these destructive impulses, a funeral that gathers 3

"[T]he earlier version of the Odyssey ended with the restoration of ritual (the wedding) in the domestic sphere only, without the death ritual for the suitors and the reconciliation with their relatives that it was later felt necessary to add" (Seaford 1994: 31). 4 Seaford 1994: 87. 5 Seaford 1994:103-104. 6 Seaford 1994:90. 7 Phillips 2008: 27-29.

246

community members united by a desire for vengeance has the potential to destroy the community rather than negotiate its perpetuation through the transfer of social roles and property as a proper funeral should. The "new" ending of the Odyssey was necessary (according to Seaford) to preserve the community from destructive violence, and it does so through institutions of the polis that have been personified in the form of Athena, "who protects her city from civil strife."8 Arbitration is also present in the Iliad, but it is depicted on the shield that Hephaistos fashioned for Achilles (//. 497-508) and so operates outside the main narrative of the poem. The drug that Helen administers after the dinner guests have recognized Telemachos produces a result that is similar to the command of Athena: it nullifies potential strife in the community by taking away pain, and more importantly, by taking away anger. The drug seems to obscure recognition of Telemachos-as-se/wa without obscuring his identity as Odysseus' son. The power of the drug, furthermore, is immediately demonstrated when Menelaos recounts Helen's treachery against the Greeks inside the horse, and the tale does not arouse his anger against her {Od. 4.269-289). As a result of the drug, any anger provoked by the sight of Telemachos has been nullified, and violence-provoking ills have been forgotten. Feminist scholars have tended to see Helen's drug as a paradigm for epic poetry with both positive and negative aspects. Bergren has likened its power to soothe grief to the kleos transmitted through poetry, with the caveat that its soothing power is unstable. Mihoko Suzuki, in contrast, sees "the erasure of memory, painful though the memory 8 9

Seaford 1994: 178, cf. Solon, Fr. 4. 1-4. Bergren 2008b [1981]: 123-125.

247

may be, to be the fundamentally dangerous temptation in the Odyssey." I am suggesting that the forgetting produced by the drug is selective: Odysseus' kleos provoked by the sight of his son continues to be remembered; only the anger resulting from his absence, which cannot be directed against a specific entity outside the community, is forgotten. Telemachos cannot be the sema of his father because Odysseus is not actually dead, and Helen's drug nullifies the premature lamentation. The discord in the marriage of Menelaos and Helen that is suggested in the episode serves to highlight the benefit of the drug—the forgetting and calm it produces creates harmony within their household.11 The bulk of this study has been focused on the benefits of remembering as the community at Athens reproduced itself from one generation to the next, but the palliative effect of Helen's drug provides a model for the way obscuring sight of funerary monuments and forgetting could be beneficial to the living as well.

Purposeful Destruction Before the Persian Wars The visual relationships of monuments to each other and to the surrounding community are the primary focus of Small's discussion on the Kerameikos as a "standing monument cemetery,"12 in which the monuments have been "deposited over a span of time, and they incorporate inherent features that offer prospects for social negotiations that are markedly different from cemeteries without permanent markers."13 The essential quality that makes such negotiations possible is the continued visibility of claims made 10

Suzuki 1989:66, n. 15. In Bergren's words, "events naturally tragic for some of the audience will be detoxified" (2008: 118). 12 D. Small 1995. 13 D. Small 1995: 150.

11

248

by the burying group (and their descendents) through the topographical, iconographic and epigraphic associations invoked by a monument. As Small points out, a variety of monumental forms likely stood side-by-side at various points in the history of the cemetery. Grave markers of an older configuration, such as Late Geometric or Protoattic vases, would have stood next to Archaic stone stelai within the same precinct and attested to the duration of the family's prominence in the history of the community. Challenges to the claims of a burying group to particular social roles may also have been acted out through the commemorative landscape of a cemetery, through intentional removal of the monuments as visual stimuli designed to perpetuate collective memory of decedents in a specific burying group. A variety of evidence suggests that forgetting, encouraged by removing or burying monuments, was practiced just as actively as remembering in the cemeteries of Archaic Athens at various points in the history of the community. The accounts preserved by later authors suggest that Athens was frequently disturbed by conflict between factions during the Archaic period, and that the conflict was sometimes acted out on the monuments, as well as the people, of the families involved. The most infamous early dispute is the so-called "conspiracy of Kylon" for which Herodotos, Thucydides, Isokrates and Plutarch all provide details.15 In a bid for tyranny, we are told, the Olympic victor Kylon attempted to seize the Akropolis with a group of young men. Their attempt was thwarted, however, and they were ultimately killed by members of an opposing group led by Megakles, who belonged to the 14 15

D. Small 1995: 147-150. Herodotos 5.71; Thucydides 1.126; Isokrates 16.26; Plutarch, Solon 12.

249

Alkmeonid clan and was at that time one of the Archons in Athens, according to Plutarch {Solon 12).16 As a result of the homicides the Alkmeonid family was said to be cursed, and the Athenians

"TOUS TE CGOVTCCS EACCUVOVTEC; KCCI TCOV TE8VECOTCOV TCX OOTCX

CXVEAOVTES E£E(3CIAOV"

(cast them out by driving out the living and removing the bones of

the dead). 17 Removal of the bones presumably would have been accompanied by removal of the monuments as is specified in another account of the episode by Isokrates: TETTapdKovTa 8' ETTI Tfjj ardoecos ytvo\xivr\% irrro UEV TCOV Tupdvvcov TOOOUTCO uaAAov TCOV dAAcov EnianGrioav coo0' OTTOTE TctKEivcov KpanioEiev, ou uovov Ta5 oiicfas OUTCOV KOTEOKaTfTov dAAcx Kai TOUS Tdcpouj avcbpuTTov.

Throughout the forty years of the upheaval, [the Alkmeonids] were hated so much more than the o t n e r s by the tyrants that, whenever one had power over t h e m they not only razed m e i r h o u s e s but also

.

(Isokrates 16.26)

Although the occasions are not specified,

m s

• .

•

v

OTTOTE with

the optative verb KpcnTJaEiEv

suggests that the tombs were destroyed on more than one occasion, and the accounts of Herodotos (5.70; 72) and Thucydides (1.126) specify two occasions: the Kylonian conspiracy in the seventh century, and Spartan Kleomenes' banishment of Kleisthenes with 700 cursed households from Athens in 508 B.C. after the period of the tyranny.18 Josh Ober has argued that the resulting retaliation against Spartan interference was led by the demos, not Kleisthenes' aristocratic partisans, and "defined the nature of Athens' subsequent democratic reforms."19 With regard to the present study, Isokrates' description is particularly interesting because it makes a direct connection between the 16

The conspiracy is thought to have occurred in 636, 632,628 or 624 B.C. based on the historical tradition and festival calendar. See Hornblower [1991: 204] and Phillips [2008: 35, n. 1] for discussion of the sources. 17 Thucydides 1.126.12. 18 Hornblower 1991: 210. A fragmentary Archon list (IG I31031a) has been cited by some scholars as evidence that Kleisthenes was eponymous Archon in 525 B.C. and therefore could not have been in exile for the duration of the tyranny as Herodotos (6.123) claimed. But Dillon [2006] has reviewed the evidence, pointed out the likely inaccurate restoration of Kleisthenes' name in the inscription, and validated Herodotos' account. 19 Ober 2004: 261.

250

households of the living (TCXS oiKias) and the monuments for the dead (TOU$ Tdcpous). As we have seen, an elite funerary assemblage during the Archaic period at Athens typically was composed of a monumental vase or sculpted marker that could be supplemented with inscription and/or the display of additional figural terracotta objects. Through the iconographic program of these objects and the collective memory that they represented, the burying group laid claim to specific social roles—warrior, athlete, priest, marriageable young woman—that were necessary for the community to perpetuate itself. Seaford has seen the purposeful destruction of Alkmeonid monuments as a means of depriving their "supporters of the tombs that may have served them as a focus for the solidarity needed for acts of violence." Although the Alkmeonids had been exiled as the perpetrators rather than victims of homicide, Seaford still sees the tombs providing a focus for retaliatory violence within the community. But removal of the Alkmeonid monuments also removed the visual stimuli that perpetuated collective memory of the social roles claimed by the family, and the purposeful destruction of monuments in the Alkmeonid precinct in the Kerameikos provides an example of the socio-political negotiations that may have been carried out within the "standing monument cemetery."21 Alkmeonid family tombs and their markers likely had been erected over a long period of time and would have occupied a highly visible location in the Kerameikos. If Knigge is correct that Tumulus G and the Tritopatreion, currently located at the point where the Sacred Way and so-called "Street of Tombs" diverge, are the ancestral burial ground and "shrine" of the Alkmeonid family, then archaeological evidence exists for a 20 21

Seaford 1994: 94. D. Small 1995.

251

visually prominent location of the family precinct. In the middle of the sixth century when the exile is thought to have taken place, older Grabbauten and monumental vases may have stood alongside marble stelai, kouroi or korai in the precinct. The accumulated monuments of the clan, as long as they remained standing, would have testified to the long lineage of the Alkmeonids as a leading family in Athens and expressed visual superiority over more recent precincts set back from the roads or located further outside of the city. Once the monuments had been removed or covered over, however, the history of the family similarly would have disappeared from the view of the living community. The Alkmeonid exiles, whatever their precise dates may have been, have been cited by a number of scholars as an explanation for either the destruction or protection of various tombstones that their state of preservation has suggested. Richter, for example, argued that the well-preserved fragments of the "Brother and Sister" stele in New York (Figure 4.2a) support the view that "the monument had been broken up not very long after it was erected—and for this action the exile of the Alkmeonids some time between 541 and 537 would supply a plausible reason."23 The exceptional preservation of Phrasiklea's monument (Figure 4.4a) has also suggested that it was buried shortly after it had been set up. In the latter case, however, the kore had not been broken apart before burial, and Svenbro thus argued that it had been buried to protect it. Just as Richter had done for the "Brother and Sister" stele, he has connected burial of the kore for Phrasikleia to the Alkmeonid exile, in part because the pottery in the context of discovery is too early

Knigge 2006. Richter 1944: 72.

252

and the sculpture too well-preserved to have been burled during the Persian War period. The alternative that Svenbro has proposed as the occasion of protective burial is the return of Peisistratos ca. 540 B.C., who was a political opponent to the Alkmeonid clan.25 As attractive as it may be to connect these monuments to a family known from the literary sources, however, the inscriptions do not provide clear attributions, and the Alkmeonid exile is not the only occasion on which funerary monuments seem to have been purposely removed from view in Archaic Attica. The evidence is difficult to pin down, but there are some suggestions in the archaeological record that the Athenians themselves may have taken down or otherwise obscured older tombs in the Kerameikos prior to the Persian sack of Athens in 480/79 B.C. According to Knigge: One can see the effect of the Kleisthenic Isonomia, all citizens equal in the eyes of the law, and also the effort to weaken the power of the aristocracy, reflected in the Kerameikos graveyards. The slopes of the great Peisistratid tumulus [the 'South Hill'] - probably burial ground for envoys - were obliterated underneath a great pile of dumped earth and turned into a burial ground for ordinary people. The same thing seems to have happened to the large tumulus for an Athenian noble family across the way [Tumulus G ] . . . The destruction of these two stately monuments evocative of the power of the tyranny and the aristocracy did not occur by chance, but must be understood as a deliberate act in conjunction with the reforms of Kleisthenes, which aimed to do away with the old forces and establish a democratic order.26 In the course of covering over the mounds, early grave markers such as the monumental vases and stelai discovered among the tumuli in the Kerameikos may have been buried as well. In addition to the "Dipylon" vases, notable examples include the lower fragments of Svenbro 1993: 12. These attributions, however, may also be the result of what Dillon [2006: 92] has called the '"great name' phenomenon of ancient history." 25 Svenbro 1993: 12. 26 Kniggel991:32.

253

stelai preserved in their bases and the relief stele of a nude man with sword and staff found near Tumulus G (Figure 3.6).27 A phase (or phases) of pulling down or burying older monuments prior to the Persian sack of Athens would explain why these stelai and bases had not also been incorporated into the post-sack Themistoklean city walls. The clearing of the area that would become the Classical Agora should perhaps also be counted as a phase of purposely removing older monuments. T. Leslie Shear Jr. has reviewed the evidence from the Agora well deposits and concluded that the archaeological evidence agrees with the literary accounts of the destruction that Athens suffered at the hands of the Persians as described by Herodotos (9.13.2) and Thucydides (1.89.3).28 The clean-up that took place after the Persian sack, however, may have obscured earlier clearing efforts, as Papadopoulos has argued: [T]he so-called Persian Sack wells and related deposits, whatever their precise date, may just as reasonably be viewed as 'Agora creation' deposits. Indeed, they can be considered 'Agora creation' deposits precisely because the Persians destroyed Athens, and thus their number, their uniformity in terms of content, and their location, precisely in the area that was to become the Classical Agora.29 As the discussion of Telemachos-as-se/Mar and the obfuscating effects of Helen's drug have suggested, the visibility of the monuments was central to the perpetuation of collective memory in the living community that the commemorative assemblages had been designed to provoke. When tombstones were pulled down and/or covered over in a "standing monument cemetery," the visual expression of relationships to surrounding monuments was eliminated, as well as a potential gathering point for retaliatory violence. 27

Appendix 1: cat. no. 12 and 16; Knigge 2006. Shear 1993:415-417. 29 Papadopoulos 2003: 297. See Papadopoulos [2003: 271-279] for a discussion of tombs and potters' activity in the area. 28

254

Once the visual stimuli had been removed, memory of claims to particular social roles may have faded as well. Even after the democratic reforms of Kleisthenes, elite Athenians did not entirely cease setting up elaborate stone monuments in the Kerameikos. As Stears points out, the epigraphic evidence taken together with the Late Archaic kouros head30 from the Kerameikos, securely dated to ca. 500-480 B.C., "confirms the epigraphic chronology which assigns grave-markers right down to the end of the Persian Wars."31 Smaller scale destructive events that obscured various precincts within the cemetery thus may have been as much the result of vicissitudes in political influence as of "democratic" burial practices before the Persian sack of Athens. The precise chronology and relationship of political institutions and burial evidence remains elusive, but the archaeological record in the Kerameikos and Classical literary accounts regarding tomb construction and destruction in the sixth century suggest that the monuments (and the collective memory they represented) may have been involved in the socio-political negotiations of the living community even before the city was sacked.

Redefinition of Commemorative Forms After the Persian Wars The Persian Wars had a lasting impact on the ancient Greek world, and their ramifications can be seen in commemoration of the dead as much as in accounts of the living. If my suggestion is correct that Archaic funerary monuments were valued as a means of "documenting" social memory, and provided a focus for the display of 30 31

Kerameikos PI 145; Knigge 1983. Stears 2000: 29.

255

individual identity in relation to previous generations, then the polyandron burial at Marathon presents something of a paradox. The Marathon tumulus is located over 20 miles outside the city of Athens and was not a feature of the urban landscape as cemeteries surrounding the city were. Any ritual acts performed at the tumulus were not, as a result, on display in close proximity to the living community as the rites performed at tombs in the Kerameikos had been. Since the monument was not visible in the immediate landscape of the city, special measures would have been necessary to perpetuate the collective memory of those buried under the Marathon tumulus to surviving community members within the city. By all counts, the polyandron burial on the battlefield at Marathon represents a break with contemporary Attic practice.32 Thucydides (2.34.5) tells us that it was due to the warriors' exceptional excellence (BiaTrpETrfj TT)V dpETr)v) that they were buried where they fell in battle rather than being brought back home. So how was burial in a location relatively inaccessible to kin—the living who would "honor" the dead with tomb-cult— a signal honor? After examining the archaeological evidence, Whitley has argued that the Marathon tumulus employs practices which had been in decline over the preceding century and recalls the heroic funerals described in epic poetry, imitating the Homeric model of commemoration, but recasting it in a form more suitable to the democratic ideals of the fifth century.33 Whitley concludes that the Marathon Tumulus "stands 'betwixt and between' the symbolic order of the Late Archaic aristocracy and the

32

Whitley 1994. Whitley 1994: 227; Derderian [2001: 112], like Whitley, has focused on the democracy as motivation for the creation of public "democratic" monuments to replace individual aristocratic ones. 33

256

demands of the new democracy, demands that were eventually to lead to the evolution of a new symbolic form, the demosion sema."34 His argument is well-supported by the evidence but focuses on the burial evidence as a reflection of cult practices and social structure rather than on the effect the break with tradition would have had on the memory-perpetuating traditions of the living community. In spite of its location at a distance from the city, there was a sustained commemorative investment at the site of the battle that continued all the way into the Roman period. As has been emphasized by Alcock, special measures are typical of commemoration at the site of a famous battle, which, "by definition less frequently seen than centrally placed (and, by design, continually encountered) memorials, battlefield monuments require more intense and focused observance and grant a more intense and focused experience."35 The special commemorative investment in the Marathon plain is visible both archaeologically and in the literary sources. The large mound in the plain, taken to be the one under which the fallen Athenians were buried, is still visible today, and Eugene Vanderpool reassembled the remains of a white marble column monument that matches the one described by Pausanias.36 Pausanias, who visited the site more than 600 years after the battle, described a variety of monuments on the plain as well as cult activity, and a notable absence of a visible tomb for the Persians whom the Athenians claimed to have buried (1.32.3-7).

Whitley 1994: 230. Alcock 2002: 76. Vanderpool 1966.

257

The remote location necessitating a pilgrimage aligns the ritual observances at Marathon with rites practiced at rural cult centers, as opposed to ancestor worship as it had traditionally been practiced in Attic cemeteries in the second half of the sixth century B.C.37 The journey outside the city to the site of the battle, though undertaken to honor a special group of recent dead rather than a divinity, nonetheless involves some features parallel to the journeys for the rites observed at Brauron and Eleusis, which Seaford places in the same category as the Athenian rites for Dionysos Eleuthereus.38 While agreeing with de Polignac39 that rites involving pilgrimage to the countryside seem to have become prominent in Athens too late to have played a significant role in state formation, Seaford nonetheless argues that [t]his development of cult centres close to the margins of Attica but linked to the urban centre by processions surely contributed to the sense of Attic unity, and is in this respect comparable both to the Attic Dionysiac eiaaycoyri and in general to the cults discussed by de Polignac.40 In the case of Marathon, cult practice and funerary commemoration took on a new dimension for the living. Rather than providing a ritual focus for perpetuating memory of hierarchical boundaries within the living community, the Marathon tumulus provided a focus for rites that bounded Attica as a whole in relation to others who were outside it. Commemoration of a hero from the battle also took place even further from the city of Athens in the Panhellenic sanctuary at Delphi, where the Athenians set up a statue group that placed Miltiades, one of the generals from the Battle of Marathon, together on

See Chapter 3 and 4; Whitley 1994. Seaford 1994: 236. De Polignac 1984: 88-89. Seaford 1994: 248.

258

a base with Athena, Apollo, and the eponymous heroes of some of the Athenian tribes. A hero of recent history was granted a place alongside gods, as formerly would have been reserved for heroes such as Herakles and Theseus. The dedication of Miltiades' statue at Delphi thus parallels the account of Cleobis and Biton, who had likewise been elevated to the status of heroes after death. Herodotos labels them the next most fortunate men on earth after Tellos as a result of their deaths at the height of their glory (1.31). He tells us that the two brothers were prize-winning athletes who, after substituting for oxen in order to transport their mother in a wagon to a festival in honor of Hera, died in their sleep inside the temple in response to their mother's prayer to the goddess to give her sons "the best thing that a man can obtain" (TT\V 8EOV 5ouvai TO av0pcb"rrcp TUXETV apicrov EOTI).42 After

their deaths, Herodotos continues, the Argives dedicated statues of them at

Delphi (1.31). In the case of both Miltiades and the Argive brothers, therefore, men of distinction were commemorated as heroes of cult at Delphi, where their images would promote the reputations of their respective poleis, Athens and Argos, on a Panhellenic stage. Within the city, the connection between the victory at Marathon and the surviving inhabitants of Athens was maintained through art and oratory in addition to pilgrimages for commemorative rites performed at the site of the battle. As Whitley has convincingly argued, those who died in the famous battle were styled as heroes in the Homeric sense,

Pausanias 10.10.1; S. Morris [1992: 293-295] discuses the monument and the juxtaposition of its iconography with that of the Athenian treasury that carried metopes depicting Athena, Herakles and Theseus, who were said to have aided the Athenians on the battlefield at Marathon (Pausanias 1.16.1). 42 Herodotos 1.31.

259

but as a group rather than individually. As if to formalize the heroic identification, the Marathon-fighters also became the subject of art alongside the heroes of the Trojan War in the so-called "Painted Stoa" located in the Classical Agora at Athens.44 Pausanias tells us that the paintings in the Stoa depicted the Athenians facing the Spartans at Oinoe, Theseus and the Athenians fighting the Amazons, the Greek victory at Troy, and the Battle of Marathon. The juxtaposition of the scenes, like the statue of Miltiades at Delphi, elevates the Athenians who died at Marathon to the level of mythic heroes. Such largescale public art in the political center of the city would have supplemented the visual stimuli to memory within the city that the mound provided outside the city. Morris describes how three of the paintings in the Stoa, the battles against the Amazons, Trojans and Persians, "constitute the three climactic encounters of Athenian history in art as in rhetoric, and form a 'trilogy' in post-Persian narrative, whether in painting or literature."45 The battle had a prominent position in Classical selfrepresentations of Athenian identity. In addition to visual representation in public art, the Battle of Marathon became a "compulsory topos of national history" that was central to the communal funeral orations of Classical Athens.46 After surveying the accounts of the battle in the surviving speeches, Nicole Loraux concludes that, [a]s more than a myth, it [the Battle of Marathon] might therefore justly be regarded as something similar to the warrior's first exploit or to the trial of the hero—often the son of a god, always superhuman—must face in order to confirm himself as such: an action that is both archetypal and like all those that follow it.47 43

Whitley 1994. Pausaneas 1.15.4. 45 S.Morris 1992: 314. 46 Loraux 1986: 156. 47 Loraux 1986: 165. 44

260

The post-Marathon period thus displays a clear shift in commemorative paradigm when compared to the previous three centuries. No longer drawing on the Archaic model of monster-slaying heroes, funerary commemoration instead began to draw its motifs from the celebrated history of the city. Tombs located at battle sites subsequently became involved in documenting collective memory of relationships between cities as well as within them. After the Battle of Plataia several cities set up monuments, which became features in the landscape and marked their joint participation in the victory over the Persians. But just as monuments in Athens may have been removed to encourage forgetting, Herodotos suggests that cenotaphs were constructed at Plataia in order to substantiate "false memory." It is with the aim of hiding their lack of participation in the battle, Herodotos tells us, that some cities erected empty mounds at Plataia: TOUTCOV UEV 5f) trdvTcov TrAripEES EyEvovxo oi Tctqjoi- TCOV 8E ciAAcov 6001 xat q>a(vovTai EV nXaxaiflai EOVTES Td<poi, TOUTOUJ BE, COS £ycb TTUvOdvonai, ETraiaxwoMEVOUs Tfi CXTTEOTOT Tfj

j^? Jijk.'>tw """

if

••

Figure 2.4: Ekphora scene on a Late Geometric krater with male and female mourners and chariot frieze, dated ca. 750 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 990. Photo: by author.

276

Figure 2.5: Mound K and offering trench C, (Appendix 1: cat. nos. 9-11) in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 640 B.C. Illustration: German Archaeological Institute (Kubler 1959: Beilage 13).

277

*%

AAM

M&k

Jma£KM

PHi

Figure 2.6: Grabbau k with plastered exterior over a cremation burial in the Athenian Kerameikos (Appendix 1: cat. no. 32), dated ca. 660 B.C. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 2311, Kubler 1976, Plate 3).

278

Figure 2.7: Sphinx on a Protoattic krater (Kerameikos inv. no. 801) associated with a cremation grave and Grabbau x (Appendix 1: cat. no. 53) in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 630 B.C. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 3430, Kubler 1970, Plate 87).

279

Figure 2.8: Antithetical sphinxes, warriors, dancing women, lyre-player and seated figure on a skyphos from Dipylon Grave VI, dated ca. 630 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 4881. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (Czako DAI-ATH-NM 4881, Langdon 2008: 170).

280

Figure 2.9: Nude youth confronting a sphinx on a black-figure lekythos (Kerameikos inv. no. 1707) from a child's grave (Appendix 1: cat. no. 130), in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 500 B.C. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 21187, Kunze-Gotte, E., K. Tancke, and K. Vierneisel 1999, Plate 79).

281

Figure 2.10: Man confronting a siren on a black-figure kotyle (Kerameikos inv. no. 46) from Offering Place H* in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 580 B.C. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 5867, Kubler 1970, Plate 101).

282

it'iiiii^^^wii

Figure 2.11: Monumental Protoattic amphora, decorated with scenes recognizable from the myths of Perseus and Odysseus and wild beasts, used as a burial vessel for a child at Eleusis, dated ca. 650 B.C., Eleusis Museum, no. 544. Photo: by author.

283

Figure 3.1: Panathenaic Amphora, dated ca. 490-480 B.C., Getty Villa Museum, Malibu, no. 77.AE.9. Photo: by author.

284

Figure 3.2: Horse-head amphora (Kerameikos inv. no. 7056) from a child's grave (Appendix 1: cat. no. 143) in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated early sixth century B.C. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 7056, Knigge 1976, Plate 43).

285

Figure 3.3b: Reconstruction of the stele for Antiphanes, National Museum, Athens. Photo: by author.

Figure 3.3a: The stele for Antiphanes, dated ca. 530 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 86. Photo: by author.

286

Figure 3.4: Inscribed and plastered limestone stele, originally painted, from the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 600-550 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. PI 133. Photo: by author.

287

Figure 3.5: Archaic lion sculpture discovered near the Sacred Gate in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 590-580 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. PI599. Photo: by author.

288

Figure 3.6: Limestone stele decorated with relief sculpture retaining traces of the ori§ paint, fragments discovered at the edges of Tumulus G in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 570-560 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. PI 132. Photo: by author.

289

Figure 3.7: Archaic Attic funerary stele (original left, reconstruction right) with a man holding a spear in the central zone and a gorgon in the praedella, discovered in the Themistoklean wall, dated ca. 560-550 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 2687. Photo: by author.

290

WSm

Figure 3.8: Kouros for Kroisos, dated ca. 530-520 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 3851. Photo: by author.

291

Figure 3.9: White-ground lekythos showing mourners (or a mourner and the deceased?) at a tombstone with stepped base decorated with vases in front of a stylized tumulus, dated ca. 450-440 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 1935. Photo: by author.

292

Figure 3.10: Painted stele for Lyseas, dated ca. 525-500 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 30. Photo: by author.

293

s ••VTfif.'.r-,'

WSSi&B8S8B3k

tWMsm

Figure 3.11: Equestrian statue that may have stood on the inscribed base with for Xenophantos (IG I3 1218), dated ca. 530-520 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P6999 and 1389. Photo: by author.

294

Figure 3.12: "Riders Base" for a stele, discovered in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 560 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P1001. Photo: by author.

295

Figure 3.13: "Athletes Base" for a kouros with three scenes in relief: front: wrestling, right: cat and dog fight, and left: ball players (?), dated ca. 510 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 3476. Photos: by author.

296

Figure 3.14: "Apobates Base" for a kouros with three scenes in relief: front: 'hockey players' and right & left: apobates (?) scenes, discovered in the Themistoklean wall in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 500 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 3477. Photos: by author.

297

Figure 3.15: "Lion-Attack Base" for a kouros with three scenes in relief:front:ball players (?), right: lion and boar combat and, left: riders, discovered in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 510 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. P1002. Photos: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 7278, 6310 and 6311, Kissas 2000: 73-74).

298

Figure 3.16: Early Athenian coins featuring gorgoneia on the obverse. The tetradrachm (no. 173) has a lion protome on the reverse of the earliest issue, and a bull protome on the reverse of a later issue, dated ca. 530-520 B.C. Photo: Kraayl976, Plate 9.

299

Figure 4.1: Black-figure phormiskos decorated with a prothesis scene, dated ca. 510 B.C., Kerameikos Museum, Athens, no. 691. Photo: by author.

300

Figure 4.2b: Detail of youth's hand holding a flower or pod. Photo: courtesy of Jacquelyn Clements.

Figure 4.2c: Detail of the "sister" holding a flower or pod. Photo: courtesy of Jacquelyn Clements.

Figure 4.2a: "Brother and Sister Stele," dated ca. 530 B.C. Metropolitan Museum, New York, no. 11.185a-d, f, g, x. Photo: courtesy of Jacquelyn Clements.

301

Figure 4.3: Wrestlers on a black-figure lekythos (Kerameikos inv. no. 1472) from a shaft grave in the Athenian Kerameikos (Appendix 1: cat. no. 112), dated ca. 540 B.C., in the. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 25823, Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Plate 42).

302

Figure 4.4b: detail of kore's hand holding a flower. National Museum, Athens, no.4889. Photo: by author.

Figure 4.4a: Kore for Phrasikleia and inscribed base, dated ca. 550 B.C. National Museum, Athens, no. 4889. Photo: by author.

303

Figure 4.5: Black-figure loutrophoros by the Sappho Painter showing a prothesis, burial, tomb scene and chariot race, from Pikrodaphni (Attica), dated ca. 500-490 B.C. National Museum, Athens, no. 450. Photo: by author.

304

Figure 4.6: Black-figure funerary pinax decorated with a prothesis scene and chariot race, dated ca. 500 B.C. Metropolitan Museum, New York, no. 54.11.5. Photo: courtesy of Jacquelyn Clements.

305

Figure 4.7: Black-figure "Areios" pinax decorated with a valediction scene, pinax from a series, dated ca. 530 B.C. National Museum, Athens, no. 2410. Photo: by author.

306

Figure 4.8: Valediction scene on a black-figure plate (Kerameikos inv. no. 1909) from Offering Place 42 (formerly WP 23 auBen), which has not been associated with a particular grave in the Athenian Kerameikos, dated ca. 550 B.C.. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH-KER 6574, Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Plate 85).

307

Figure 4.9: Black-figure pinax decorated with a prothesis scene with the figures labeled by family relation, dated ca. 500 B.C. Louvre, Paris, no. MNB 905, (Boardman 1955: 62, no. 28). Photo: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/image?lookup=l992.06.0684

308

Figure 4.10: Detail of the base for the kouros for Kroisos with the middle block carrying the inscription, discovered in Anavyssos, dated ca. 530-520 B.C., National Museum, Athens, no. 4754. Photo: German Archaeological Institute (DAI-ATH4754, Kissas 2000: 55).

309

'.*

Figure 5.1: The Akropolis at Athens. View of the column drums and metopes from the temple destroyed by the Persians when they sacked the city. The Athenians subsequently built them into a retaining wall in which they recreated the architectural order of the temple (drums surmounted by metopes). Photo: by author.

310

Appendix 1 Catalog of Iconography from Seventh- and Sixth-Century B.C. Burials in the Athenian Kerameikos

311

Sources: Kubler 1959; Kubler 1970; Kubler 1976; Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999; Knigge 1976 Abbreviations: BF- black-figure; BG- black-gloss; WG- white-ground 1. Cremation Grave 4 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage IV), Offering Place a, Mound T. Goods were found on the offering place, ca. 690 (male grave, Kubler) Protocorinthian Kanne (jug) (Inv. 1267): tripods, horse head Protocorinthian Kotyle (Inv. 1273) Protocorinthian covered bowl (Inv. 1268) Protocorinthian covered bowl (Inv. 1269) Protocorinthian sherds (no inv. nos.) from (1) pyxis; (2) aryballoi Attic covered bowl (Inv. 1151): grazing horses and deer, sphinxes Attic covered bowl (Inv. 1158): horse, chariots, birds Attic covered bowl (Inv. 1155): birds Attic kotyle (Inv. 1152): horse, chariot, rider, mourner, sphinxes Attic kotyle (Inv. 1270) Attic jug or amphora sherd (Inv. 1271): horse, chariot Attic small jug (Inv. 1154) Attic high-footed cup (Inv. 1153): mourning warrior, horse, rider Attic high-footed cup fragments (no inv. nos.): horse, bird Attic footed cup (Inv. 1275) non-Attic cover (Inv. 1272) Attic cover (Inv. 1367): mourning woman (?) wheeled terracotta horse (Inv. 1156) terracotta wheel (Inv. 1274) handmade amphora 2. Cremation Grave 5 (Kubler 1959, Anlage V), Mound A. ca. 680 no goods. 3. Pit Cremation Grave 6 (Kubler 1959, Anlage VI), Mound E. ca. 660 no goods. 4. Cremation Grave 7 (Kubler 1959, Anlage VII), Mound Z. ca. 660 no goods. 5. Cremation Grave 8 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage VIII), Mound H. Goods were found in the grave, ca. 650 Protocorinthian kotyle (Inv. 1355): hunting dog frieze Attic handmade hydria (Inv. 1356) braided cord

312

6. Inhumation Grave 9 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage IX), Offering Trench P, Mound ©. Goods were found in the offering trench except the krater on the mound, ca. 660 (male grave, Kiibler) Protocorinthian aryballos (Inv. 78): hare and hound frieze Protocorinthian covered bowl (Inv. 1278): frieze on lid includes a goat. Attic goblet with handle (Inv. 73): warrior frieze, mourning woman, snake-handle Attic goblet with handle (Inv. 1279): mourning women, snake-handle Attic goblet with handle (Inv. 1280): prothesis, mourning women, snake-handle Attic goblet with handle fragment (no inv. no.): mourning women Attic goblet with handle (Inv. 80): prothesis, mourning women, horse, sphinx, snake-handle Attic covered bowl (Inv. 76): horse, chariot, apobates (?) Attic cover (Inv. 75): horse, chariot, apobates (?), warrior, grazing deer Attic cover fragments (no inv. no.) Attic footed bowl (Inv. 1361): grazing deer, lions Attic plate (Inv. 74): cattle frieze, dog, griffin, hare, lions, panther, deer, horse protome on bottom Attic kotyle (Inv. 134): sphinxes Attic small jug (Inv. 77) Attic jug (Inv. 79): horse, chariot, griffin, sphinxes Attic jug (Inv. 1281): horse, chariot Attic krater on mound (Inv. 98): centaur frieze 7. Child Pithos Burial 10 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage X). ca. 660 Attic footed bowl (Inv. 89): birds Attic footed bowl (Inv. 90) Attic covered pyxis (Inv. 91) Attic cup (Inv. 93) Attic cup (Inv. 94): birds Attic cup (Inv. 95): birds Attic cup (Inv. 96) handmade amphora (Inv. 92) pithos (Inv. 1370) 8. Cremation Grave 11 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XI), Offering Trench y, Mound I, Offering Place 5. Goods were found in the offering trench except where noted otherwise, ca. 650 (male grave, Kiibler) Attic footed bowl (Inv. 136): bird frieze Attic footed bowl (Inv. 137): grazing horse Attic footed bowl (Inv. 138) Attic kotyle (Inv. 139): sphinxes, deer, boar Attic jug fragment (Inv. 140): sphinxes Attic covered bowl (Inv. 142): frieze of women, stags, lion, panther Attic covered bowl (Inv. 143): sirens, panther

313

Attic footed basin (Inv. 147): bird frieze, lion Attic footed basin (Inv. 148): sphinx, griffins Attic footed basin (Inv. 150): cock protome Attic jug (Inv. 149): plastic mourning women and snakes on neck, prothesis, mourning women, lions Attic Thymiaterion (Inv. 141) Attic Thymiaterion (Inv. 144): sphinx Attic Thymiaterion (Inv. 145): woman (mourner?) Attic Thymiaterion (Inv. 146): woman (mourner?) Attic krater sherds on mound (Inv. 197 & 213) Attic krater on mound (Inv. 153): bird frieze Attic jug on offering place (Inv. 163): goats, lions 9. Cremation Grave 12 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XII), ca. 650, Offering Trench e, Erdmal a Protocorinthian kotyle (Inv. 97) in offering trench Attic foot of bowl (Inv. 189) in the mound 10. Erdmal b (Kubler 1959, Anlage XIII), ca. 550, disturbed Protocorinthian kotyle (Inv. 1376) 11. Cremation Grave 13 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XIV), Offering Trench £ Mound K, Offering Place r| & 9. Goods were found in the offering trench, ca. 640 Attic footed bowl (Inv. 50) Attic cup on high foot (Inv. 51): bird frieze Attic cup on high foot (Inv. 52) Attic kotyle (Inv. 53): male heads, birds, lions Attic jug (Inv. 54): bird frieze Attic cover (Inv. 55) Attic footed basin and cover (Inv. 56 & 58): rider, boar, lions, sphinxes Attic footed basin (Inv. 57): birds, lions Attic footed plate (Inv. 59) 12. Cremation Grave 14 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XV), Offering Trench i, Mound A. ca. 630 slate stele fragment attached to limestone base found in situ sunk into mound directly over grave 13. Child Burial 15 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XVI), ca. 620 Protocorinthian pyxis (Inv. 963): lions, deer Protocorinthian kotyle (Inv. 964) Protocorinthian kotyle (Inv. 966) Protocorinthian kotyle (Inv. 967) Protocorinthian jug (Inv. 969) Protocorinthian alabastron (Inv. 965): lions

314

Attic handmade jug (Inv. 968) 14. Child Burial 16 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XVII), ca. 625, disturbed. 15. Child Burial 17 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XVIII), ca. 600 wood coffin Protocorinthian sherds may not belong to this grave. 16. Cremation Grave 18 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XIX), Offering Trench K, Mound M. Except where noted, pottery came from the grave, ca. 630 Attic footed bowl (Inv. 1276): horse head, goat group, sphinx, lion, bird, cock Attic footed bowl (Inv. 1277) In trench were Protocorinthian sherds limestone stele fragment in limestone base found in situ sunk into mound 17. Cremation Grave 19 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XX), Offering Trench X, Erdmal c. ca. 610 no goods 18. Cremation Grave 20 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXI), Offering Trench u. Mound N, Offering Place v. ca. 610 Protocorinthian kotyle in trench (Inv. 67): friezes with hounds and lions Protocorinthian jug in trench (Inv. 68): friezes with lions, bulls, birds, sphinxes Attic krater found on mound (Inv. 152): palmette bloom frieze 19. Cremation Grave 21 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XXII), Erdmal d. ca. 610 Protocorinthian jug in grave (Inv. 1358): hounds, panthers, lions, boar, sphinx 20. Child Burial 22 in handmade jug (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XXIII). ca. 650 21. Cremation Grave 23 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXIV), Offering Trench §, Grabbau e. ca. 600 Protocorinthian jug in trench (Inv. 69): lions, swans Protocorinthian kotyle in trench (Inv. 70): panthers and swans Attic kotyle in trench (Inv. 71) Attic cup in trench (Inv. 72) Attic fragments in tomb: Inv. 123 from amphora: rider; Inv.;125 from amphora: rider 22. Cremation Grave 24 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXV), Offering Trench o, Grabbau f, Offering Place n, p. ca. 600 Corinthian kotyle in trench (Inv. 1296) Corinthian jug fragments in trench (Inv. 1297): lion (?)

315

Attic basin on tomb (Inv. 1295): rider, birds, lion Corinthian kotyle on trench (no inv.) Corinthian kotyle on offering place (Inv. 61): lion and panther frieze 23. Cremation Grave 25 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXVI), Grabbau g. ca. 590 no goods. 24. Cremation Grave 26 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXVII), Grabbau h. ca. 590 no goods. 25. Cremation Grave 27 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXVIII), Offering Trench a, Grabbau i, Offering Place x, p. ca. 585 Attic kotyle (Inv. 66) on paving near tomb: sphinxes, birds 26. Cremation Grave 28 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXIX), Mound S. ca. 610, disturbed 27. Cremation Grave 29 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXX), Mound O. ca. 590 no goods. 28. Child Burial 30 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXXI). ca. 590 no goods. 29. Cremation Grave 31 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXXII). ca. 580 Attic krater sherd, burnt, in grave (Inv. 98) 30. Cremation Grave 32 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXXIII). ca. 580 no goods. 31. Inhumation Grave 33 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXXIV), Offering Trench u, Mound n . ca. 580 Attic jug (Inv. 60) in grave: boar, lion Attic krater (Inv. 129) on mound: sphinxes 32. Cremation Grave 34 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXXV), Grabbau k, ca. 660 Corinthian pyxis (Inv. 64) in tomb: panthers, siren Fragments of (2) Attic footed bowls (no inv. nos.) on tomb: terracotta mourning women from rim 33. Inhumation Grave 35 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXXVI), Grabbau 1, ca. 570 no goods. 34. Pit Cremation Grave 36 (Kubler 1959, Anlage XXXVII), Grabbau m, ca. 570 no goods.

316

35. Cremation Grave 37 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XXXVIII), Grabbau n, ca. 570 no goods. 36. Cremation Grave 38 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XXXIX), Grabbau o, ca. 580 (female grave, Kiibler) Attic handmade jug (Inv. 1150) in pyre sweepings Attic plate (no inv. no.) in fill of tomb 37. Cremation Grave 40 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XL), ca. 570 no goods. 38. Cremation Grave 41 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XLI), Grabbau p, ca. 565 no goods. 39. Cremation Grave 42 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XLII), Grabbau q, ca. 600 no goods. 40. Cremation Grave 43 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XLHI), Grabbau r, ca. 580 no goods. 41. Cremation Grave 44 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XLIV), ca. 580 no goods. 42. Cremation Grave 45 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XLV), Grabbau s, ca. 580 no goods 43. Pit Cremation Grave 46 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XLVI), paving, Mound P. ca. 630 Attic krater (Inv. 100) on paving: birds Attic krater (Inv. 151) on paving: lions Attic krater (Inv. 99) on paving: birds, lions Attic krater (Inv. 130) on paving: birds 44. Inhumation Grave 47 (Kiibler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XLVII), Offering Pit (Opfergrube) 9, Grabbau t. All goods were found in the offering pit. ca. 590 Attic bowl (Inv. 39): goats, boar, bird, sirens, panthers, lions Attic bowl (Inv. 41): mourning women, goat, boar, birds, sirens, panthers Attic jug (Inv. 40): mourning woman on handle, goats, boar, sirens, panthers, lions Attic goblet (Inv. 42): mourning woman, goat, boar, sphinxes, panthers, lions Attic plate (Inv. 109): grazing deer, grazing goat, boar, siren, lion 45. Inhumation Grave 48 (Kiibler 1959, Anlage XLVIII), Grabbau u, ca. 585 (male grave, Kiibler)

317

Corinthian aryballos (Inv. 12) in grave: riders Corinthian bowl (Inv. 13) in grave 46. Inhumation Grave 49 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage XLIX), ca. 580 Attic amphoriskos (Inv. 31) in grave lower part of plastered poros stele (no Inv. no.), VII Taf. 52-53 47. Cremation Grave 50 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage L), Mound S, ca. 575 Attic lekythos (Inv. 23) in pyre sweepings 48. Cremation Grave 51 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LI), Grabbau v, Offering Place X, ca. 580 (male grave, Kubler) Small Attic jug (Inv. 18) in grave poros lion sculpture on top of tomb 49. Child Burial 52 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LII), ca. 590 Corinthian kotyle (Inv. 1359) Attic small jug (Inv. 1360) 50. Cremation Grave 53 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LHI), Grabbau w, ca. 580 no goods 51. Child Amphora Burial 54 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LIV), ca. 575 no goods 52. Cremation Grave 55 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LV), ca. 580 no goods 53. Cremation Grave 56 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LVI), Grabbau x, ca. 630 Attic krater (Inv. 801) on tomb: sphinx 54. Cremation Grave 57 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LVII), ca. 580 no goods 55. Inhumation Grave 58 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LVIII). ca. 620 (male grave, Kubler) Attic amphora (Inv. 658) on grave: rider, horse, siren, centaur 56. Cremation Grave 59 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LIX), ca. 580 no goods 57. Child Amphora Burial 60 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LX), ca. 580 Attic pyxis (Inv. 687): buck, birds, deer, sirens, panther Attic jug (Inv. 688): panther

318

Attic kotyle (Inv. 689) 58. Adult Inhumation in Pithos Grave 61 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LXI). ca. Attic pithos (no Inv. no.) ivory tool handle: bull 59. Cremation Grave 62 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LXII). Goods in grave, ca (male grave, Kubler) (3) undecorated bronze vessels with the ashes of three (?) deceased Bronze bowl fragments (Inv. 139): sphinxes (?) Bronze fragments (Inv. 140): women (?) Protocorinthian jug (Inv. 82) Protocorinthian jug (Inv. 83) Protocorinthian aryballos (Inv. 87) Attic jug (Inv. 81): sphinx, lion, animal battle group, bird Attic jug (Inv. 84) Attic jug neck fragment (Inv. 88) Attic cup (Inv. 86) Attic jug (Inv. 1369) Attic handmade jug (Inv. 85) 60. Cremation Grave 63 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LXIII), ca. 580 Attic krater fragment (Inv. 132) in grave fill: sphinx 61. Cremation Grave 64 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXIV), ca. 580 no goods. 62. Cremation Grave 65 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LXV), ca. 580 burnt braided cord in ashes 63. Cremation Grave 66 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXVI), ca. 580 no goods. 64. Cremation Grave 67 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXVII), ca. 580 no goods. 65. Cremation Grave 68 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXVIII), ca. 580 no goods. 66. Child Burial 69 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXIX), ca. 580 Corinthian kotyle (Inv. 62) in grave. [67. Cremation Grave 70 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXX), disturbed]

319

[68. Cremation Grave 71 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXXI), disturbed] [69. Cremation Grave 72 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXXII), disturbed] [70. Cremation Grave 73 (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXXIII), disturbed] 71. Inhumation Grave 74 (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LXXIV). Goods in grave, ca. 675 Aeolic Greyware fragments in grave Bronze bowl (Inv. Ml33) Bronze kotyle (Inv. Ml35) Bronze vessel with bird protomes (Inv. Ml38) Bronze plate (Inv. Ml36) Bronze bowl (Inv. Ml34) 72. Offering Place y (Kubler 1959 and 1970, Anlage LXXV), ca. 580 Attic terracotta offering table (Inv. 45): mourning women figurines, lions Attic 3-footed pyxis (Inv. 44): sirens, lions Attic kotyle (Inv. 46): siren facing man clay die (Inv. 47) 73. Offering Place co (Kubler 1959, Anlage LXXVI), ca. 580 no goods. 74. Shaft Grave 1 (Knigge 1976, Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 1/HTR 1), Mound G, Offering Place a, ca. 560-550 (male grave, Kubler) Poros stele (Inv. P 1132): nude male with staff 75. Shaft Grave 2 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 2/HTR 7), Mound G, ca. 550 (male grave, Kubler) Goods in grave. Lydian salt vessel (Inv. 30) Lydian salt vessel fragment (no inv. no.) Lance end (Lanzenschuh) iron nail amber pieces from Mine (couch) 76. Shaft Grave 3 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 3/HTR 2), Mound G, ca. 540, Goods in grave. BG Lekythos (Inv. 16) Lekythos (Inv. 14) Lydian salt vessel (Inv. 15)

320

77. Shaft Grave 4 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 4/HTR 3), Mound G, Offering Place p, ca. 540-30 (male grave, Kubler) Goods in grave. BF Lekythos (Inv. 25) in grave: Dionysus with male dancers and spearmen BG Lekythos (Inv. 26) in grave BF Bowl (Inv. 22 = 1687) on offering place: prothesis, valediction 78. Shaft Grave 5 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 5/HTR 4), Mound G, ca. 560. Goods in grave. BF Lekythos (Inv. 2): nude warriors and male in mantel BF Lekythos (Inv. 1): nude male figures, male in chiton and chlamys, cock, hare, garlands Lydian salt vessel (Inv. 3) Glass alabastron fragment 79. Shaft Grave 6 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 6/HTR 6), Mound G, ca. 540. Goods in grave. Lydian salt vessel (Inv. 29) Lydian salt vessel (Inv. 28) 80. Shaft Grave 7 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 7/HTR 5), Mound G, no date. no goods. 81. Shaft Grave 8 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 8/HTR 9), Mound G, ca. 540. Goods in grave. BF Lekythos: nude running youth between bearded men in mantels with staffs (2) BF Lekythos: ram, panther (2) Lydian salt vessels (Inv. 678, 679) Kalathos (Inv. 680) 82. Shaft Grave 9 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 9/HTR 8), Mound G, no date. no goods. 83. Shaft Grave 10 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 10/HTR 10), Mound G, ca. 540. Goods in grave. BG Lekythos (Inv. 1702) Terracotta small basket (Inv. 686) BG Lydian salt vessel (Inv. 681) Terracotta triple female protome plate (Inv. 685 = T 834) Terracotta female protome (Inv. 684 = T 833) Terracotta female seated figurine Inv. 683 = T835)

321

Terracotta female seated figurine Inv. 682 = T832) Terracotta rosette fragment 84. Shaft Grave 11 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 11/HTR 12), Mound G, Grabbau a, no date. no goods. 85. Shaft Grave 12 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Schachtgrab 12/HTR 13), Mound G, no date. Goods in grave. (3) lekythoi, now lost 86. Earth Burial 1 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 1/HTR 75), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF Lekythos: seated youth between men in mantels with staffs, cock on shoulder of vase BF Lekythos: seated figure on stool between giant eyes 87. Earth Burial 2 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 2/HTR 71), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BG Lekythos (Inv. 1544) BG Lekythos BF Skyphos (Inv. 664): naked bearded man running between palmettes BG Footed bowl (Inv. 1541) BF Miniature lekanis with cover: birds Glass amphoriskos (Inv. 1542) Terracotta seated female figure (Inv. 11 = T 47) Terracotta bird (?) (Inv. 1543 = T 440) 88. Earth Burial 4 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 4/HTR 74), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF Lekythos: hoplite between male figures in mantels with staffs, horse, cock on shoulder of vase 89. Earth Burial 6 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 6/HTR 55), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF Lekythos (KER 6515): hoplite pursuit before man in mantle with staff, cock on shoulder of vase BG Skyphos iron knife 90. Cremation Grave 14 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 14/HTR 4), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave.

322

BF Lekythos: woman (under guard?) holding garland following a rider. The group approaching a bearded old man with staff, abduction scene (?) 91. Burial 18 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 18/HTR 54), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: hoplite between seated mantled figure with staff and standing mantled figure with staff BG kylix 92. Child Amphora Burial 21 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 21/HTR 112), ca. 525-500 amphora now lost, no goods. 93. Child Hydria Burial 21a (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 21a/HTR 111), late 6th century BF miniature bowl BG skyphos 94. Child Amphora Burial 28 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 28/HTR 26), ca. 500 amphora, now lost small Corinthian jug (Inv. 1023) bowl(Inv. 1024) single-handle flat bowl 95. Grave 41 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 41/HTR 17), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: hoplite pursuit, man in mantle with staff Sixes-Technique lekythos (Inv. 1516): Herakles and Cerberus 96. Grave 43 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 43/Shaft Grave HTR 3'), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: Athena battling a giant, man in mantle with staff, cock on shoulder ofvase Single-handle bowl (Inv. 1560) (3) small BG bowls (Inv. 1559a-c) 97. Child Amphora Burial 47 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 47/HTR 39), ca. 500. Goods in grave. amphora, now lost BG olpe single-handle bowl

323

98. Child Amphora Burial 76 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 76/HTR47), ca. 520. BF amphora (Inv. 48): warrior with horse, male dancers following female aulos player (contained skeleton) BF palmette lekythos BF lekythos BG skyphos miniature chytra 99. Child Amphora Burial 81 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 81/HTR 63), ca. 500-490 amphora, now lost single-handle bowl (Inv. 1575) BG bowl BG miniature single-handle bowl miniature chytra 100. Child Clay Larnax Burial 105 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 105/HTR 90), ca. 500-490 BG pyxis 101. Child Earth Grave 173 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 173/35 HTR20 I), ca. 520-510 BF lekythos (Inv. 1837): dancing satyr between eyes lekythos (Inv. 1026) Corinthian (?) skyphos BG bowl 102. Earth Grave 217 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 217/39 HTR 6), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: Athena battling a giant between men in mantles with staffs, cock on shoulder of vase Terracotta salt vessels (pair) in shape of sandaled feet 103. Cremation Grave 221 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 221/39 HTR 11), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: seated woman between male figures (?) BF 'palmette' lekythos BF Pelike: seated Dionysus with cornucopia and goats on either side RF kylix: nude youth with wineskin on tondo BG kylix, burnt: non-figural BG stem cup, burnt: non-figural

324

104. Shaft-Cremation Grave 229 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 229/35 HTR 40 II), ca. 550. Goods in grave. (2) Lydian salt-vessels, burnt, non-Attic Lekythos fragment, non-Attic 105. Child Wood Coffin Burial 232 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 232/35 HTR 17 II), ca. 510 BG lekythos (Inv. 1743) (2) BG lekythoi (no Inv. nos.) BG miniature skyphos (Inv. 1742) BF miniature skyphos (Inv. 1741): birds BG miniature bowl (Inv. 4020) (3) terracotta seated female figures (Inv. 1517, 1744, 1745 = T79, T80, T81) 106. Shaft Grave 234 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 234/35 HTR 64 II), ca. 510. Goods in grave. (2) Lydian salt-vessels (Inv. 710 & 711) BF Little Master bowl (Inv. 705): winged female figure BG footed bowl (Inv. 717) BF lekythos (Inv. 707): nude running youths, youths in mantels, cocks on shoulder of vase BF lekythos (Inv. 709): wrestlers, youths in mantles BF lekythos (Inv. 708): nude dancing youth holding garlands and flanked by lions, bird frieze on shoulder of vase BF skyphos (Inv. 706): hound between youths in mantles alabastron (Inv. 720) alabastron fragment (Inv. 721) (2) stamnos-pyxides (Inv. 718 & 719) Small basket (Inv. 714) BF miniature bowl (Inv. 716): swan-frieze Miniature bowl (Inv. 715) (3) small handmade plates (Inv. 723-725) BF plate (Inv. 712): nude youth with aulos, nude jumping youth, nude lying youth, bird Small plate (Inv. 713) 107. Shaft Grave 235 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 235/35 HTR 61 II), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 1841): seated figure between giant eyes BF lekythos: Dionysus with kantharos between two figures in mantles 108. Shaft Grave 236 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 236/35 HTR 59 II), ca. 500. Goods in grave.

325

BF lekythos: hoplite battles, cock on shoulder of vase 109. Erdgrube 239 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 239/35 HTR 62 II), ca. 510-500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 1838): Centaur battling hoplite between youths in mantles with staffs BF lekythos, burnt: hoplite battle between figures in mantles with staffs, cock on shoulder of vase 110. Child Amphora Burial 241 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 241/35 HTR 22 II), ca. 525 Chiot amphora BG cup (Inv. 1725) Corinthian skyphos 111. Shaft Grave 242, Mound K, Offering Trench y (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 242/35 HTR 38 II), ca. 510-500 (female grave, Kubler) Goods in grave. BF lekythos: Theseus and minotaur, woman in mantle with garland, figure in mantle with staff BF lekythos: figure hurrying toward youth lying on kline between dancing satyrs BF lekythos (poor preservation): nude figures BF WG lekythos: Herakles or Theseus battling steer BF lekythos shoulder fragment: standing hoplites and figures in mantles BF lekythos (Inv. 1426): running or dancing female figure between giant eyes BF lekythos (Inv. 1425): nude youth wearing garland, holding a kantharos and leading steer for sacrifice; youth with lance BF three-footed pyxis (Inv. 1590): A. birth of Athena from Zeus' head on Olympus; b. Peleus wrestling Thetis; c. judgement of Paris BF three-footed pyxis (Inv. 1591): A. Theseus and Minotaur between female figures with raised arms; B. Rider departing from female figure and youth with left arms raised; C. two pairs of women working wool Polychrome bowl (inv. 1419) alabastron fragment bronze mirror 112. Shaft Grave 243 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 243/35 HTR 35 II), Erdmal c, ca. 540. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 1472): wrestlers between figures in mantles; running youths BF lekythos: seated figure between winged running male figures BG lekythos (3) Lydian salt-vessels (Inv. 1473, 1474, 1475) iron knife

326

iron lance base (?) 113. Child Amphora Burial 245 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 245/35 HTR 54 II), ca. 500-490 BF lekythos (Inv. 1719): female figure and bearded Dionysus BF lekythos (Inv. 1718): naked youth and seated figure BF lekythos (Inv. 1717): seated Dionysus with cornucopia, dancing satyrs BG lekythos (Inv. 1720) BG miniature skyphos BG small lekanis (Inv. 1716): birds 114. Shaft Grave 246 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 246/35 HTR 49 II) and Cremation Grave 247 (35 HTR 48 II), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos, burnt: bearded rider on donkey, female figure, satyr, maenad BF lekythos, burnt: chariot BF lekythos, burnt: chariot race BF lekythos: female figure standing in front of a tree (?) BF lekythos: steer-rider, man in mantle BF jug or pelike: youths in mantles; bearded old man BG goblet, burnt Single-handle bowl Alabastron Bronze cover Bronze mirror fragment Bronze fragment 115. Cremation Grave 267 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 267/S 39), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos, burnt: Dionysus with rhyton; female figure BF lekythos, burnt: horses; satyr BF lekythos, burnt: team of horses driven by satyr BF lekythos, burnt: team of horses escorting female (?) figure, satyr BF lekythos, burnt: team of horses escorting female figure, female driver BF lekythos, burnt: team of horses escorting female figure, female figure on stool BF lekythos, burnt: team of horses 116. Shaft Grave 270 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 270/S 63), ca. 540-530. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 1706): running winged figure between nude youths with staffs and figures in mantles, cocks on neck of vase BF lekythos (Inv. 1704): rider; two nude runners

327

BF lekythos (Inv. 1705): hoplite between nude running youths; siren on shoulder of vase BF lekythos (Inv. 1703): non-figural BG up to shoulder (2) Lydian salt-vessels 117. Shaft Grave 278 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-G6tte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 278/S 27), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: Apollo with kithara, Artemis, Leto, Dionysus, deer BF WG lekythos: symposiast on Mine BF lekythos: female figures; male figures in mantles BF lekythos: horse pair BF lekythos (Inv. 1488): judgment of Paris BF lekythos (Inv. 1486): aulos player, hoplites riding dolphins BF Lekythos: damaged RF lekythos (Inv. 1487): two couples: females with pomegranates; males in mantles with staffs and holding a pomegranate or purse BF WG alabastron (Inv. 1531): Peleus wrestling Thetis, lions, Chiron carrying torches BF WG alabastron (Inv. 1610): Herakles, Athena, Poseidon BG alabastron (Inv. 1485) 118. Grave 299 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 299/H 26), ca. 550. Goods in grave. BG small jug BG amphoriskos 119. Grave 329 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 329/H 129), ca. 575. Goods in grave. BG Corinthian skyphos (Inv. 1978): panther and bird frieze BF aryballos (Inv. 1981): dancing men amphoriskos (Inv. 1980) BGolpe(Inv. 1979) 120. Child Amphora Burial 363 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 363/H 116), ca. 550 amphora, now lost BG aryballos BGcup 121. Cremation Grave 408 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 408), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos, burnt: runners and mantled figures BF lekythos fragment, burnt

328

122. Child Amphora Burial 446 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 446), ca. 550 amphora, now lost BG olpe small footed bowl BG miniature skyphos BG handled cup 123. Child Pithos Burial 449 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 449), ca. 550 pithos, now lost aryballos (Inv. 695) late Corinthian: warriors aryballos (Inv. 696) round faiance seal: lions and swan round faiance seal: buck and lions (?) round faiance seal: winged, 4-legged animal faiance scarab: animal with raised tail, pointed ears and pointed nose faiance scarab: heiroglyphics on underside translating to "the good man from Thebes", an epithet of Amon from Thebes 124. Child Earth Burial 452 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 452), ca. 500 BF lekythos: male kithara player between seated female figures BF lekythos: Dionysus with drinking horn seated between eyes BF palmette lekythos lekythos fragment with cock on shoulder 125. Grave 454 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 454), ca. 500. Goods in grave. Corinthian stamnos pyxis (Inv. 694) small non-Attic bowl (Inv. 700, Biel. 6) 126. Cremation Grave 458 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 458), channel and Grabbau P, ca. 550 (2) BG lekythoi small jug, burnt 127. Grave 461 = pyre debris with Grabbau r (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 461), ca. 500. Goods in grave. Samian lekythos jug fragment, burnt

329

128. Cremation Grave 462 with (2) channels (zugrinnen) (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 462), ca. 520-510 BF lekythos: rider, youths in mantles BF lekythos (Inv. 1523): youths in mantles Lekythos fragment, burnt 129. Cremation Grave 465 and Child Burial in Amphora 466 (Kubler 1976 and KunzeGotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 465 & 466), Offering Trench 5, ca. 510 (female and child grave, Kubler). Goods in trench. BF plaque (Inv. 677), stolen: prothesis BF plaque (Inv. 690): prothesis BF phormiskos (Inv. 691): prothesis BF plate (Inv. 692): woman with salt vessel on tondo 130. Child Amphora Grave 468 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 468), ca. 500-490 SOS amphora with undecipherable graffito BF lekythos: satyr with drinking vessel BG miniature skyphos 131. Child Earth Burial Grave 470 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 470), ca. 500 BF lekythos (Inv. 1522): nude rider between two nude runners; cock on shoulder; similarities to vases produced in Euoboea BF lekythos (Inv. 1707): nude youth confronting Sphinx; similarities to vases produced in Euoboea BG pyxis (Inv. 1039) BF miniature bowl (5) dice

132. Shaft Grave 472 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 472), ca. 510-500 (female grave, Kubler). Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 667): Dionysus, dancing satyr BF lekythos (Inv. 666): Athena in Aegis battling giant; Herakles BF lekythos (Inv. 669): Maenad scene BF lekythos: horse, warrior, nude youth, cock on neck of vase (2) BF lekythos: robed figure with lance (or staff?) on stool; nude youths with lances; cock on neck of vase BF lekythos: nude runners between youths in mantles; cock on neck of vase BF skyphos (Inv. 670): Corinthian type, swan, owl BG kylix (Inv. 668) Miniature BF skyphos (Inv. 1724): Corinthian type, swans

330

Miniature BF bowl (Inv. 1723): swans (2) Miniature BF lekanes (Inv. 1721,1722) Terracotta basket (Inv. 674) Miniature lamp (Inv. 675) Glass amphoriskos (Inv. 673) (2) terracotta seated figures (Inv. 671, 672 = T 49, T 48) Bronze armband with snakeheads Bronze earrings Bronze bowl fragment 133. Shaft Grave 475 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 475), Mound R, ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 1839): horse pair and driver; Dionysus with rhyton BF lekythos: hoplite and Amazon; bearded figure and youth in mantles (2) BF lekythos: Dionysus with stool and kantharos, maenads BF lekythos: warrior surrounded by figures in mantles BF lekythos: two figures surrounded by figures in mantles; cock on shoulder of vase BF lekythos (Inv. 1835): Athena against enemy surrounded by figures in mantles BF lekythos: warriors 134. Shaft Grave 478 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 478), Grabbau s, ca. 550-540. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 1700): woman making anakalupterion gesture; nude youths Lydian salt-vessel Alabastron fragment 135. Cremation Grave 480 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 480), ca. 560. Goods in grave. BG skyphos: Corinthian type Corinthian miniature skyphos BG amphoriskos 136. Grave 485 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 485), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: Dionysus with drinking horn, stool, between two dancing maenads WG miniature skyphos 137. Grave 520 (Kiibler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 520), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: two pairs of hoplites between youths in mantles BF lekythos: bearded old man on stool with staff between youths in mantles with staffs

331

BF lekythos: two pairs of figures in mantles with lances BF lekythos: seated man in mantle with staff; nude youths and youths in mantles; cock on shoulder of vase BF lekythos (Inv. 1715): hoplite pursuit between youths in mantles; cock on shoulder of the vase BF lekythos (Inv. 1714): warriors between youths in mantles; cock on shoulder of the vase BF lekythos: hoplite battle; cock on shoulder of the vase BF lekythos (Inv. 1713): running maenad between giant eyes; cock on shoulder of the vase BF lekythos: seated man in mantle with staff; nude youths and youths in mantles BG skyphos (Inv. 1711) Corinthian type BG footed bowl Base of lekanis (Inv. 1712) BG small bowl (Inv. 1710) (2) Lydian salt-vessels 138. Cremation Grave 541 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 541), ca. 550 (female grave, Kubler). Goods in grave. BG small jug Handmade small jug BG lekanis RF pyxis (Inv. 1065): pet dog on cover; potter's signature BG small bowl 139. Grave 546 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 546), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: nude youth and youths in mantles BF lekythos: damaged; cock on shoulder of vase 140. Grave 565 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 565), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: facing figures in mantles surrounded by figures in mantles BF lekythos: steers 141. Shaft Grave 613 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave 613), Offering Trench e, Built Tomb u, ca. 570 BG lekythos in grave (Inv. 10) BG small cup in grave (Inv. 8) Corinthian three-footed pyxis in grave (Inv. 6) Handmade small jug in grave (Inv. 7) Lydian salt-vessel in grave (Inv. 9) BG small bowl in trench (Inv. 5) Foot of large vessel in trench (Inv. 4)

332

142. Grave S 97 (Kubler 1976 and Kunze-Gotte, Tancke, and Vierneisel 1999, Grave S 97), late 6th century. Goods in grave. lekythos: hoplite between mantled figures 143. Child Amphora Burial 1 (Knigge 1976, Grave 1/SW 70), ca. 550 horse-head amphora (contained skeleton) (2) small Corinthian jugs amphoriskos 144. Shaft Grave 3 (Knigge 1976, Grave 3/HW 87), ca. 520 (male skeleton, Knigge) Goods in grave. (lO)'Samian' lekythoi (3) Lydian salt-vessels Jug fragment with non-alphabetic grafitto on shoulder 145. Cremation Grave 4 (Knigge 1976, Grave 4/HW 65), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: warrior, youths wearing garlands and mantles and holding spears BF lekythos: Herakles in battle with Amazon or giant between spectators, 1 in mantle and 1 with spear. BF lekythos: male figure seated on stool between standing men holding spears; hound chasing a hare on shoulder of the vase Attic skyphos, Corinthian type 146. Child (?) Amphora Burial 5 (Knigge 1976, Grave 5/HW 169), ca. 510-500, disturbed lekythos: running hoplite, mantled figures small bowl pyxis cover 147. Child Amphora Burial 7 (Knigge 1976, Grave 7/SW 108), ca. 500 BF lekythos: warrior and amazon, mantled figures, hound and hare on shoulder olpe BG Attic skyphos 148. Child Amphora Burial 8 (Knigge 1976, Grave 8/SW 109), ca. 500 no goods. 149. Child (?) Amphora Burial 9 (Knigge 1976, Grave 9/SW 35), ca. 500, disturbed WG lekythos: dancing Maenads and satyrs olpe BG small bowl BG covered pyxis

333

150. Cremation Grave 10 (Knigge 1976, Grave 10/HW 195), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos (Inv. 4051): bearded Dionysus between two large eyes; cock on the shoulder of the vase Kylix (Inv. 4049) BF pelike (Inv. 4049): Odysseus under the ram; running women Single-handle cooking pot 151. Inhumation Grave 11 (Knigge 1976, Grave 11/HW 38), ca. 500 (male skeleton, Knigge) Goods in grave. BF lekythos: man and woman between mantled spectators BF lekythos: bearded man opposite a seated woman BF lekythos: quadriga with standing charioteer BF lekythos: two seated women 152. Inhumation Grave 12 (Knigge 1976, Grave 12/HW 148), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BG kylix 153. Child (?) Amphora Grave 13 (Knigge 1976, Grave 13/HW 100), ca. 500 covered bowl 154. Inhumation Grave 14 (Knigge 1976, Grave 14/HW 51), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: bearded Dionysus holding a kantharos and seated on a stool between two large eyes 155. Inhumation Grave 15 (Knigge 1976, Grave 15/HW 48), ca. 500, disturbed. Goods in grave. BF 'palmette' lekythos 156. Child (?) Amphora Burial 16 (Knigge 1976, Grave 16/HW 167), ca. 500-490 covered pyxis miniature olpe: goat small bowl 157. Child Amphora Burial 17 (Knigge 1976, Grave 17/SW 137), ca. 500-490 WG lekythos: Dionysus and women lekythos: male figure between dancing women lekythos: seated Dionysus between dancing satyrs lekythos: lyre player between standing women lekythos: bearded and reclining men lekythos: battling hoplites between mantled figures, cock on shoulder covered pyxis miniature skyphos olpe

334

158. Inhumation Grave 18 (Knigge 1976, Grave 18/HW 83), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: seated Dionysus (?) in long robe holding cornucopia between dancing women BG lekythos 159. Double Inhumation Grave 19 (Knigge 1976, Grave 19/HW 132), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: three standing figures in mantles, one with garland and holding a kantharos BG lekythos 160. Child (?) Amphora Burial 24 (Knigge 1976, Grave 24/SW 13), ca. 500-490 olpe small bowl 161. Cremation Grave El (Knigge 1976, Grave El/c40), ca. 510 BF lekythos, burnt: running figure in short garment between standing figures in mantles; cock on shoulder of the vase skyphos bowl 162. Child (?) Amphora Burial E2 (Knigge 1976, Grave E2/b26), ca. 525 miniature lekane miniature Corinthian skyphos 163. Grave E3 (Knigge 1976, Grave E3/c39), ca. 500. Goods in grave. Pyxis with swan on cover Small bowl 164. Grave E4 (Knigge 1976, Grave E4/a34), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF 'palmette' lekythos 165. Cremation(?) Grave E5 (Knigge 1976, Grave E5/b21), ca. 500. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: hoplites battling between standing figures in mantles; cock (?) on shoulder of vase 166. Cremation(?) Grave E6 (Knigge 1976, Grave E6/b22), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos, burnt: Dionysus holding cornucopia and seated on stool between two seated women Skyphos bowl, burnt 167. Grave E7 (Knigge 1976, Grave E7/a29), ca. 500. Goods in grave.

335

BF lekythos: hoplite between mantled seated and standing figures; cock on shoulder of vase Small BG bowl with grafitto (2) eye-beads Bronze ring fragments 168. Child (?) Amphora Burial E8 (Knigge 1976, Grave E8/b34), late 6th century ring askos 169. Child (?) Amphora Burial E9 (Knigge 1976, Grave E9/c26), ca. 500-490 lekythos: lyre players (?), mantled figures BF lekythos: 'fat-belly' dancers 170. Child (?) Terracotta Larnax Burial E10 (Knigge 1976, Grave E10), ca. 500 BF 'palmette' lekythos BF lekythos fragment: running figure; seated(?) figure Miniature skyphos 171. Child (?) Amphora Burial El 1 (Knigge 1976, Grave El l/d49), ca. 500 BF lekythos: standing and seated, mantled, bearded figures with lances, hoplites, cock on shoulder olpe BG covered pyxis 172. Grave E12 (Knigge 1976, Grave E12/c32), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. BF lekythos: figure between two high rocks Lekanis 173. Child (?) Amphora Burial E13 (Knigge 1976, Grave E13/b28), ca. 500-490 BG Attic miniature skyphos BG Attic miniature skyphos olpe BG covered bowl krater foot 174. Child (?) Amphora Burial E14 (Knigge 1976, Grave E14/c24), ca. 500-490 jug fragment 175. Grave El5 (Knigge 1976, Grave E15/c46), ca. 500-490. Goods in grave. Lekythos Miniature Corinthian skyphos Olpe Bowl on high foot

336

176. Child (?) Amphora Burial 22 (Knigge 1976, Grave Pr 1), ca. 525 pyxis miniature jug: birds Corinthian oinochoe 177. Child (?) Amphora Burial (Knigge 1976, Grave Pr 2), ca. 500 olpe pyxis palmette kylix (lost) 178. Child (?) Amphora Burial (Knigge 1976, Grave Pr 2), ca. 500 olpe

337

Bibliography Ahlberg-Cornell, Gudrun. 1971. Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art. Goteborg: P. Astrom S. Vagen 61. Alcock, Susan E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories, W.B. Stanford Memorial Lectures. Cambridge, UK; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Alexiou, Margaret. 2002. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. 2nd ed, Greek Studies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Original edition, 1974. Arend, Walter. 1933. Die typischen Szenen bei Homer. Berlin: Weidmann. Atchity, K., and E.J.W. Barber. 1987. Greek Princes and Aegean Princesses: The Role of Women in the Homeric Poems. In Critical Essays on Homer, edited by K. J. Atchity, R. C. Hogart and D. Price. Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall. Autenrieth, Georg, and Robert P. Keep. 1979. A Homeric Dictionary for Schools and Colleges. 7th ed. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Original edition, 1904. Baba, Keiji. 1984. On Kerameikos Inv. I 388 (SEG XXII, 79): A Note on the Formation of the Athenian Metic-Status. The Annual of the British School at Athens 79: 1-5. Bailey, B. L. 1940. The Export of Attic Black-Figure Ware. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 60: 60-70. Bakewell, Geoffrey W. 1997. MeToucia in the 'Supplices' of Aeschylus. Classical Antiquity 16 (2): 209-228. Beazley, J. D. 1963. Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters. 2d ed. Oxford,: Clarendon Press. . 1978. Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters. New York: Hacker Art Books. . 1986. The Development ofAttic Black-Figure. Rev. ed. Sather Classical Lectures, Vol. 24. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press. Bellamy, Rufus. 1989. Bellerophon's Tablet. The Classical Journal 84 (4): 289-307. Bennet, John. 1997. Homer and the Bronze Age. In A New Companion to Homer, edited by I. Morris and B. B. Powell. Leiden; New York: Brill. Benson, J. L. 1970. Horse, Bird and Man: The Origins of Greek Painting. Amherst:

338

University of Massachusetts Press. Bergren, Ann. 2008a. Helen's Web: Time and Tableau in the Iliad. In Weaving Truth: Essays on Language and the Female in Greek Thought. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University. . 2008b. Helen's Good Drug. In Weaving Truth: Essays on Language and the Female in Greek Thought. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Hellenic Studies Trustees for Harvard University. Binford, L.R. 1971. Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potential. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. A. Brown. Washington: Society for American Archaeology. Birchall, Ann. 1972. Attic Horse-Head Amphorae. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 92: 46-63. Blank, David L. 1988. Lesbonax. In Sammlung griechischer und lateinischer Grammatiker, edited by D. L. Blank. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. Blegen, Carl W. 1952. Two Athenian Grave Groups of about 900 B.C. Hesperia 21 (4): 279-294. Boardman, John. 1955. Painted Funerary Plaques and Some Remarks on Prothesis. The Annual of the British School at Athens 50: 51-66. . 1978. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period: A Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson. . 1981. Herakles. In Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae: (LIMC), edited by Fondation pour le Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Zurich: Artemis Verlag. . 1985. Athenian Black Figure Vases: A Handbook, World of art. New York, N.Y.: Thames and Hudson. . 1988. Sex Differentiation in Grave Vases. Annali Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico: La Parola, L'Imagine, La Tomba X: 171-179. Bradley, Richard. 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. . 1998. Ruined Buildings, Ruined Stones: Enclosures, Tombs and Natural Places

339

in the Neolithic of South-West England. World Archaeology 30 (1): 13-22. Bremmer, Jan N. 2008. Greek Religion and Culture, the Bible, and the Ancient Near East. Leiden ; Boston: Brill. Broneer, Oscar. 1971. Isthmia I: Temple of Poseidon, Isthmia: Excavations by the University of Chicago, under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton, N.J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Brooklyn, Jerrie Pike. 1981. Attic Black-Figure Funerary Plaques. Ph.D., University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Brulotte, Eric L. 1994. The "Pillar of Oinomaos" and the Location of Stadium I at Olympia. American Journal of Archaeology 98 (1): 53-64. Bryson, Norman. 1983. Vision and Painting: the Logic of the Gaze, Language, Discourse, Society. London: MacMillan Press. Burgess, Jonathan S. 2009. The Death and Afterlife ofAchilles. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Burkert, Walter. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. . 1988. The Meaning and Function of the Temple in Classical Greece. In Temple in Society, edited by M. V. Fox. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Camp, John McK. 1979. A Drought in the Late Eighth Century B.C. Hesperia 48 (4): 397-411. . 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens. London: Thames and Hudson. . 2001. The Archaeology ofAthens. New Haven ; London: Yale University Press. Clay, Jenny Strauss. 1996. The New Simonides and Homer's Hemitheoi. Arethusa 29: 243-245. . 2007. Homer's Trojan Theater. Transactions of the American Philological Association 137: 233-252. Closterman, Wendy. 2007. The Sappho Painter's Loutrophoros Amphora (NM 450) and Athenian Burial Ritual. Classical Bulletin 83 (1): 49-61.

340

Coldstream, J. N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and their Chronology. London: Methuen. . 2003. Geometric Greece : 900-700 BC. 2nd ed. London; New York: Routledge. Collignon, Maxime. 1911. Les Statues Funeraires Dans VArt Grec. Paris: E. Leroux. Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember, Themes in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, R. M. 1989. The Francis-Vickers Chronology. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 109: 164-170. Crowther, N. B. 1991. The Apobates Reconsidered (Demosthenes lxi 23-9). The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111: 174-176. D'Onofrio, A. M. 1982. "Korai e kouroi funerary attici." Annali di Archeologia e di Storia Antica, Istituto Orientali di Napoli 4: 135-70. . 1988. "Aspetti e problemi del monumento funerario attico arcaico." Annali di Archeologia e di Storia Antica, Istituto Orientali di Napoli 10: 82-96. Dahm, Murray K. 2007. Not Twins at All: The Agora Oinochoe Reinterpreted. Hesperia 76 (4): 717-730. Day, Joseph W. 1989. Rituals in Stone: Early Greek Grave Epigrams and Monuments. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 109: 16-28. De Polignac, Francois. 1984. La Naissance de la Cite Grecque: Cultes, Espace et Societe VIIIe-VHe Siecles Avant J.-C. Paris: Editions la Decouverte. Derderian, Katharine. 2001. Leaving Words to Remember: Greek Mourning and the Advent of Literacy, Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava. Supplementum; 209. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Dillon, Matthew P. J. 2006. Was Kleisthenes or Pleisthenes Archon at Athens in 525 BC? Zeitschriftfur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 155: 91-107. Donlan, Walter. 1985. The Social Groups of Dark Age Greece. Classical Philology 80 (4): 293-308. Dyck, Andrew R. 2004. A Commentary on Cicero, De legibus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

341

Eaverly, Mary Ann. 1995. Archaic Greek Equestrian Sculpture. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. Edwards, Anthony T. 1988. Kleos Aphthiton and Oral Theory. The Classical Quarterly 38 (1): 25-30. Edwards, Mark W. 1987. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1956. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Farenga, Vincent. 1998. Narrative and Community in Dark Age Greece: A Cognitive and Communicative Approach to Early Greek Citizenship. Arethusa 31 (2): 179-206. Fentress, James, and Chris Wickham. 1992. Social Memory. Edited by American Council of Learned Societies. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Original edition, 1979. Ferrari, Gloria. 2003. What Kind of Rite of Passage was the Ancient Greek Wedding? In Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives: New Critical Perspectives, edited by D. B. Dodd and C. A. Faraone. London; New York: Routledge. Finkelberg, Margalit. 1986. Is Kleos Aphthiton a Homeric Formula? The Classical Quarterly 36 (1): 1-5. . 2007. More On Kleos Aphthiton. The Classical Quarterly 57 (2): 341-350. Foley, Helene P. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Foley, John Miles. 2002. How to Read an Oral Poem. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Ford, Andrew Laughlin. 1992. Homer: The Poetry of the Past. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Francis, E. D. 1990. Image and Idea in Fifth Century Greece: Art and Literature after the Persian Wars. Edited by M. J. Vickers. London New York: Routledge. Frel, Jiri. 1973. Panathenaic Prize Amphoras. Kerameikos. Athens: Esperos. Friedlander, Paul, and Herbert Benno Hoffleit. 1948. Epigrammata, Greek Inscriptions in Verse from the Beginnings to the Persian Wars. Berkeley,: University of California Press.

342

Furtwangler, Adolf. 1964. Masterpieces of Greek sculpture: A Series of Essays on the History of Art. Edited by A. N. Oikonomides. Chicago, IL: Argonaut Publishers. Original edition, 1895. Gallis, Konstantinos. 1975. Cremation Burials From the Early Neolithic in Thessaly. Athens Annals of Archaeology 8: 241-258. . 1982. Kauseis nekrdn apo te Neolithike epoche ste Thessalia. Athenai: Ekdose Tameiou Archaiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon. Gallou, Chrysanthi. 2005. The Mycenaean Cult of the Dead. Oxford: Archaeopress. Garland, Robert J. S. 1984-86. Tepaq Oavovxcbv: An Investigation into the Claims of the Homeric Dead. Ancient Society xv-xvii: 5-22. . 2001. The Greek Way of Death. 2nd ed, Cornell paperbacks. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Geary, Patrick J. 1994. Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. . 2002. Oblivion between Orality and Textuality in the Tenth Century. In Medieval Concepts of the Past: Ritual, Memory, Historiography, edited by G. Althoff, J. Fried and P. J. Geary. Washington, D.C.; Cambridge, U.K.: Publications of the German Historical Institute; Cambridge University Press. Gernet, L. 1981. "Value" in Greek Myth. In Myth, Religion, and Society: Structuralist Essays, edited by R. L. Gordon. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Goebel, George H. 1989. In Response to Rufus Bellamy, "Bellerophon's Tablet, " CJ 84 (1989) 289-307. "Bellerophon's Tablet". A Comment. The ClassicalJournal 85 (2): 170-171. Goette, H.R. 2001. Athens, Attica, and the Megarid: An Archaeological Guide. Rev. and updated English ed. London; New York: Routledge. . 2009. Images in the Athenian "Demosion Sema". In Art in Athens During the Peloponnesian War, edited by O. Palagia. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Golden, Mark. 1990. Children and Childhood in Classical Athens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

343

Goldstein, Lynne G. 1976. Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestations of Mississippian Society, Ph.D., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Gombrich, E. H. 1961. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. 2nd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Published for Bollingen Foundation by Princeton University Press. Goody, Jack. 1962. Death, Property and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the LoDagaa of West Africa. Stanford, Calif.,: Stanford University Press. . 1977. Memoire et Apprentissage dans les Societes avec et sans Ecriture: La Transmission du Bagre. L'Homme 17: 29-52. Graf, Fritz. 2003. Initiation: A Concept with a Troubled History. In Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives: New Critical Perspectives, edited by D. B. Dodd and C. A. Faraone. London; New York: Routledge. Halbwachs, Maurice, and Jeanne Halbwachs Alexandre. 1950. La Memoire Collective. 1. ed. ed. Paris,: Presses Universitaires de France. Harrison, Evelyn B. 1965. The Athenian Agora XI: Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. Princeton, N.J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Herodotos, and Karl Hude. 1908. Herodoti Historiae. Editio altera, ed. Oxonii,: e Typographeo Clarendoniano. Hertz, Robert. 1907. Contribution a une Etude sur la Representation Collective de la Mort. Annee Sociologique 10: 48-137. Hoffman, H. 1994. The Riddle of the Sphinx: A Case Study in Athenian Immortality Symbolism. In Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, edited by I. Morris. Cambridge England ; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hoist-Warhaft, Gail. 1995. Dangerous Voices : Women's Laments and Greek Literature. London; New York: Routledge. Homer, D. B. Monro, and Thomas W. Allen. 1902. Homeri Opera. Oxonii,: E typographeo Clarendoniano. Hornblower, Simon. 1991. ^4 Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Vol. 1. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

344

Humphreys, S. C. 1980. Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism? The Journal of Hellenic Studies 100: 96-126. Hurwit, Jeffrey M. 1985. The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100-480 B.C. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. . 2002. Reading the Chigi Vase. Hesperia 71 (1): 1-22. Immerwahr, H.R. 1967. An Inscribed Terracotta Ball in Boston. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 8: 255-266. . 1990. Attic Script: A Survey. Oxford, England; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. Jacoby, Felix. 1944. GENESIA. A Forgotten Festival of the Dead. The Classical Quarterly 38 (3/4): 65-75. Jeffery, Lilian H. 1962. The Inscribed Gravestones of Archaic Attica. The Annual of the British School at Athens 57: 115-153. Jeffery, L. H., and A. W. Johnston. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Developmentfromthe Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. Rev. ed. Oxford [England] Clarendon Press; Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University Press. Jones, Andrew. 2003. Technologies of Remembrance. In Archaeologies of Remembrance: Death and Memory in Past Societies, edited by H. Williams. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Johnston, Sarah lies. 2005. Delphi and the Dead. In Mantike, edited by S. I. Johnston and P. T. Struck. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Jung, Michael. 2006. Marathon und Plataiai: zwei Terserschlachten als "Lieux de Memoire" im antiken Griechenland. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Just, Roger. 1991. Women in Athenian Law and Life. London ; New York: Routledge. Kakavoyiannis, E. 2007. Memories of Phrasikleia. In Great Moments in Greek Archaeology. Athens, Los Angeles: Kapon Editions and Getty Publications. Kaltsas, Nikolaos. 2002. Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens. Translated by D. Hardy. Los Angeles, Calif.: J. Paul Getty Museum. Karusos, Christos. 1961. Aristodikos; zur Geschichte der spdtarchaisch-attischen Plastik

345

und der Grabstatue. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Karydi, Eleni. 1963. Schwarzfigurige Loutrophoren im Kerameikos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 78: 90-103. Keesling, Catherine M. 2003. The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. . 2005. Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical Periods: Three Studies. Hesperia 74 (3): 395-426. Kirk, G. S. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary. 6 vols. Vol. 1. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Kissas, Konstantin. 2000. Die attischen Statuen- und Stelenbasen archdischer Zeit. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt. Knigge, Ursula. 1976. Kerameikos IX: Der Sudhugel. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. . 1983. Ein Jiinglingskopf vom Heiligen Tor in Athen. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 98: 45-56. . 1991. The Athenian Kerameikos: History, Monuments, Excavations. Translated by J. Binder. Athens: Krene. Original edition, 1988. . 2006. Ein Grabmonument der Alkmeoniden im Kerameikos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 121: 127-162. Knigge, Ursula, W. Koenigs, and A. Mallwitz. 1980. Kerameikos XII: Rundbauten im Kerameikos. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Kraay, Colin M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins. London: Methuen. Krause, Giinter. 1976. Untersuchungen zu den dltesten Nekropolen am Eridanos in Athen. Hamburg: Buske. Kritikos, P., and S. Papadaki. 1963. MrjKcovos KCCI 'Oiriou 'Icrropia KCCI EV Tfj nepioxtj Tfjs avaToXiKfjs MeaoyEiou KctTa Tnv ApxaioTnTa. Archaiologike Ephemeris: 80-150. Kiibler, Karl. 1943. Kerameikos IV: Neufunde aus der Nakropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. . 1954. Kerameikos V: Die Nekropole des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts. 2 vols. Berlin:

346

Walter de Gruyter. . 1959. Kerameikos VI, Part 1: Die Nekropole des spdten 8. bis Fruhen 6. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. . 1970. Kerameikos VI, Part 2: Die Nekropole des spdten 8. bis Fruhen 6. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. . 1973. Eine Archaische Grabanlage vor dem Heiligen Tor und ihre Deutung. Archdologischer Anzeiger: Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts 88 (2): 172-193. . 1976. Kerameikos VII, Part 1: Die Nekropole der Mitte des 6. bis Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Kunze-Gotte, E., K. Tancke, and K. Vierneisel. 1999. Kerameikos VII, Part 2: Die Nekropole der Mitte des 6. bis Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. Kurtz, Donna C, and John Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs, Aspects of Greek and Roman life. London: Thames and Hudson. Langdon, Merle K. 1976. A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos. Hesperia Supplements 16. Princeton, N.J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Langdon, Susan Helen. 2008. Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100—700 B.C.E. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Lauter, H., Heide Lauter-Bufe, and Florian Seiler. 1985. Der Kultplatz aufdem Turkovuni. Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Lawler, Lillian B. 1947. A Dancer's Trophy. The Classical Weekly 41 (4): 50-52. Lincoln, Bruce. 1979. The Rape of Persephone: A Greek Scenario of Women's Initiation. The Harvard Theological Review 72 (3/4): 223-235. . 1981. Emerging From the Chrysalis: Studies in Rituals of Women's Initiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Liston, Maria A., and John K. Papadopoulos. 2004. The "Rich Athenian Lady" Was Pregnant: The Anthropology of a Geometric Tomb Reconsidered. Hesperia 73 (1): 7-38. Loraux, Nicole. 2006. The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical

347

City. Translated by A. Sheridan. New York; Cambridge, Mass.: Zone Books. First Published in French 1981. Lord, Albert Bates. 1951. Composition by Theme in Homer and Southslavic Epos. Transactions of the American Philological Association 82: 71-80. Lord, Albert Bates. 2000. The Singer of Tales. Edited by S. Mitchell and G. Nagy. 2nd ed, Harvard studies in comparative literature; 24. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Original edition, 1960. Lorimer, Hilda Lockhart. 1950. Homer and the Monuments. London: Macmillan. Lullies, R. 1946/1947. Attisch-Schwarzfigurige Keramik aus dem Kerameikos. Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen Instituts 61/62: 55-75. Lynch, K.M. 2007. Athenian Black-Figured and Black-Gloss Pottery. In The Art of Antiquity : Piet de Jong and the Athenian Agora, edited by J. K. Papadopoulos. Princeton, NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. MacDowell, Douglas M. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Markoe, Glenn E. 1989. The "Lion Attack" in Archaic Greek Art: Heroic Triumph. Classical Antiquity 8 (1): 86-115. Mastrokostas, E. 1972. He Kore Phrasiklea Aristonos tou Pariou kai Kouros Marmarinos Anekaluphthesan en Myrrinounti / Myrrinous: La Kore Phrasikleia, Oeuvre d'Aristion de Paros et un Kouros en Marbre. Archaiologika Analekta exAthenon. Athens Annals of Archaeology: 298-324. . 1974. Eis Anazetesin Elleiponton Melon Epitymbion ArchaTkon Glyptron para ten Anabysson. To Klimakoton Bathron tou Kourou Kroisou / Die Dreistufenbasis des Kroisos-Kouros. Archaiologika Analekta exAthenon. Athens Annals of Archaeology: 215-228. McGowan, Elizabeth P. 1995. Tomb Marker and Turning Post: Funerary Columns in the Archaic Period. American Journal ofArchaeology 99 (4): 615-632. Meiggs, Russell, and David M. Lewis. 1988. A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century B.C. Rev. ed. Oxford Oxfordshire; New York: Clarendon; Oxford University Press. Metcalf, Peter. 1981. Meaning and Materialism: The Ritual Economy of Death. Man 16 (4): 563-578.

348

Metcalf, Peter, and Richard Huntington. 1991. Celebrations of Death : The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. 2nd ed. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, Elizabeth A. 1993. Epitaphs and Citizenship in Classical Athens. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 113: 99-121. Moore, Mary B., Mary Zelia Pease Philippides, and Dietrich Von Bothmer. 1986. Attic Black-Figured Pottery. Vol. XXIII, The Athenian Agora. Princeton, N.J.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Morris, Ian. 1986. The Use and Abuse of Homer. Classical Antiquity 5 (1): 81-138. . 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Edited by American Council of Learned Societies. 1st pbk. ed, New studies in Archaeology. Cambridge England; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. . 1994. Everyman's Grave. In Athenian identity and civic ideology, edited by A. L. Boegehold and A. C. Scafuro. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Morris, Ian and Barry B. Powell. 1997. A New Companion to Homer, Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava. Supplementum, 163. Leiden ; New York: Brill. Morris, Sarah P. 1984. The Black and White Style: Athens and Aigina in the Orientalizing Period. New Haven: Yale University Press. . 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. . 2007. Troy Between Bronze and Iron Ages: Myth, Cult and Memory in a Sacred Landscape. In Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology, edited by S. P. Morris, and R. Laffineur. Los Angeles, UCLA - The J. Paul Getty Villa: Universite de Liege. Morris, Sarah P., and John K. Papadopoulos. 2004. Of Granaries and Games: Egyptian Stowaways in an Athenian Chest: XAPE: Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004). Hesperia Supplement 33: 225-242. Murnaghan, Sheila. 1999. The Poetics of Loss in Greek Epic. In Epic Traditions in the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, edited by J. Tylus, M. H. Beissinger, and S. L. Wofford. Berkeley: University of California Press. Mylonas, George E. 1948. Homeric and Mycenaean Burial Customs. American Journal of Archaeology 52 (1): 56-81.

349

. 1951. The Figured Mycenaean Stelai. American Journal of Archaeology 55 (2): 134-147. . 1957. Ho Protoattikos Amphoreus tes Eleusinos. Athens: Athens Archaeological Society. Nagy, Gregory. 1990. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. . 1999. The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry. Rev. ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Neer, Richard T. 2002. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting: the Craft of Democracy, ca. 530-460 B.C.E, Cambridge studies in classical art and iconography. New York: Cambridge University Press. Neils, Jenifer. 1992. The Morgantina Phormiskos. American Journal of Archaeology 96 (2): 225-235. Nora, Pierre. 1984. Les Lieux de Memoire. Paris: Gallimard. Ober, Josiah. 2004. The Athenian Revolution of 508/7 B.C.: Violence, Authority, and the Origins of Democracy. In Athenian Democracy, edited by P. J. Rhodes. New York: Oxford University Press. Original edition, In Cultural Poetics in Ancient Greece, edited by C. Dougherty and L. Kurke. Cambridge University Press, 1993: 215-232; The current revised version was published in J. Ober. The Athenian Revolution. Princeton University Press, 1996: 32-52. Ohly, D. 1962. Zwei Bruchstiicke einer archaischen Gorgo aus dem Kerameikos. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 77: 92-104. Osborne, Robin. 1989. A Crisis in Archaeological History? The Seventh Century B.C. in Attica. The Annual of the British School at Athens 84: 297-322. Page, Denys Lionel. 1981. Further Greek epigrams: Epigrams Before A.D. 50fromthe Greek Anthology and Other Sources, not included in Hellenistic Epigrams or The Garland of Philip. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. Papadopoulos, John K. 1999. Tricks and Twins: Nestor, Actorione-Molione, the Agora Oinochoe, and the Potter Who Made Them. In Meletemata : Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, edited by P. P. Betancourt and M. H. Wiener. Liege; Austin: Universite de Liege; University of Texas at Austin.

350

. 2003. Ceramicus Redivivus : The Early Iron Age Potters' Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora. Princeton, N.J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. . 2008. The Archaic Wall of Athens: Reality or Myth? Opuscula I: 31-46. Papadopoulos, John K, and Evelyn Lord Smithson. 2002. The Cultural Biography of a Cycladic Geometric Amphora: Islanders in Athens and the Prehistory of Metics. Hesperiall (2): 149-199. Parry, Milman. 1987. The Making of Homeric verse: The Collected Papers ofMilman Parry. Edited by A. Parry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Original edition, 1971. Patterson, Cynthia. 1981. Pericles' Citizenship Law of 451-50 B.C. Salem, N.H.: Ayer. . 1998. The Family in Greek History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pearson, Mike Parker. 2000. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Edited by D. G. Steele, Texas A&M University Anthropology Series; no. 3. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Original edition, 1999. Phillips, David D. 2008. Avengers of Blood: Homicide in Athenian Law and Custom from Draco to Demosthenes. Vol. 202, Historia Einzelschriften. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Pindar, Bruno Snell, and Herwig Maehler. 1997. Pindari Carmina cumfragmentis. Editio stereotypa editionis 8. (1987) ed. 2 vols. Vol. Pars 1: Epinicia, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Stutgardiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri. Pindarus. 2001. Pindari Carmina cumfragmentis. Edited by H. Maehler, Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Munchen and Leipzig: K.G. Saur Verlag GmbH. Purves, Alex. 2006. Unmarked Space: Odysseus and the Inland Journey. Arethusa 39: 1-20. Rasmussen, Tom. 1991. Corinth and the Orientalizing Phenomenon. In Looking at Greek Vases, edited by T. Rasmussen and N. J. Spivey. Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press. Raubitschek, A. E., and L. H. Jeffery. 1949. Dedicationsfromthe Athenian Akropolis; A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and fifth Centuries B. C. Cambridge, Mass.,: Archaeological Institute of America.

351

Raubitschek, A. E. 1968. Das Denkmal-Epigramm. In L'Epigramme grecque. Vandceuvres-Geneve: Fondation Hardt pour l'etude de l'Antiquite classique. Redfield, James M. 1994. Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector. Expanded ed. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Original edition, 1975. Reese, D. 1995. Equid Sacrifices/Burials in Greece and Cyprus: an Addendum. Journal of Prehistoric Religion 9: 34-42. Rhodes, Robin F. 2003. The Earliest Greek Architecture in Corinth and the 7th-Century Temple on Temple Hill. Corinth 20: 85-94. Rhodes, P.J. 1981. yi Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia. London; New York: Oxford University Press. Richardson, N. J. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary, Books 21-24. Edited by G. S. Kirk. 6 vols. Vol. 6, The Iliad: A Commentary. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Richter, Gisela M. A. 1942. Terracotta Plaques from Early Attic Tombs. The Metropolitan Museum ofArt Bulletin 1 (1): 80-92. . 1944. Archaic Attic gravestones. Cambridge, Mass.,: Published for Oberlin College and the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Harvard University Press. . 1945. Peisistratos' Law regarding Tombs. American Journal of Archaeology 49 (2): 152. . 1988. Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens; A Study of the Development of the Kore Type in Greek sculpture. London,: Phaidon. Original edition, 1968. Richter, Gisela Marie Augusta, and Irma A. Richter. 1970. Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths: A Study of the Development of the Kouros Type in Greek Sculpture. 3 ed. New York: Hacker Art Books. Original edition, 1942. Ridgway, Brunilde S. 1975. A Poros Kouros from Isthmia. Hesperia 44 (4): 426-430. . 1993. The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture. 2nd ed. Chicago, 111.: Ares. Rombos, Theodora. 1988. The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery. Partille, Sweden: Astroms Forlag. Sahin, Nuran. 1992. A Propos d'une Stele Funeraire ArchaTque. L'Antiquite Classique LXI: 232-236.

352

Sass, Benjamin. 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 BCE: The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets. Edited by Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. TelAviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology. Saxe, Arthur A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Schaps, David M. 1981. Economic Rights of Women in Ancient Greece. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schnapp-Gourbeillon, Annie. 1982. Les Funerailles de Patrocle. In La Mort, les Morts dans les Societes Anciennes, edited by G. Gnoli and J. P. Vernant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schultz, Peter. 2007. The Iconography of the Athenian Apobates Race: Origins, Meanings, Transformation. In The Panathenaic Games: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the University of Athens, May 11-12, 2004, edited by O. Palagia and A. Choremi-Spetsieri. Oxford; Oakville, CT: Oxbow. Scodel, Ruth. 1982. The Achaean Wall and the Myth of Destruction. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 86: 33-50. . 1992. Inscription, Absence and Memory: Epic and Early Epitaph. Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica X (I-II): 57-78. Seaford, Richard. 1994. Reciprocity and Ritual: Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State. Oxford England; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. Shanks, Michael. 1999. Art and the Greek City State: An Interpretive Archaeology, New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Shapiro, H. A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. . 1991. The Iconography of Mourning in Athenian Art. American Journal of Archaeology 95 (4): 629-656. . 2007. Introduction. In The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece, edited by H. A. Shapiro. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Shear, T. Leslie Jr. 1993. The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora

353

Deposits. Hesperia 62 (4): 383-482. Shive, David. 1996. "Ounpov e£ AiaxuXou 2a<prp>tCeiv: "Iliad" 7.332-338 and "Agamemnon" 433-455. Phoenix 50 (3/4): 189-196. Sinos, Dale S. 1980. Achilles, Patroklos and the Meaning ofPhilos. Innsbruck: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck. Small, David B. 1995. Monuments, Laws, and Analysis: Combining Archaeology and Text in Ancient Athens. In Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology, edited by D. B. Small. Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill. Small, Jocelyn Penny and Tatum, James. 1995. Memory and the Study of Classical Antiquity: Introduction. Helios 22 (2): 149-150. Smithson, Evelyn Lord. 1968. The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady, CA. 850 B.C. Hesperia 37(1): 77-116. Snodgrass, Anthony M. 1980. Archaic Greece : The Age of Experiment. Berkeley: University of California Press. . 1998. Homer and the Artists: Text and Picture in Early Greek Art. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. . 2000. The Dark Age of Greece : An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BC. New York: Routledge. Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. 1983. A Trauma in Flux: Death in the Eighth Century and After. In The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1-5 June, 1981, edited by R. Hagg. Stockholm; Lund, Sweden: Svenska Institutet i Athen; Distributor P. Astroms fbrlag. —. 1996. 'Reading' Greek Death, Clarendon Paperbacks. New York: Oxford University Press. Spier, Jeffery. 1990. Emblems in Archaic Greece. Bulletin - Institute of Classical Studies 37: 107-129. Stears, Karen. 1998. Death Becomes Her: Gender and Athenian Death Ritual. In The Sacred and the Feminine in Ancient Greece, edited by S. Blundell and M. Williamson. London; New York: Routledge.

354

. 2000. The Times They Are A' Changing: Developments in Fifth-Century Funerary Sculpture. In The Epigraphy of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome, edited by G. J. Oliver. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Steinhart, Matthias. 1997. Bemerkungen zu Rekonstruktion, Ikonographie und Inschrift des plataischen Weihgeschenkes. Bulletin de correspondance hellenique 121 (l):33-69. Stewart, A. 1986. When Is a Kouros Not an Apollo? The Tenea "Apollo" Revisited. In Corinthiaca: Studies in Honor ofDarrell A. Amyx, edited by D. A. Amyx, M. A. Del Chiaro and W. R. Biers. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. . 1990. Greek Sculpture: An Exploration. 2 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stieber, Mary. 2005/2006. Homeric in Death: The Case of the Anavysos Kouros. With an Appendix on the Discovery of the Statue. Boreas: Munstersche Beitrage zur Archaologie 28/29:l-33. Stromberg, Agneta. 1993. Male or Female?: A Methodological Study of Grave Gifts as Sex-Indicators in Iron Age Burials from Athens. Jonsered: P. Astroms Forlag. Stupperich, R. 1977. Staatsbegrabnis und Privatgrabmal im klassischen Athen, Diss. Minister. Suter, Ann. 2002. The Narcissus and the Pomegranate: an Archaeology of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Suzuki, Mihoko. 1989. Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Svenbro, Jesper. 1993. Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. Translated by J. Lloyd. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Original edition, 1988. Thomas, Rosalind. 1989. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens, Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture; 18. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, Homer A. 1950. Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1949. Hesperia 19 (4): 313-337. . 1981. Athens Faces Adversity. Hesperia 50 (4): 343-355.

355

Thompson, Homer A, and R. E. Wycherley. 1972. The Athenian Agora XIV: The Agora of Athens: The History, Shape and Uses of an Ancient City Center. Princeton, N.J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Thucydides, Henry Stuart Jones, and J. Enoch Powell. 1942. Thucydidis Historiae; recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Henricus Stuart Jones. Oxonii,: e typographeo Clarendoniano. Tiverios, Michalis. 2007. Panathenaic Amphoras. In The Panathenaic Games: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the University ofAthens, May 11-12, 2004, edited by O. Palagia and A. Choremi-Spetsieri. Oxford; Oakville, CT: Oxbow. Todd, S. C. 1995. The Shape ofAthenian Law. Oxford: Clarendon. Tsiafakis, D. S. 2003. TTEAQPA: Fabulous Creatures and/or Demons of Death. In The Centaur's Smile : The Human Animal in Early Greek Art, edited by J. M. Padgett. Princeton, N.J.; New Haven, Conn.: Princeton University Art Museum. Vanderpool, Eugene. 1966. A Monument to the Battle of Marathon. Hesperia 35 (2): 93106. Van Gennep, Arnold. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Translated by M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Original edition, 1908. Vermeule, Emily. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Vernant, Jean Pierre. 1991. Mortals and Immortals: Collected Essays. Edited by F. I. Zeitlin. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. . 2006. Myth and Thought Among the Greeks. Translated by J. Lloyd and J. Fort. New York; Cambridge, Mass.: Zone Books. First published in French 1965. Volk, Katharina. 2002. Kleos Aphthiton Revisited. Classical Philology 97 (1): 61-68. Wace, A. J. B., and Frank H. Stubbings. 1962. A Companion to Homer. London, New York: Macmillan; St. Martin's Press. Watkins, Calvert. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York: Oxford University Press. . 2008. "Hermit Crabs," or New Wine in Old Bottles: Anatolian and Hellenic Connections from Homer and Before to Antiochus I of Commagene and After. In

356

Anatolian Interfaces: Hittites, Greeks and their Neighbors, edited by B. J. Collins, M. R. Bachvarova and I. C. Rutherford. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia: Oxbow Books. Webster, T.B.L. 1955. Homer and Attic Geometric Vases. The Annual of the British School at Athens 50: 38-50. Wells, Calvin. 1960. A Study of Cremation. Antiquity 34: 29-37. Whitley, James. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece: The Changing Face of a Pre-literate Society, 1100-700 BC. Cambridge England; New York: Cambridge University Press. . 1994. The Monuments That Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica. American Journal of Archaeology 98 (2): 213-230. . 1996. Gender and Hierarchy in Early Athens: The Strange Case of the Disappearance of the Rich Female Grave. Metis 11: 209-232. . 2001. The Archaeology ofAncient Greece, Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. Willemsen, Franz. 1963. Archaische Grabmalbasen aus der Athener Stadtmauer. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 78: 104-153. Williams, Dyfri. 2000. Of Geometric Toys, Symbols and Votives. In Periplous: Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman, edited by G. R. Tsetskhladze, A. J. N. W. Prag and A. M. Snodgrass. London; New York: Thames & Hudson. Woysch-Meautis, Daphne. 1982. La Representation des Animaux et des Etres Fabuleux sur les Monuments Funeraires Grecs: de I' Epoque Archaique a la Fin du IVe siecle av. J.-C. Lausanne: Bibliotheque Historique Vaudoise. Wylie, Alison. 1985. The Reaction against Analogy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 63-111. Young, D., ed. 1971. Theognis. (2., verb. Aufl.) ed. Leipzig: BSB Teubner. Young, Rodney S. 1938. Pottery from a Seventh Century Well. Hesperia 7 (3): 412-428. . 1942. Graves from the Phaleron Cemetery. American Journal ofArchaeology 46 (1): 23-57.

357

. 1949. An Early Geometric Grave Near the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 18 (4):275-297. Young, Rodney S., and J. Lawrence Angel. 1939. Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Century Well in the Agora. Hesperia Supplements 2. Princeton, N.J.: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Zeitlin, Froma I. 1996. Playing the Other: Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

358