ebook img

Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical PDF

33 Pages·2008·4.59 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical

Georgetown University Institutional Repository http://www.library.georgetown.edu/digitalgeorgetown The author made this article openly available online. Please tell us how this access affects you. Your story matters. Keesling, C. "Patrons of Athenian Votive Monuments of the Archaic and Classical Periods: Three Studies". Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 74, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2005), pp. 395-426 Collection Permanent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/10822/555436 © 2005 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens This material is made available online with the permission of the author, and in accordance with publisher policies. No further reproduction or distribution of this copy is permitted by electronic transmission or any other means. PATRONS OF hesperia 74 (2005) Pages 395-42 6 ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS OF THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL PERIODS Three Studies ABSTRACT In three studies of votive the author the role offerings, explores played by private patrons in the production of art and inscriptions in Athens in the Archaic and Classical periods. The studies concern additive sculptural groups produced by the contributions of multiple dedicators, a form of display ex within the context of votive evidence for col plained religion; epigraphical laboration between East Greek sculptors and Athenian patrons on 6th- and 5th-century votive monuments; and dedications that have either been mis identified as belonging to Athenian potters and vase painters or erroneously reconstructed as metal or stone vases. INTRODUCTION The most pressing concern for most studies of artistic patronage in Ath ens in the Archaic and Classical periods has been public patronage, namely, identifying the patrons responsible for the construction of temples and other and for the choice of in architectural buildings subjects sculpture.1 After 480 b.c., the best-attested patron is the Athenian demos itself. In Archaic Athens, by contrast, the tyrant Peisistratos and his sons and the have been identified modern scholars as post-Kleisthenic democracy by patrons or sponsors of public art.2 Even the study of Athenian black and red-figure pottery, an obvious realm for the exploration of the role of 1.1 would like to thank the follow Agora Excavations. Aileen Ajootian, 1989,1995; alsoA ngiolillo 1997 and ing individuals for granting me per Nancy Bookidis, Ben Millis, Peter the essays in Sancisi-Weerdenburg mission to see objects and otherwise Nulton, Olga Palagia, and two anon 2000 for up-to-date bibliography. facilitating my research: former ephor ymous Hesperia readers contributed Kleisthenic democracy: see esp. Coul Ismene Trianti and Christina Vlasso references that improved this paper. son et al. 1994, Boedeker and Raaflaub poulou of the Acropolis Museum; Finally, extra thanks go to Karen E. 1998, andM orris and Raaflaub 1998, director Charalambos Kritzas and Rasmussen for producing Fig. 8 and collections of essays inspired by the Chara Karapa-Molisani of the Epi to Robert Houston for scanning my 2,500th anniversary in 1992-1993 of graphical Museum; and director John drawings. Kleisthenes' reforms. Camp and Jan Jordan of theA thenian 2. Peisistratid tyranny: see Shapiro ? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 396 CATHERINE M. KEESLING private patrons, has been approached in light of Peisistratid iconography and cult sponsorship since the publication of John Boardmans first article on Peisistratos and Herakles in 1972.3 In the private realm, Archaic Attic monuments have attracted the lion's share of attention. A consid funerary erable number of studies the of their concerning significance sculpture and followed the of G. M. A. Richters inscriptions publication sculptural catalogue (1961) and L. H. Jefferys 1962 epigraphical catalogue of in scribed monuments from Athens and the Attic One funerary countryside.4 major issue regarding patronage raised by private funerary monuments in Athens?the apparent gap between the Archaic monument series and the of inscribed stelai individ resumption funerary commemorating private uals late in the third quarter of the 5 th century b.c.?has been explained as the outcome of various factors at work in the larger public sphere.5 Votive monuments dedicated in sanctuaries inA thens and Attica have been less intensively studied as products of patronage than architecture, vase painting, and funerary sculpture.6 Though the Athenian demos emerges as a patron of votive statues in the Late Archaic period, the majority of inscribed, monumental sanctuary dedications of the Archaic and Classical periods attest to the patronage of private individuals.7 The bulk of the evidence for dedications of in sanctuaries is con freestanding sculpture centrated on the Athenian Acropolis. The Acropolis material, in particu lar the preserved votive inscriptions, permits the study of patronage by individual, named patrons. The rich prosopographical evidence for the 3. Boardman 1972. For subsequent private sphere to the public realm of major exception is Jacquemin 1999 on bibliography, see Shapiro 1989, pp. 15 inscribed casualty lists and collective monumental votive offerings at Delphi. 17, 61-64,157-163; Angiolillo 1997, commemoration of the war dead in the For Archaic and Classical votive statues pp. 134-142; Blok 2000, pp. 28-30. Demosion Sema (Stupperich 1994); on the Acropolis, see Keesling 2003, 4. On Archaic funerary monuments, the Athenian plague of 429 b.c. (Mi and also Hurwit 1999, pp. 57-63,116 see Richter 1961; Jeffery 1962; and kalson 1984, pp. 223-224); and the 136 passim, 145-153,199,250-253; esp. D'Onofrio 1982,1988; Sourvinou Periklean citizenship law of 451/0 b.c. Kissas 2000; Shapiro 2001. Inwood 1995; Kaltsas 2002, on the (Meyer 1993, pp. 112-119; Stears 7. The only certain example of a Phrasikleia kore and kouros from 2000, p. 52, who also dates the earliest dedication of freestanding sculpture by Merenda in Attica; and Niemeier 2002, Classical stelai to the 430s or 440s b.c. the Athenian state in the Archaic pe the preliminary publication of new rather than after ca. 430 b.c.). White riod is the quadriga group commemo sculptures found in the Kerameikos. ground lekythoi used as grave goods rating the victory over the Boiotians 5. The head of a kouros found in the in the period between ca. 480 and and Chalkidians in 506 b.c. (replaced Kerameikos and dated stylistically to ca. 430 continued to represent monu after the Persian sack of the Acropolis ca. 480 b.c. is now interpreted as the mental grave markers (I.M orris 1992, in 480); the preserved inscriptions are latest monument in the Archaic series pp. 104-118); Clairmont (1983, pp. 60 DAA 168 and 173 (IG I3 501). A colos (Knigge 1969; 1991, pp. 33-34, fig. 32). 73) argued that these represented sal votive column without a preserved Explanations for the gap in funerary public monuments in the Demosion inscription, published by Korres (1997), monuments in Athens include a sump Sema. Role of the Parthenon sculptors: was destroyed in 480 but cannot be tuary law dated after Solon's reforms Friis Johansen 1951; Richter 1961, dated precisely, and thus it could be at (Garland 1989; Seaford 1994, pp. 74 pp. 54-55; cf. Engels 1998, pp. 113 tributed either to the Peisistratids or to 92; Parker 1996, pp. 133-135; Engels 119. the Athenian demos. If the monument 1998, pp. 97-106); the dismantling of 6. Exceptions: Schneider 1975 and was replaced after 480, as Korres sug Archaic tombs for reuse in the Themis Holloway 1992 on the Acropolis korai, gests, it is more likely to have been a toklean city wall in 478 b.c. (S.M orris but now cf. Keesling 2003, pp. 85-88. public monument of the democracy, by 1992, pp. 305-307); a 5th-century Most studies of votive offerings focus analogy with the quadriga group noted culture of restraint in public display on portable, nonmonumental votives; above and the Tyrannicides in the (Morris 1994); the displacement of see, e.g., the conference papers pub Agora. commemorative monuments from the lished in ScAnt 3-4 (1989-1990). One PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 397 dedicators of votives in Athens intersects in interesting ways with data from other sources, among them funerary monuments, Attic black- and red-figure pottery, and ostraka. In addition, the inscribed dedications of the Archaic period in Athens were less conventional than the funerary monuments of the same period, presenting greater variations in size, me dium, and sculptural types that may express more directly the patrons con tribution to the monument's form. Unlike funerary monuments, private dedications inA thens also bridge the gap between the Archaic and Clas sical periods without any apparent break.8 In this article I present three separate studies concerned with private patrons and their dedications inA thenian sanctuaries. The first study deals exclusively with Archaic material, but the phenomena treated in the sec ond and third studies extend into the Classical period. Joint dedications? votive monuments inscribed with the names of dedicators?have multiple been studied L?hr under the rubric of "Fami recently by Christoph larger Three of one class of lienweihungen."9 well-preserved examples particular dedications are examined here in the first these are inscribed joint study: bases for votive statues or statuettes later additions to the featuring origi nal monument, as indicated by separate inscriptions and multiple phases of for the attachment of ture. These additions resulted in the cuttings sculp dedication of statues or statuettes on the same multiple grouped together base, but clearly not conceived as thematically unified sculptural "groups." In the second I reevaluate the of letter forms and study, significance spelling as evidence for the ethnic origins of the sculptors, letter cutters, and patrons of votive monuments in Athens and Attica. Though the in on monuments have been used to link scriptions funerary closely sculptors from Ionia and the Cyclades with East Greek clienteles living inA thens, the evidence of inscribed dedications from the same seems to attest period collaboration between East Greek craftsmen and Athenian patrons. The third study deals with a group of inscribed stone bases from the Acropolis identified by A. E. Raubitschek as supports not for statues, but instead for stone or bronze vessels dedicated by Athenian potters and vase Iw ill show that one of these bases is to have painters. only likely supported a bronze vase, and that this should be interpreted as agonistic or sacrificial in significance rather than as the dedication of a potter or vase painter. In addition, a fragmentary 4th-century dedication attributed to the Athe nian potter Kittos may in fact be an anatomical votive from the Athenian on the South of the Asklepieion Slope Acropolis. JOINT DEDICATIONS One subset among the sanctuary dedications of the Archaic and Classical 8. For the chronology of the periods recently collected by L?hr consists of private joint dedications made Acropolis dedications, see Keesling together by more than one named member of the same family. As many as 2003, pp. 60-61. 60 of these from sanctuaries the Greek world were included throughout 9.L?hr2000. M. L. Lazzarini in her of Archaic votive consist 10. Altars: Lazzarini 1976, nos. 762, by catalogue inscriptions, 764, 766; ceramic vase: no. 314; metal ing not only of freestanding statues, but also of votive altars, ceramic vases, vessel: no. 689. and metal vessels.10 L?hr discusses 74 preserved examples dedicated jointly 398 CATHERINE M. KEESLING by relatives, dating from the Archaic period through the end of the 4th century b.c.11 The Athenian Acropolis has produced by far the largest con centration of joint dedications in the Greek world, with at least 33 ex between ca. 600 and ca. 450 b.c. and for amples dating accounting nearly a tenth of 6th- and dedications inscribed on stone from the 5th-century sanctuary.12 Some observations about the dedications from the general joint are in order. few of the the re Acropolis Surprisingly inscriptions specify between the dedicators. Nine were dedicated rela lationship jointly by tives, and two by fellow demesmen; the remaining 22 were dedicated by individuals whose to one another remains uncertain. relationship Though many of these probably were relatives, it seems unsafe to assume a priori that all were connected ties.13T he familial by family relationships directly attested the formulas of the all fall within the by dedicatory inscriptions definition of the anchisteia, the bilateral kin group extending to the degree of second cousins.14 The Acropolis material does not appear to include any joint dedications by men and women, and the only examples of such in Lazzarini s catalogue are a mid-5th-century dedication from Locri (no. 342), an altar from Eretria dedicated jointly by a father and daughter (no. 262), and the Late Archaic dedication of the husband and wife Demokydes and Telestodike from Paros (no. 803) made from their common property (arco xolvc?v).15 The for the lack of dedications men and simplest explanation joint by women before the 4th century may be that husbands and wives normally did not hold property in common, and that (in Athens at least) daughters received their inheritance in the form of a from their dowry separately brothers.16 One indication that inheritance have been an might important occasion for dedications is the use in their of joint frequent inscriptions the term apar che, "first-fruits"; though inheritance was not the only occa sion for dedicating an apar che, this is the term used by Herodotos (1.92.1 4) in the later 5th century to describe Croesus's dedications in various Greek sanctuaries from the of his inheritance.17 proceeds 11. L?hr's (2000, passim) examples DAA29, HO, 112, 384 (two brothers); Telestodike: Kr?n 1996, pp. 157-158; of joint dedications appear under the 297 (two sisters); 53,217,228,291 CEG 414. Telestodike made another classification "von mehreren Ver (father and children or siblings). dedication on her own on Paros (Laz wandten errichtet." Demesmen: DAA 94,160; for the zarini 1976, no. 726; CEG 413), on 12. Joint dedications from the financial role of neighbors and demes which the names of her father (Ther Acropolis dating to the 6th and 5th men in the Athenian household, see siles) and son (Asphalios) also appear. centuries: DAA 8,29, 30,41,53, 80, Cox 1998, pp. 194-195. DAA 178 was 16. The dowry as daughters' share 90, 93,94, 99,110,112,114,115,117, dedicated by Mnesiades kerameus and of inheritance inA thens: Foxhall 1989, 131a (IG I3 843), 160,178,186,209, Andokides; there are known Athenian pp. 32-43. 210,217,221,227,228,291,292,297, potters of both names (Wagner 2000, 17. Of the 13 joint dedications that 317, 331, 339, 382, 384. My list dif p. 383). preserve some indication of motive, 10 fers from that of Raubitschek (DAA, 14. Littman 1979; L?hr 2000, (DAA 29,41, 94,114,117,160,210 p. 466), in some cases (DAA 131a, 191) pp. 165-167. Cf. the prevalence of [both dedications], 217 [original dedi because I favored alternative restora commemoration of the patrilineal line cation], 291,292 [one of two dedica tions or interpretations, and in others of descent (especially fathers and sons) tions]) are called apar chai, compared (e.g.,D AA 75, 83,162,279) because I on Archaic Attic gravestones (D'Ono with two designated dekate, or "tithe" adopted a more conservative approach frio 1998, pp. 116-117). (DAA 186,292 [one of two dedica to restoration. 15. Eretria dedication: L?hr 2000, tions]). For the significance o? apar che 13. Joint dedications by relatives: no. 54; CEG 323. Demokydes and and dekate, see Keesling 2003, pp. 6-10. PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 399 The of dedications from the took the same majority joint Acropolis form as the other dedications of the same a statue private period: single with a single dedicatory inscription. Here I examine three Archaic joint dedications?one found built into the below the Klepsydra springhouse and two found on the attest com Acropolis Acropolis?that particularly forms of collaboration between the dedicators and show the plex impact that different forms of patronage could have upon the display of Greek In each of these three earlier statue dedications were sculpture. examples, renovated when new dedicators, in one case a son of the original dedicator, added new statues or statuettes and new to the base. inscriptions original The results are additive sculptural groups consisting of statues added to the monument at different times, and in one case statues of drastically different sizes, all with no recognizable thematic relationship to one an other apart from their patrons' desire to associate them by placing them on the same statue base.18 The first inscribed base for a dedication to be examined here joint dates to the Late Archaic but was reused in the Hellenis originally period, tic period in the parapet of the Klepsydra springhouse on the North Slope below the where it remains in situ The base just Acropolis, today.19 (Agora 15517; Fig. 1) originally stood vertically on one of its narrow ends just like an architectural orthostate, an Archaic dedication type similar to examples from the Most of the written retro Acropolis.20 dedicatory inscription, grade in a smoothed band near the top edge of the front face of the block and divided over two inscribed lines, has been preserved: [ca. 4-5]? :? cv? ?exev :d ex?xev :x al h[o]i rcqc??e? [:A tt?]aIaovi :x al Mcpikoq ("-s and his children dedicated a tithe to Apollo, and Diphilos"). The final two words, xal AicpiXo?, appear from their placement to be a later addition to the original inscription, though not certainly carved by a different hand. Though B. D. Meritt associated the Klepsydra base with the sanctuary of Apollo on the North all of the inscribed dedications Hypoakraios nearby Slope, found in that sanctuary date to the Roman Imperial period. Since the Klepsydra base, however, was flipped over and reused at least twice even before itw as built into the of the in the Hellenistic springhouse Klepsydra indicated the dowel holes for a bronze statue and the re period?as by mains of two architectural dowels on the back of the base?it is possible 18. For a distinction between "para sion: asN ulton (2003, p. 25) points tactic" and "syntactic" (narrative or in out, it might date soon after 480 b.c. teracting) sculptural groups, see Jacque (cf. Parsons 1943, p. 240). min 1999, pp. 159-161; cf. L?hr (2000, 20. See DAA 80 (IG I3 802; Kissas pp. 153-155), who questions the valid 2000, pp. 267-268, no. C48), a pillar ity of this distinction. base in the shape of an orthostate with 19. Meritt, Lethen, and Stamires a three-line vertical inscription on one 1957, p. 79, no. 24, pis. 16 (photograph of its narrow ends and a single bronze of the inscription) and 25 (drawings); statuette originally attached to its top Travlos 1971, pp. 323-331; IG I3 950. surface above the inscription. The third For the block's location and the date of line of the inscription (a sculptor's sig its reuse, see Parsons 1943, pp. 239 nature?) appears to have been added to 240, fig. 9. The date of the inscription, the original text recording a joint dedi given as ca. 500-480 b.c. in IG P, cation by Philon, Aristion, Nau-, and cannot be determined with any preci Pyrion. 4-00 CATHERINE M. KEESLING . ,o -, -'i \ ' - v N . ? .'.? i Figure 1. Archaic orthostate base built into the parapet of the Klepsy dra springhouse (Agora 15517). Inscribed face (above) and four cut tings for the attachment of bronze statuettes on the top of the base (below). After Meritt, Lethen, and Stamires 1957, pi. 25 that it traveled from any one of several sanctuaries of Apollo in the vicinity of the Acropolis.21 Three small plinth cuttings, two rectangular and one oval, can be seen clearly in the drawing of the Klepsydra base published by Meritt in 1957, reproduced here as Figure 1. All three most likely held the bronze plinths of small bronze statuettes in lead a clamped place by soldering, technique well attested by examples from the Acropolis and elsewhere. The irregu larly shaped holes surrounding the oval cutting on the far right can be 21. For the sanctuary of Apollo explained if an oval statuette standing on a rectangular bronze plinth with H9y5p;o Nakuraltioosn, 200s3ee.T Oratvhloesr li1k9e7l1y, pprpo.v e9 1 feet at the corners were attached both beneath the statuette and at the four niences include the sanctuary of Apollo corners of the plinth. Judging by the sizes and length-to-width propor Patro?s on the west side of the Agora tions of their plinths, it is safe to say only that these lost statuettes were (Travlos 1971, pp. 96-99; Hedrick probably standing human figures. 1988) and the Pythion, probably to be Though previous publications mention only the plinth cuttings for located near the Ilissos River south three statuettes, the four round dowel holes located between the two rec etahset Noof rtthhe ASclrooppoel is (Nulrtaotnhe r2 00th3a;n cfo.n P ar tangular plinth cuttings (see Fig. 1) also look ancient. Since the three plinth sons 1943, pp. 233-237; Travlos 1971, cuttings are equally spaced over the top surface of the base, they may have pp. 100-103). PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 4OI Fsiimguosr e an2d. JTohienotd ordoes dicatifornom oft hOe ne comprised the original dedication, to which a bronze quadruped statuette Athenian Acropolis (DAA 217 = without a plinth was later added by a second dedicator, Diphilos.22 Though Acr. 4184). Courtesy Deutsches Arch?o the plinth of the statuette on the far left was rotated slightly toward the logisches Institut, Athens (neg. 1995/121); center, there is no other evidence to suggest physical interaction or the photo Aehnen matic coherence in the original group of three statuettes. If, as I suggest, a quadruped (or a horse and rider) were added at some point after the origi nal dedication, the lack of coherence would only have become more pro nounced.23 This type of monumental sanctuary dedication, consisting of a changing assemblage of individual figures combined on top of the same inscribed base, resembles nothing so much as a cult table of the type placed in front of cult statues to receive offerings, both temporary and perma nent, from multiple worshippers.24 The inscribed base DAA 217 (Acr. 4184) from the Acropolis consists of four joining fragments of a rectangular pillar capital reconstructed in the storerooms of the Acropolis Museum. Two separate dedicatory inscrip tions appear on the front of the base: a two-line inscription on the lower abacus below a painted cymation molding, and a very fragmentary one line inscription on a second, shorter abacus above the molding (Fig. 2).25 Differences in the letter forms of the two four-barred inscriptions?e.g., sigma in the upper inscription, compared with three-barred sigma in the lower one?indicate that they were carved by different letter cutters. Given that the dedicators' names are Onesimos, son of Smikythos (lower), and Theodoros, son of [Onejsimos (upper), the natural inference is that the joint dedicators were father and son, and that the sonTheodoros's inscription was added to his father Onesimos's original dedication. Since Raubitscheks publication of DAA 217, it has been generally accepted that 22. For a similar example of a of Psakythe from theA cropolis (DAA the Persian destruction of the sanctuary bronze statuette attached to a stone 81; IG I3 656; Kissas 2000, pp. 100 in 480 b.c. The table, like the Klepsydra base without a plinth, see the quad 101, no. B23) consisted of three bronze base, resembles an architectural ortho ruped dedicated by Timarchos and statuettes on a single base, with the state. Among the offerings found on signed by the Early Classical sculptor right- and left-hand statuettes both the Kalapodi offering table was a Onatas (DAA 236; IGV 773; Kissas rotated toward the center one. bronze kouros statuette attached with 2000, pp. 161-162, no. B99). 24. For cult or offering tables in lead soldering to a cutting (Felsch 23. Cf. IG V 950 for the suggestion general, see Gill 1991. At Kalapodi 1991). that the three statuettes with plinths (ancient Hyampolis) in Boiotia, an 25. In addition to DAA, pp. 239 represented Apollo, Artemis, and offering table was found inside a tem 241, see Kissas 2000, pp. 123-124, Leto. The Late Archaic dedication porary cult building constructed after no. B52; IG I3 699 (ca. 500-480 b.c.?). 402 CATHERINE M. KEESLING Figure 3. Joint dedication of One simos andTheodoros (DAA 217). Top view showing four cuttings for the attachment of statuettes. C. M. Keesling the dedicator Onesimos, son of Smikythos, is identical to the red-figure cup painter Onesimos because few other examples of the name Onesimos can be found inA thens before the Roman period.26 In addition to appear ing on DAA 217, the name of Onesimos Smikythou appears (or can be restored) on a series of eight inscribed marble perirrhanteria dedicated on the Acropolis {DAA 349-353, 357, 358, and IG I3 933). Though Raubit schek at one point suggested that the pillar capital DAA 217 was damaged in the Persian sack of 480 B.c. and restored after 480 Onesimos's son by Theodoros, the best-preserved, left-hand fragment was found in February 1886 together with 14 marble korai in a large Perserschutt deposit west of the Erechtheion likely to date soon after the Persian sack.27 Thus, both inscriptions, and the two phases of dedication they represent, should date before 480 B.c., a result that agrees with the identification of Onesimos with the Athenian vase of the same name. It is not to painter possible determine how long an interval may have passed between Onesimos's origi 26. For the vase painter Onesimos, nal dedication and the second inscription added by his son Theodoros. see LGPN11, s.v. 'Ovyjgiuoc 3; Robert The top surface of this base (Fig. 3) is difficult to interpret because it son 1992, pp. 43-50 (identified as the features a series of four cuttings of different shapes and dimensions, ap Panaitios Painter), 117-118; Cook for the attachment of four statuettes different 1997, p. 165 (Onesimos's career dated parently using techniques. Cutting 1, on the far left, a long rectangle with an irregularly shaped exten fcrao. m4 80 theB .cl.a)t. e 6th century through sion on its right side, was entirely filled with lead (now broken off at the 27. See DAA, pp. 247-248, contra back). The rounded protrusion (crosshatched in Fig. 3) about halfway be dicting p. 462; for the findspot, see tween the front and back edges of the cutting almost certainly marks the Kawadias 1886, col. 81, no. 5, fig. 2; original location of the foot of a bronze statuette, its bronze plinth com Lindenlauf 1997, pp. 70,107-108; pletely submerged beneath the lead soldering. A hole in the lead covering 2c0f.0 0L, ollinpgp . 371-83980, , pn.o . 424, 0. no. 4, and L?hr the bronze plinth just in front of this protrusion (blackened in Fig. 3) may 28. Cf. Kissas 2000, pp. 123-124, or may not mark the position of another foot.28 no. B52. Nearly all of the floor of cutting 2 has broken away, but a series of 29. A similar "extension" for lead small, round dowel holes used to help lead soldering (now lost) adhere to soldering appears on the pillar capi the sides of the show where the left and were. talD AA 291 (IG I3 697; Kissas 2000, cutting cutting's right edges 2 also features a shallow extension at the front left pp. 162-165, no. B101). For the func Cutting rectangular tion of the round dowel holes along the corner.29 The floor of cutting 3, a long, narrow rectangle with length-to sides of the plinth cutting, see Raubit width proportions of approximately 3:1, features a shallow round hole schek 1938, p. 143; Kissas 2000, p. 9. PATRONS OF ATHENIAN VOTIVE MONUMENTS 403 ^ S. Figure 4. Joint dedication of One simos andTheodoros (DAA 217). 1 Hypothetical section through the pillar capital. C. M. Keesling that have received the end of a nail used to attach a bronze might plinth to the The floor of 4 is shallower and more cutting. cutting roughly worked than that of cuttings 2 and 3, and it is the only plinth cutting on DAA 217 whose full dimensions have been preserved (0.31 x 0.16 m). The of 4 is 2:1.W ith length-to-width proportion cutting approximately out any evidence for the fastening technique used, it is conceivable that 4 received either a small marble statuette or a bronze statuette on cutting a bronze plinth. A hypothetical section through DAA 217 (Fig. 4) suggests possible reconstructions. This inscribed capital originally rested on top of a thick rectangular pillar as wide or nearly asw ide as the capital itself, with a large tenon into the mortise on the under fitting rectangular preserved capitals side. The differences in size, shape, and technique between the cuttings on the top surface suggest that they were not contemporary.30 The original dedication Onesimos have consisted either of a statuette by might single in cutting 2, centered over the supporting pillar, or three statuettes roughly equidistant from one another in cuttings 1, 2, and 4. In a second phase, corresponding with the dedicatory inscription ofTheodoros, a fourth statu 30. On another Acropolis base for ette in cutting 3 may have been added. multiple statuettes, DAA 81 (Kissas Alternatively, Theodoros may have replaced one or more original statu 2000, pp. 100-101, no. B23), slightly ettes dedicated by Onesimos on the base in cuttings 1,2, or 4 at the same different attachment techniques were time that he added another statuette in 3. The addition of the used simultaneously. In this case, there cutting is a single dedicator (Psakythe) and a added weight of a fourth statuette in cutting 3 in a second phase after the signature of the sculptor Hermippos. original dedication would help to explain why the pillar capital eventually The plinth cuttings in the center and broke apart into two halves, completely shattering cutting 2. The occasion on the right feature shallow round nail for Theodoros's dedication may have been damage to one or more statu holes approximately a centimeter in ettes dedicated by his father, or might simply have been the result of dthiaem elteefrt, haws hmileu ch thes mpalilnletrh hoculetst ing for onn ails Theodoros's intent to complete the dedication or to fulfill his own or his or for lead soldering around its edges. father's vow. Though there is insufficient evidence to reconstruct the types The statuettes on the left and right of statuettes dedicated by Onesimos and Theodoros, the long, narrow shapes were turned toward the center one, of all four cuttings find parallels in preserved bronze statuettes represent suggesting a thematically related group. ing quadrupeds and striding, attacking Athenas of the "Promachos" type: 2003,3 1. ppS.e e, 81m-8o5s.t Trheec entllye,n gtKh-eteos-lwinidgt h several contemporary examples of the latter type were found on the Acropo proportions of the plinth for the best lis.31 It is even possible that the four statuettes were repeated images, rep preserved Athena Promachos statuette resenting the same subject in the same pose. from the Acropolis, the Athena dedi DAA 210, assembled from four fragments found on the Acropolis and cated byM eleso (NM 6447), are 2.23:1 now on display in the EpigraphicalM useum (EM 6320B + 6392 + 6501 + p(r0o.1p1o38r2 ti.o DnxsA 0A.05, 3o fp pmc.u) ,t2 ti3n9cgl -o2se44 1 ;ot no IDGthAe AV 2 :61 29157 . 261377.63)2, Heirs ea, latrwgeor seexpaamraptlee deodf ictahteo rys amein stcyrpipet ioonf s,r ectiann tghuilsa rc asec apcaitravl eda sb DyA Ath e (ca. 500-480 b.c.?); Kissas 2000, same hand, appear on the front and right sides of the capital. The incom pp. 114-115, no. B42. plete three-line inscription on the front of the base (Fig. 5) names Chares

Description:
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, the Archaic period in Athens were less conventional than the funerary
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.