Excavations at Nemea IV: The Shrine of Opheltes 9780520967878

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ILLUSTRATIONS
TABLES
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
SPECIALIZED TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT AND APPENDICES
ELEVATIONS,GRIDREFERENCES,AND MEASUREMENTS
Introduction
CHAPTER ONE. The Physical Remains
CHAPTER TWO. The Faunal Remains from the Hero Shrine
CHAPTER THREE. The Myth of Opheltes and the Origin of the Nemean Games
CHAPTER FOUR. Representations of the Hero Opheltes in Art
CHAPTER FIVE. The Shrine of Opheltes in the Context of Greek Hero Cult
Appendix A: Catalogue of Artifacts
Appendix B: The Curse Tablets from the Hero Shrine
Appendix C: Testimonia on the Myth and Cult of Opheltes and the Nemean Games
Index of Subjects, Ancient People and Places, and Modern Scholars
Index of Ancient Sources
Index of Inventoried Finds from the Nemea Excavations Mentioned in This Volume

Citation preview

Excavations at Nemea IV

Bronze figurine of the hero Opheltes (Cat. 271).

Excavations at Nemea IV TH E SH RI NE OF OPH E LTE S

J O R G E J. B RAV O I I I W ITH A CONT RI BUTI ON BY MI C HA E L MAC K I NNON

UNIVE R SITY OF CAL I F ORNI A P RE S S

The publisher and the University of California Press Foundation gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Joan Palevsky Imprint in Classical Literature. Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the von Bothmer Publication Fund of the Archaeological Institute of America.

University of California Press Oakland, California © 2018 by the Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Bravo, Jorge J., III, 1968- author. | MacKinnon, Michael R. (Michael Ross), 1966- contributor. Title: Excavations at Nemea IV : the shrine of Opheltes / Jorge J. Bravo III; with a contribution by Michael MacKinnon. Description: Oakland, California : University of California Press, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017045094 | ISBN 9780520294929 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: Hero worship—Greece. | Cults—Greece. | Temple of Zeus (Nemea, Greece) | Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece. | Greece—Antiquities. Classification: LCC BL815.H47 B73 2018 | DDC 938/.8—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017045094 22 10

21 20 19 18 9 8 7 6 5 4

3

2

1

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R 1997) (Permanence of Paper).∞

To Theodore D. Papalexopoulos, Founder and First President of the support organization Opheltes, the Friend of Nemea

CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgments List of Illustrations List of Tables

ix

xiii

xxiii

Selected Bibliography and Abbreviations

xxv

Specialized Terminology and Abbreviations Used in the Text and Appendices xli Elevations, Grid References, and Measurements Introduction

1

CHAPTER ONE The Physical Remains 3 CHAPTER TWO The Faunal Remains from the Hero Shrine M ICHAE L MACKINNON CHAPTER THREE The Myth of Opheltes and the Origin of the Nemean Games 101

79

xliii

CHAPTER FOUR Representations of the Hero Opheltes in Art

141

CHAPTER FIVE The Shrine of Opheltes in the Context of Greek Hero Cult 171 Appendix A: Catalogue of Artifacts

183

Appendix B: The Curse Tablets from the Hero Shrine

297

Appendix C: Testimonia on the Myth and Cult of Opheltes and the Nemean Games 323 Index of Subjects, Ancient People and Places, and Modern Scholars

349

Index of Ancient Sources 373 Index of Inventoried Finds from the Nemea Excavations Mentioned in This Volume 377

PR E FAC E A N D AC K NOW L E DGM E N T S

I. In 1979, more than a third of a century ago, parts of the north and west wall of a structure began to emerge from the soil of Nemea. Its true nature was not understood initially, and it was then thought to be a roofed building, perhaps a palaistra.1 The following year, thanks in large part to a detour of the modern road that led to Vrachati on the Gulf of Corinth, it was possible to define the structure as an open-air shrine, in the form of a lopsided pentagon.2 Because of the discoveries within, its function as a hero shrine could be suggested. The excavators during these years were, in chronological order, Tom Knight, Chris Simon, John McEnroe, Larry Ball, and Carol Hershenson. Photography was carried out by James Parker, Craig Mauzy, Katherine Patey, and Christina Malango; architectural recording was the work of the undersigned, James McLane, and Aikaterini Skleri; conservation by Phyllis Graham, Patricia Felch, and Monica Rose Smith. The Director of Excavations during those years was assisted by Stella G. Miller. Each of these people made a contribution to the discovery and preservation of much of the material in the following pages. But the identification of the hero who had been worshiped in the shrine as Opheltes had to await further study and was only formally proposed nearly a decade after the suspension of excavations.3 Nearly another decade passed before excavations could be resumed in 1997. The delay

turned into advantage because the studies in the meantime had enabled a more precise definition of issues to be investigated in the renewed work, and because there had emerged a student in the Graduate Program in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology at the University of California whose interests and talents converged on hero worship in general, and specifically on Opheltes. It is now nearly twenty years since Jorge Bravo undertook the resumed excavation of the remains at Nemea, and the resulting study has culminated in this volume, which will, I believe, constitute a lasting contribution to our knowledge of ancient hero worship and the role of death in the games of ancient Greece. Those games can now be understood as an affirmation of life, and of its continuation, in the face of death. They are a symbol of the undying quest by mortals for immortality. Stephen G. Miller

II. The present study is based on the results of numerous seasons of excavation conducted in and around the Heroön of Opheltes from 1979 to 2001. It combines an examination of the archaeological remains with an analysis of the testimony about the myth and cult of the hero preserved in diverse literary and artistic sources. The value of this study resides in the fact that the Heroön is one of the best archaeologically documented examples of Greek hero cult that we currently possess from the Archaic, Classical, and Early Hellenistic periods;

Hesperia 1980, 194 and 197. Hesperia 1981, 46 n. 4 and 60–65. 3  Guide, 109–110. 1  2 

ix

x

P R E F AC E A N D AC K N O W L E D G M E N T S

it is therefore positioned to make an important contribution to the study of this aspect of ancient Greek religion. Over the many years I have devoted to thinking about Opheltes and his shrine, I have relied on many forms of assistance from individuals and institutions, to whom I owe a sizable debt of gratitude. I owe my greatest thanks to Stephen G. Miller, former Director of the Nemea Excavations and my esteemed professor at the University of California at Berkeley. In 1996, aware of my developing interest in hero cult, he offered me the richly rewarding opportunity to supervise the excavations that would resume in 1997 in the Heroön of Opheltes at Nemea, thus planting the seed for the project that bears fruit in this present work. While supervising excavation work from 1997 to 2001, I benefited from having dedicated teams of workmen, and I wish to express special thanks to Vassilios Papoutses, who served as foreman of my teams, for bringing his accumulated experience, wisdom, patience, and sense of humor to our work on many a hot day. In those years there were also other trench supervisors whose results are included in my study of the Heroön and its environs: Dylan Sailor, Nikolaos Poulopoulos, Tanya Szafranski, Barbara Carder, Rebecca Karberg, and the Director himself. I also owe thanks to the Nemea guards, especially to the successive head guards, Andreas Vakrinakes and Maro Nikitatou, for their assistance and f lexibility with regard to my research in the Nemea Museum, a courtesy that has continued to this day whenever I have needed to return to Nemea for further study of the excavated remains. Finally, I want to thank the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and the Hellenic Ministry of Culture (now Ministry of Culture and Sport), with whose permission and support, as always, the Nemea Excavations proceeded. Many fellow staff members of the Nemea Excavations have contributed their technical expertise to this project. For conservation work I thank Photis Demakes as well as Phyllis Graham, who moreover organized much of the logistics of the processing and recording of finds once they left the field. Martin Sedaghat did most of the drawing of artifacts for this volume. For the photographs I am indebted to many who worked as excavation photographer over the years; those

with whom I have personally worked are Elena Sheehan, Angelique Sideris, Christine Venee Call-Ferrer, Moe Nadel, and Craig Mauzy. In addition to the Director’s own work on the state plans, architects who made contributions include Stefan Buerger, Dimitra Katsota, Lorin Culver, Alison McDavid, and Katerina Skleri. Unless otherwise noted, all the illustrations in the present volume derive from their work and are provided courtesy of the Nemea Excavation Archives of the University of California, Berkeley. In planning for the eventual publication of the remains of the Heroön, it was clear to me that the abundant faunal material that had been collected by excavators before me could shed important light on the rituals conducted in honor of Opheltes, and so I am especially grateful to Michael MacKinnon of the University of Winnipeg for accepting the invitation to study those remains; as expected, our understanding of the shrine has profited greatly from his work, as will be clear from the chapter he contributes here. In preparing the Catalogue, I was able to examine comparable material from other excavations with the permission and assistance of the Fourth Ephoreia of Antiquities in Nauplion, the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, the British School at Athens, and the École Française d’Athènes. I also want to thank Dr. Jörg Rambach, who supervised excavations at the Pelopion in Olympia from 1987 to 1994 under the direction of Dr. Helmut Kyrieleis, for discussing the results of that work with me. While a student at Berkeley, I received valuable assistance from members of the staff of the Nemea Archives. Frank Cope deserves first mention among them, followed by Gloria Bath, Clarice Major, and Emily Munro Haug. I also want to thank Kim Shelton, the present Director of the Nemea Center for Classical Archaeology, for giving of her own time and energy in subsequent years to facilitate my access to materials at Nemea and Berkeley and to offer helpful comments on my work. A preliminary and less comprehensive version of this study appeared as my Ph.D. dissertation for the University of California in 2006: “The Hero Shrine of Opheltes/ Archemoros at Nemea: A Case Study of Ancient Greek Hero Cult.” Stephen G. Miller served as chair of my dissertation committee, and he and the other committee mem-

P R E F AC E A N D AC K N O W L E D G M E N T S

bers, Ronald S. Stroud, Andrew F. Stewart, and Anthony W. Bulloch, offered me valuable advice, commentary, and support during that phase of my research and writing. I have also had many opportunities over the years to present parts of this work in lectures to various audiences, and I am grateful for the comments and suggestions I received on those occasions, as well as through more informal conversations with friends and scholars. Of these there are too many to provide a complete list, but it would include Crawford Greenewalt, Mark Griffith, Robert Knapp, Jeannette Marchand, Elizabeth Gebhard, Corinne Pache, Yannis Lolos, Gloria Hunt, Gunnel Ekroth, Joseph Rife, Christopher Faraone, Lillian Doherty, and Eva Stehle. I owe thanks to the editor and staff of Hesperia for giving me the opportunity to publish much of my work on the curse tablets from the Heroön as an article in their journal; the helpful suggestions and corrections I received from them and two anonymous reviewers improved my work, resulting in the text that forms the better part of Appendix B of the present volume. At the University of California Press and BookMatters I owe thanks especially to Eric Schmidt, Maeve Cornell-Taylor, and David Peattie, who have shepherded me through the last stage of preparing my work with calm and confident hands. I also wish to thank those who assisted the Press in reviewing my manuscript for contributing their own additional, helpful comments. Financial support has come from a number of directions. I begin by thanking the many private donors who reached deeply into their pockets year after year to sustain the Nemea Excavations.

xi

All aspects of the archaeological work at Nemea thrive as the result of their generosity, and my work has been no exception. As a graduate student I received fellowships for research and travel to Greece from the Stahl Grant Committee, the Graduate Group in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology, the Department of Classics, the Sara B. Aleshire Center for the Study of Greek Epigraphy, and the Graduate Division, all of the University of California at Berkeley. I also received fellowship support from the Phi Beta Kappa Northern California Association and the Fulbright Foundation. In support of my research in summer 2012, I received a Bowdoin College Faculty Research Award, and from fall 2014 to spring 2015, generous funding from the University of Maryland Department of Classics as well as a University of Maryland Research and Scholarship Award permitted me to devote substantial time to the present manuscript. Finally, in support of the extensive art program of this volume, I am grateful for subvention grants awarded from the von Bothmer Publication Fund of the Archaeological Institute of America and from the College of Arts and Humanities and the Department of Classics of the University of Maryland. On a personal note, I want to thank my parents and my husband, Lorin Culver, for their love and support, and for reminding me, as I traversed the long road of this project, both to enjoy and to learn from the experiences en route and to look confidently toward the destination. Jorge J. Bravo III February 11, 2017

I LLUSTR ATIONS

Figures marked with an asterisk (*) are foldouts at the end of the volume. Page numbers are in italics. 17. Stone wall under excavation, from the south 11 18. Stone box and two holes found in G/5, 9–18/17,19, from the south 12 19. Channel aligned with the stone chamber (Tomb of Opheltes), from the north 12 20. Stack of stones in G/8–18/19, after excavation of the channel and surrounding fill, from the north 13 21. Detail of state plan, Section F 18 15 *22. Cross section B-B’, from west to east through the mound/embankment 23. Scarp showing the elements of the mound’s west slope, from the southwest 16 24. West slope of mound lined with red clay and rubble, from the southwest 16 25. Detail of the steep cut of the existing earth inside the mound, from the west 16 *26. Cross section A-A’, from west to east through the Heroön 27. Ridge of stones on the west side of the Archaic Heroön mound, from the north 17 28. West side of the stone ridge, from the south 17 29. West side of the stone ridge, from the west 18 30. Detail of rubble lining below the northwest corner of the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the east 18 31. Sloped rubble lining visible below the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the north 18 32. Detail of state plan, Section F 19 19

Frontispiece Bronze figurine of the hero Opheltes (Cat. 271) 1. Restored plan of the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea 4 2. Aerial view of the Heroön in 1980 5 3. Aerial view of the Sanctuary of Zeus from the southwest in 2001 6 4. Aerial view of the Sanctuary of Zeus from the west in 2001 6 5. Aerial view of the Sanctuary of Zeus from the north in 2001 7 *6. State plan of the Heroön and surrounding remains 7. Prehistoric levels below the Heroön in Sections F 18, F 19, from the north 8 8. Detail of bank of Neolithic fill in Section F 19, from the north 8 9. Late Bronze Age streambeds under excavation in Section F 18, from the east 8 10. Contours of streambeds visible in virgin soil of Section F 18, from the southeast 8 11. Fragments of Geometric vessel (stemmed krater?) 9 12. Stone wall, possibly predating the Archaic Heroön, from the east 10 13. Stone wall, from the south 10 14. Detail of the north end of the stone wall and sloping mass of stones of the Archaic Heroön, from the southeast 10 15. Southwest corner of the Heroön, from the east 10 16. Detail of the southern extension of the stone wall, from the south 11

xiii

xiv

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

33. Mass of stones on the west side of the mound, from the north 19 34. West edge of the mass of stones, from the west 20 35. Sloping profile of the mass of stones, as revealed by excavation of the adjacent mound fill, from the south 20 36. Curvilinear rubble wall segment of the Archaic Heroön mound and poros blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the south 20 37. Curvilinear rubble wall segment of the Archaic Heroön mound and poros blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the west 21 38. Southwest corner of the Heroön, after excavation into the Archaic mound, from the south 21 39. Southwest corner of the Heroön, after excavation into the Archaic mound, from the north 21 40. Detail of the poros blocks and curvilinear rubble wall at the southwest corner of the Heroön, from the south 22 41. Rubble retaining walls of the Archaic mound, from the west 22 42. Rubble retaining walls of the Archaic mound, from the east 23 43. Cobbled surface between the retaining walls of the mound, from the east 23 44. Southern retaining wall of the Archaic mound, exposed beneath the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the south 23 45. Elements excavated within the southern side of the Archaic mound in F/16,19–19/14,18, from the east 24 46. Scattered stones, cobbled surface, and rubble retaining wall excavated within the southern side of the Archaic mound in F/16,19– 19/14,18, from the south 24 47. Cobbled surface south of the southern retaining wall of the Archaic mound, from the south 25 48. Scarp in Section F 20 showing the south edge of the mound, from the west 26 49. Detail of state plan, Section G 19 27 50. Rubble wall beneath the east wall of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the west 27 51. Rubble wall beneath the east wall of Early Hellenistic Heroön and rubble slope of the east side of the Archaic mound, from the north 27

52. Rubble slope of the east side of the Archaic mound, from the east 28 53. Detail of state plan, Section G 18 28 54. Rubble at the northeast corner of the Heroön, from the north 28 55. Rubble at the northeast corner of the Heroön, from the west 29 56. Bronze phiale (Cat. 49), in situ 30 57. Cup and oinochoe (Cat. 28 and 35), in situ 30 58. Remains of a vase with a rock lodged in it, in situ 31 59. Group of four kotylai (Cat. 15–18) and an oinochoe (Cat. 36), in situ 32 60. Stone enclosure (Tomb of Opheltes) in G/6, 7–19/1,3, from the north 35 61. Stones in G 18, some possibly of the north end of the enclosure (Tomb of Opheltes), from the east 35 62. Two stone blocks, unearthed in a large area of blackened fill (= Deposit F 18, F 19:1) near the west side of the Heroön, from the south 36 63. Detail of northern stone block near the west side of the Heroön, from the south 37 64. Stone block at F/12–19/12,13 and surrounding pits, from the west 37 65. Stone block fragments at G/6,7–19/16, from the west 37 66. Remains of a pit found south of the Tomb of Opheltes, from the east 39 67. Tree planting pit with root holes, excavated in F/8–19/14,15, from the southwest 40 68. Graph of relative percentages of inventoried vessels from the Heroön, grouped by function 41 69. Graph of relative percentages of inventoried miniature pottery shapes from the Heroön 42 70. Miniature kantharoi from the Heroön (l. to r.): P 588, P 575, Cat. 139, P 581, and P 526 43 71. Miniature bowls from the Heroön (l. to r.): P  1742, P 1655, P 1265, Cat. 140, and P 1654 43 72. Krateriskoi from the Heroön (l. to r.): P 578, P 1618, P 530, Cat. 141, P 1706, P 523, and P 527 43 73. Mints represented by two or more coins in the area of the Heroön 46 74. Density of pre-Roman coins in and around the Heroön 47

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

*75. Cross section C-C’, from west to east through embankment in Sections F 16, G 16 76a–c. Profile of the west side of the embankment seen in the south scarp of Section F 16, from the north 50 77. East side of the embankment in Section G 16, from the southwest 51 78a–d. Profile of the east side of the embankment seen in the south scarp of G 16, from the north 51 79. Band of stones at the base of the embankment’s east slope, from the southwest 52 80. Row of stones in Section G 18, possibly related to the embankment, from the east 52 *81. State plan of embankment features in Sections G 14, H 14 82. Trace of stone lining of embankment in Section G 14, from the west 53 83. Rubble wall across embankment in Sections G 14, H 14, from the north 53 84. Rubble wall across embankment and course of poros blocks along base of embankment in Sections G 14, H 14, from the east 53 85. East end of the rubble wall and the course of poros blocks, from the south 53 86. Rubble wall across embankment and course of poros blocks along base of embankment in Sections G 14, H 14, from the west 53 87. Course of poros blocks in Section H 14, from the north 55 88. Course of poros blocks in Section H 14, from the south 55 89. Surface with wheel ruts in F/1,3–18/1,10, bisected by the later terracotta water channel, from the north 55 90. Detail of the surface with wheel ruts in Section F 18, from the east 55 91. Surface with wheel ruts in Sections E 17 and F 17, from the west 56 92. Detail of the wheel ruts in Sections E 17 and F 17, from the south 56 93. Excavated remains of the North Pit and adjacent patch of burning at west end of the rubble wall across the embankment, from the north 57 94. Bronze oinochoe (Cat. 226), along with stones and an animal bone, in situ in the North Pit, from the south 57 95. Stones and pottery under excavation in the North Pit, from the south 57

xv

96. Renovated embankment with second band of rubble, from the south 59 97. Arrowheads from the environs of the Heroön (l. to r.): BR 1564, BR 1592, BR 1541, BR 1036, BR 1571, BR 1593, BR 1591, and BR 1127 59 98. North-south line of stones at the top of the embankment in Section F 18, from the northeast 60 99. Refurbished west slope of the embankment with traces of a new stone lining 60 100. Detail of worked block and stones added to the west slope, from the south 61 101. North-south line of stones at the top of the embankment in Section F 16, from the northeast 61 102. Line of blocks from the Early Temple of Zeus reused along the embankment in Section G 14, from the south 61 103. Starting line blocks in Section F 16, from the west 62 104. Starting line blocks and their surrounding surface, from the north 62 105. Detail of the east end of the starting line blocks, from the north 62 106. Terracotta water channel, from the east 63 107. Terracotta water channel, from the northwest 63 108. Southeast corner and east side of the Early Hellenistic Heroön under excavation, from the south 65 109. Northeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, after excavation into deeper levels, from the south 65 110. Detail of the northeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the south 66 111. Detail of the two courses of foundation blocks at the northeast corner 66 112. North wall of the Early Hellenistic Heroön foundation course, gouged at regular intervals by Early Christian farming trenches, from the north 67 113. Foundation trench along the south side of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the west 67 114. Foundation trench along the west side of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the south 67 115. Krater (Cat. 250) with covering stone slab (Cat. 251) in the foundation trench of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the north 68

xvi

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

116. Krater (Cat. 250), after removal of its contents, in the foundation trench of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the north 68 117. Robbing trench over the southeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the east 69 118. Foundation block with traces of dowel holes (?) in the south course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the south 70 119. Early Christian farming trenches excavated in Section G 19, from the south 75 120. Early Christian farming trenches excavated in Section F 19, from the west 75 121. Frequency of burnt and unburnt NISP bones from contexts in the area of the Heroön at Nemea 81 122. Summary percentages of species by left and right elements for Heroön period of use deposits at Nemea 87 123. Summary percentages of left and right skeletal elements by skeletal category for Heroön period of use deposits at Nemea (all taxa combined) 87 124. Summary counts of skeletal parts by animal size category for Heroön period of use deposits at Nemea 92 125. Wreath of wild celery with flowers in blossom 135 126. Panel of bronze shield band from Olympia, Arch. Mus. 1654 142 127. Drawing of shield band panel 142 128. Cup by Sotades Painter, London, British Museum D 7 145 129. Drawing of tondo of cup by Sotades Painter, London, British Museum D 7 145 130. Fragmentary krater from Paestum, Bari Museum 3581 147 131. Apulian volute krater from Ruvo, Saint Petersburg, Hermitage Museum B 1714 148 132. Apulian volute krater, Paris, Louvre K 66 (N 3147) 150 133. Detail of upper and lower scenes of Apulian volute krater, Paris, Louvre K 66 (N 3147) 150 134. Apulian volute krater from Ruvo, Naples, Mus. Naz. 81394 (H 3255) 151 135. Moldmade relief bowl, Agora P 28588 155 136. Engraved red jasper gemstone, New York, MMA 81.6.110 155

137. Wall painting from Herculaneum, Naples, Mus. Naz. 8987 156 138. Wall painting from Casa dei Dioscuri in Pompeii, Naples, Mus. Naz. 9039 156 139. Grave altar of Nicephorus, Detroit Institute of Arts 38.107 157 140. Detail of grave altar of Nicephorus, Detroit Institute of Arts 38.107 157 141. Relief, Rome, Palazzo Spada 1812 158 142. Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum 159 143. Short side of Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum 159 144. Detail of left half of long side of Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum 160 145. Detail of right half of long side of Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum 160 146. Attic sarcophagus fragment, Athens NM 1457 163 147a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Hadrian) 164 148a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Antoninus Pius) 164 149. Drawing of reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Lucius Verus) 165 150a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Septimius Severus) 165 151. Reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Julia Domna) 165 152a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Julia Domna) 166 153a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Plautilla) 166 154a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Corinth (Domitian) 166 155a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Corinth (Septimius Severus) 167 156a–b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Corinth (Caracalla) 167 157. Reverse of bronze contorniate with bust of Alexander the Great 167 158. Griddle fragment, P 1621 (Cat. 1) 183 159. Sword blade, IL 726 (Cat. 2) 184 160. Pin/Needle, BR 1432 (Cat. 3) 184 161. Obsidian blade, ST 799 (Cat. 4) 185 162. Obsidian flake, ST 800 (Cat. 5) 185 163. Skyphos fragment, P 658 (Cat. 6) 185 164. Kotyle, P 1577 (Cat. 7) 186 165. Kotyle, P 1587 (Cat. 8) 186 166. Kotyle, P 1592 (Cat. 9) 187 167. Kotyle, P 1588 (Cat. 10) 187

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207.

Kotyle, P 1580 (Cat. 11) 187 Kotyle, P 1589 (Cat. 12) 188 Kotyle, P 1590 (Cat. 13) 188 Kotyle, P 1573 (Cat. 14) 189 Kotyle, P 1586 (Cat. 15) 189 Kotyle, P 1578 (Cat. 16) 189 Profile of kotyle P 1578 (Cat. 16) 189 Kotyle, P 1579 (Cat. 17) 190 Kotyle, P 1584 (Cat. 18) 190 Kotyle, P 1600 (Cat. 19) 190 Kotyle, P 1660 (Cat. 20) 191 Kotyle, P 1669 (Cat. 21) 191 Kotyle, P 1612 (Cat. 22) 192 Kotyle, P 567a–b (Cat. 23) 192 Profile of kotyle P 567a–b (Cat. 23) 192 Kotyle, P 568 (Cat. 24) 192 One-handled kantharos, P 1595 (Cat. 25) 193 Profile of one-handled kantharos P 1595 (Cat. 25) 193 Kantharos, P 1671 (Cat. 26) 193 Profile of kantharos P 1671 (Cat. 26) 193 Katharos, P 1581 (Cat. 27) 194 Two-handled cup, P 1557 (Cat. 28) 194 Profile of two-handled cup P 1557 (Cat. 28) 194 Two-handled cup, P 1599 (Cat. 29) 195 Two-handled cup, P 1596 (Cat. 30) 195 Mug, P 1558 (Cat. 31) 195 Profile of mug P 1558 (Cat. 31) 195 Mug, P 1624 (Cat. 32) 196 Profile of mug P 1624 (Cat. 32) 196 Mug, P 1670 (Cat. 33) 196 Kylix, P 1610 (Cat. 34) 197 Profile of kylix P 1610 (Cat. 34) 197 Coarse trefoil oinochoe, P 1582 (Cat. 35) 197 Coarse round-mouthed oinochoe, P 1593 (Cat. 36) 197 Profile of coarse round-mouthed oinochoe P 1593 (Cat. 36) 198 Right side of trefoil oinochoe, P 1623 (Cat. 37) 198 Back side of trefoil oinochoe P 1623 (Cat. 37) 198 Left side of trefoil oinochoe P 1623 (Cat. 37) 199 Profile of trefoil oinochoe P 1623 (Cat. 37) 199 Coarse round-mouthed oinochoe, P 1661 (Cat. 38) 199

xvii

208. Profile of coarse round-mouthed oinochoe P 1661 (Cat. 38) 199 209. Unglazed oinochoe, P 1668 (Cat. 39) 200 210. Profile of unglazed oinochoe P 1668 (Cat. 39) 200 211. Corinthian krater, side A, P 1627 (Cat. 40) 200 212. Drawing of Corinthian krater, side A, P 1627 (Cat. 40) 200 213. Corinthian krater, side B, P 1627 (Cat. 40) 201 214. Drawing of Corinthian krater, side B, P 1627 (Cat. 40) 201 215. Profile of Corinthian krater P 1627 (Cat. 40) 201 216. Drawing of handle side of Corinthian krater P 1627 (Cat. 40) 201 217. Krater, P 1664 (Cat. 41) 202 218. Profile of krater P 1664 (Cat. 41) 202 219. Miniature kotyle, P 1591 (Cat. 42) 202 220. Profile of miniature kotyle P 1591 (Cat. 42) 202 221. Miniature kotyle, P 1620 (Cat. 43) 203 222. Interior of miniature kotyle P 1620 (Cat. 43) 203 223. Profile of miniature kotyle P 1620 (Cat. 43) 203 224. Miniature kotyle, P 1611 (Cat. 44) 203 225. Interior of miniature kotyle, P 1583 (Cat. 45) 204 226. Base of miniature kotyle P 1583 (Cat. 45) 204 227. Perforated kalathiskos, P 1598 (Cat. 46) 204 228. Profile of perforated kalathiskos P 1598 (Cat. 46) 204 229. Miniature bowl, P 1572 (Cat. 47) 205 230. Profile of miniature bowl P 1572 (Cat. 47) 205 231. Krateriskos, P 1619 (Cat. 48) 205 232. Profile of krateriskos P 1619 (Cat. 48) 205 233. Phiale, BR 1387 (Cat. 49) 206 234. Bottom of phiale BR 1387 (Cat. 49) 206 235. Spearhead, IL 650 (Cat. 50) 206 236. Spearhead, IL 681 (Cat. 51) 206 237. Side view of terracotta figurine of centaur, TC 274 (Cat. 52) 207 238. Three-quarter right frontal view of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52) 207 239. Three-quarter left frontal view of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52) 207

xviii

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

240. Three-quarter left frontal view of upper half of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52) 208 241. Three-quarter left frontal view of head of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52) 208 242. Iron implement, IL 849 (Cat. 53) 209 243. Lamp fragment, L 60 (Cat. 54) 209 244. Lamp fragment, L 61 (Cat. 55) 209 245. Lamp fragment, L 62 (Cat. 56) 209 246. Lamp fragment, L 65 (Cat. 57) 210 247. Lamp fragment, L 66 (Cat. 58) 210 248. Lamp fragment, L 69 (Cat. 59) 210 249. Lamp fragment, L 91 (Cat. 60) 211 250. Top view of button, ST 513 (Cat. 61) 211 251. Profile view of button ST 513 (Cat. 61) 211 252. Bottom view of button ST 513 (Cat. 61) 211 253. Buckle, BR 799 (Cat. 62) 211 254. Chain link, BR 679 (Cat. 63) 212 255. Pin head, BR 865 (Cat. 64) 212 256. Pin fragment, BR 801 (Cat. 65) 212 257. Cosmetic spoon, BR 1562 (Cat. 66) 212 258. Sima fragment, AT 84 (Cat. 67) 213 259. Corinthian pan tile fragment, AT 86 (Cat. 68) 213 260. Kotyle, P 510 (Cat. 69) 213 261. Kotyle, P 571 (Cat. 70) 214 262. Skyphos, P 584 (Cat. 71) 214 263. Kotyle, P 1576 (Cat. 72) 215 264. Kotyle, P 512 (Cat. 73) 215 265. Kotyle, P 1290 (Cat. 74) 215 266. Skyphos, P 1736 (Cat. 75) 216 267. Profile of skyphos P 1736 (Cat. 75) 216 268. Skyphos, P 1740 (Cat. 76) 216 269. Profile of skyphos P 1740 (Cat. 76) 216 270. Skyphos, P 488 (Cat. 77) 217 271. Red-figure skyphos fragment, P 663 (Cat. 78) 217 272. Side view of red-figure skyphos fragment P 663 (Cat. 78) 217 273. One-handled cup, P 1659 (Cat. 79) 218 274. One-handled cup, P 442 (Cat. 80) 218 275. One-handled cup, P 446 (Cat. 81) 218 276. Kantharos, P 445 (Cat. 82) 219 277. Profile of kantharos P 445 (Cat. 82) 219 278. Kantharos, P 1737 (Cat. 83) 219 279. Profile of kantharos P 1737 (Cat. 83) 219 280. Stemless cup, P 1739 (Cat. 84) 220 281. Profile of stemless cup P 1739 (Cat. 84) 220 282. Stemless cup, P 1570 (Cat. 85) 220

283. Cup-skyphos with graffiti, P 546 (Cat. 86) 221 284. Profile of cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86) 221 285. Graffito just above foot of cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86) 221 286. Graffito at level of handles on cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86) 221 287. Drawing of graffiti on cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86) 221 288. Drawing of graffiti on cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86) 221 289. Mug, P 499 (Cat. 87) 222 290. Column krater, P 1695 (Cat. 88) 222 291. Profile of column krater P 1695 (Cat. 88) 222 292. Pedestal krater, P 577a–b (Cat. 89) 223 293. Profile of pedestal krater P 577a–b (Cat. 89) 223 294. Small krater, P 480 (Cat. 90) 223 295. Profile of small krater P 480 (Cat. 90) 223 296. Small krater, P 447 (Cat. 91) 224 297. Round-mouthed oinochoe, P 443 (Cat. 92) 224 298. Profile of round-mouthed oinochoe P 443 (Cat. 92) 224 299. Round-mouthed oinochoe, P 586 (Cat. 93) 225 300. Trefoil oinochoe, P 572 (Cat. 94) 225 301. Profile of trefoil oinochoe P 572 (Cat. 94) 225 302. Top view of trefoil oinochoe P 572 (Cat. 94) 225 303. Trefoil oinochoe lid, P 522 (Cat. 95) 226 304. Coarse trefoil oinochoe, P 570 (Cat. 96) 226 305. Top view of coarse trefoil oinochoe P 570 (Cat. 96) 226 306. Coarse round-mouthed oinochoe, P 441 (Cat. 97) 227 307. Jug, P 444 (Cat. 98) 227 308. Profile of jug P 444 (Cat. 98) 227 309. Dinos, P 503 (Cat. 99) 228 310. Top view of dinos P 503 (Cat. 99) 228 311. Large jug, P 504 (Cat. 100) 228 312. Alabastron, P 524 (Cat. 101) 229 313. Three-quarter view of alabastron P 524 (Cat. 101) 229 314. Three-quarter view of alabastron P 524 (Cat. 101) 229 315. Aryballos, P 500 (Cat. 102) 229 316. Aryballos, P 1602 (Cat. 103) 230 317. Profile of aryballos P 1602 (Cat. 103) 230

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. 353. 354. 355. 356.

Aryballos, P 436 (Cat. 104) 230 Aryballos, P 437 (Cat. 105) 231 Aryballos, P 520 (Cat. 106) 231 Top view of aryballos P 520 (Cat. 106) 231 Palmette lekythos, P 440 (Cat. 107) 231 Side view of palmette lekythos P 440 (Cat. 107) 232 Profile of palmette lekythos P 440 (Cat. 107) 232 Echinus bowl, P 1738 (Cat. 108) 232 Profile of echinus bowl P 1738 (Cat. 108) 232 Echinus bowl, P 1597 (Cat. 109) 233 Shallow bowl/saucer, P 497 (Cat. 110) 233 Saucer, P 1743 (Cat. 111) 233 Profile of saucer P 1743 (Cat. 111) 233 Small bowl with graffito, P 1723 (Cat. 112) 234 Drawing of small bowl with graffito P 1723 (Cat. 112) 234 Profile of small bowl with graffito P 1723 (Cat. 112) 234 Lekanis, P 494 (Cat. 113) 234 Saltcellar, P 449 (Cat. 114) 234 Saltcellar, P 529 (Cat. 115) 235 Top view of saltcellar P 529 (Cat. 115) 235 Squat pyxis, P 574 (Cat. 116) 235 Flanged pyxis lid, P 625 (Cat. 117) 236 Underside of flanged pyxis lid P 625 (Cat. 117) 236 Plate fragment, P 496 (Cat. 118) 236 Plate fragment, P 1248 (Cat. 119) 236 Plate fragment, P 1555 (Cat. 120) 237 Profile of plate fragment P 1555 (Cat. 120) 237 Coarse bowl, P 1563 (Cat. 121) 237 Chytra, P 501 (Cat. 122) 237 Coarse lid, P 483 (Cat. 123) 238 Coarse cup, P 569 (Cat. 124) 238 Profile of coarse cup P 569 (Cat. 124) 238 Coarse kantharos, P 453 (Cat. 125) 239 Coarse bowl, P 451 (Cat. 126) 239 Lopas, P 1264 (Cat. 127) 239 Black-figure pottery fragment, P 623 (Cat. 128) 240 Black-figure cup fragment, P 660 (Cat. 129) 240 Black-figure pottery fragment, P 1291 (Cat. 130) 240 Black-figure pottery fragment, P 1292 (Cat. 131) 241

xix

357. Black-figure pottery fragment, P 1658 (Cat. 132) 241 358. Top view of mender, BR 802 (Cat. 133) 241 359. Profile view of mender BR 802 (Cat. 133) 242 360. Handle attachment, BR 757 (Cat. 134) 242 361. Kylix handle, BR 809 (Cat. 135) 242 362. Miniature kotyle, P 1717 (Cat. 136) 243 363. Miniature kotyle, P 580 (Cat. 137) 243 364. Miniature kotyle, P 582 (Cat. 138) 243 365. Interior of miniature kotyle P 582 (Cat. 138) 244 366. Miniature kantharos, P 1541 (Cat. 139) 244 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390.

Miniature bowl, P 1569 (Cat. 140) 244 Krateriskos, P 448 (Cat. 141) 245 Krateriskos, P 1605 (Cat. 142) 245 Miniature footed cup, P 579 (Cat. 143) 245 Interior of miniature footed cup P 579 (Cat. 143) 246 Miniature footed cup, P 1542 (Cat. 144) 246 Kalathiskos, P 528 (Cat. 145) 246 Interior of kalathiskos P 528 (Cat. 145) 246 Kalathiskos, P 533 (Cat. 146) 247 Interior of kalathiskos P 533 (Cat. 146) 247 Miniature plate, P 651 (Cat. 147) 247 Interior of miniature plate P 651 (Cat. 147) 247 Miniature phiale, P 662 (Cat. 148) 248 Interior of miniature phiale P 662 (Cat. 148) 248 Miniature one-handled kantharos, P 1567 (Cat. 149) 248 Miniature kothon, P 1267 (Cat. 150) 249 Interior of miniature kothon P 1267 (Cat. 150) 249 Perirrhanterion fragments, P 547a–h (Cat. 151) 249 Perirrhanterion fragments with inscription P 547 a and f (Cat. 151) 250 Drawing of perirrhanterion fragments with inscription P 547 a and f (Cat. 151) 250 Rim of perirrhanterion fragments P 547 a and f (Cat. 151) 250 Underside of rim of perirrhanterion fragments P 547 a and f (Cat. 151) 250 Perirrhanterion column shaft fragment, AT 83a (Cat. 152) 250 Perirrhanterion base fragment, P 486 (Cat. 153) 251

xx

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

391. Profile and upper surface of perirrhanterion base fragment P 486 (Cat. 153) 251 392. Perirrhanterion base fragment, P 531 (Cat. 154) 252 393. Perirrhanterion base fragment P 531 (Cat. 154) 252 394. Profile and upper surface of perirrhanterion base fragment P 531 (Cat. 154) 252 395. Perirrhanterion rim fragment, P 487 (Cat. 155) 252 396. Top of perirrhanterion rim fragment, P 1272 (Cat. 156) 253 397. Underside of rim of perirrhanterion fragment P 1272 (Cat. 156) 253 398. Perirrhanterion rim fragment P 1272 (Cat. 156) 253 399. Profile of perirrhanterion rim fragment P 1272 (Cat. 156) 253 400. Perirrhanterion rim fragment, P 1662 (Cat. 157) 253 401. Stone base, A 158 (Cat. 158) 254 402. Stone figurine, SS 3 (Cat. 159) 254 403. Drawing of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159) 254 404. Left side of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159) 254 405. Right side of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159) 255 406. Back of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159) 255 407. Terracotta figurine, TC 117 (Cat. 160) 255 408. Right side of terracotta figurine TC 117 (Cat. 160) 255 409. Side of horse figurine, TC 115 (Cat. 161) 256 410. Top of horse figurine TC 115 (Cat. 161) 256 411. Head of animal figurine, TC 120 (Cat. 162) 257 412. Right side of head of animal figurine TC 120 (Cat. 162) 257 413. Limb of animal figurine, TC 125 (Cat. 163) 257 414. Male figurine, TC 116 (Cat. 164) 258 415. Right side of male figurine TC 116 (Cat. 164) 258 416. Back of male figurine TC 116 (Cat. 164) 258 417. Terracotta leg, TC 118 (Cat. 165) 258 418. Female figurine, TC 121 (Cat. 166) 259 419. Right side of female figurine TC 121 (Cat. 166) 259 420. Horse and rider figurine, TC 126a–b (Cat. 167) 259

421. Torso of animal figurine, TC 104 (Cat. 168) 260 422. Top of torso of animal figurine, TC 119 (Cat. 169) 260 423. Side of torso of animal figurine TC  119 (Cat. 169) 260 424. Horse and rider figurine, TC 122 (Cat. 170) 260 425. Kerykeion, IL 324 (Cat. 171) 261 426. Strigil, BR 729 (Cat. 172) 261 427. Horse bit, IL 386 (Cat. 173) 262 428. Javelin point, IL 389 (Cat. 174) 262 429. Javelin point, IL 390 (Cat. 175) 262 430. Statue fragment, BR 807 (Cat. 176) 263 431. Polyhedron, BR 734 (Cat. 177) 263 432. Exterior view of hinged box, BR 1087 (Cat. 178) 263 433. Interior view of hinged box BR 1087 (Cat. 178) 264 434. Hinged box fragment, BR 1533 (Cat. 179) 264 435. Spearhead, IL 357 (Cat. 180) 264 436. Spearhead, IL 682 (Cat. 181) 265 437. Side view of spearhead, IL 385 (Cat. 182) 265 438. Top view of spearhead IL 385 (Cat. 182) 265 439. Arrowhead, IL 488 (Cat. 183) 265 440. Spear butt, IL 384 (Cat. 184) 266 441. Loom weight, TC 123 (Cat. 185) 266 442. Side view of spindle whorl, TC 124 (Cat. 186) 266 443. Top view of spindle whorl TC 124 (Cat. 186) 266 444. Sickle blade, IL 329 (Cat. 187) 267 445. Sickle blade, IL 333 (Cat. 188) 267 446. Whetstone fragment, ST 509 (Cat. 189) 267 447. Lamp, L 56 (Cat. 190) 268 448. Lamp, L 57 (Cat. 191) 268 449. Lamp, L 58 (Cat. 192) 268 450. Lamp, L 76 (Cat. 193) 269 451. Lamp, L 77 (Cat. 194) 269 452. Lamp, L 78 (Cat. 195) 269 453. Lamp stand, L 184 (Cat. 196) 270 454. Grinding stone fragment, ST 423 (Cat. 197) 270 455. Grinding stone fragment, ST 424 (Cat. 198) 270 456. Grinding stone fragment, ST 425 (Cat. 199) 271 457. Grinding stone fragment, ST 435 (Cat. 200) 271

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501.

Hoop, IL 331 (Cat. 201) 271 Nail, IL 684 (Cat. 202) 271 Pin, IL 655 (Cat. 203) 272 Roll-top pin, IL 345 (Cat. 204) 272 Rod fragment, IL 387 (Cat. 205) 272 Collar, IL 670 (Cat. 206) 272 Wire, IL 683 (Cat. 207) 272 Strip, BR 867 (Cat. 208) 273 Flat hoop, IL 382 (Cat. 209) 273 Hoop, BR 810 (Cat. 210) 273 Peg, IL 392 (Cat. 211) 274 Ingot, IL 366 (Cat. 212) 274 Flat hoop, BR 806 (Cat. 213) 274 Tack, BR 811 (Cat. 214) 274 Nail head, BR 1113 (Cat. 215) 275 Nail, BR 1361 (Cat. 216) 275 Pin, BR 1039 (Cat. 217) 275 Perforated disc, BR 1545 (Cat. 218) 275 Needle, BR 1532 (Cat. 219) 276 Strip, IL 325 (Cat. 220) 276 Stylus, BR 1537 (Cat. 221) 276 Wire, BR 1104 (Cat. 222) 276 Mortarium/bowl fragment, P 1714 (Cat. 223) 277 Profile of mortarium/bowl fragment P 1714 (Cat. 223) 277 Bottom of mortarium/bowl fragment P 1714 (Cat. 223) 277 Chain, BR 693 (Cat. 224) 277 Skyphos, P 1709 (Cat. 225) 278 Trefoil oinochoe, BR 1594 (Cat. 226) 278 Top of trefoil oinochoe BR 1594 (Cat. 226) 278 Profile and handle detail of trefoil oinochoe BR 1594 (Cat. 226) 278 Trefoil olpe, P 1716 (Cat. 227) 279 Profile of trefoil olpe P 1716 (Cat. 227) 279 Kotyle, P 1711 (Cat. 228) 279 Kotyle, P 1712 (Cat. 229) 280 Stemless cup, P 1710 (Cat. 230) 280 Profile of stemless cup P 1710 (Cat. 230) 280 Kantharos, P 1713 (Cat. 231) 281 Blade?, IL 887 (Cat. 232) 281 Blade?, IL 888 (Cat. 233) 281 Rod, IL 889 (Cat. 234) 282 Silver stater of Aigina, obverse, C 5067 (Cat. 235) 282 Silver stater of Aigina, reverse, C 5067 (Cat. 235) 282 Ring, GJ 147 (Cat. 236) 283 Mender, IL 867 (Cat. 237) 283

502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539.

xxi

Wire, IL 868 (Cat. 238) 283 Arrowhead, BR 1542 (Cat. 239) 283 Arrowhead, BR 1543 (Cat. 240) 284 Tool (pick?), IL 845 (Cat. 241) 284 Strip, BR 1538 (Cat. 242) 284 Mug, P 904 (Cat. 243) 285 Chert core, ST 837 (Cat. 244) 285 Antefix from Early Temple of Zeus, AT  82 (Cat. 247) 285 Wedge, IL 669 (Cat. 248) 286 Peg, IL 672 (Cat. 249) 286 Krater, P 539 (Cat. 250) 287 Interior of krater P 539 (Cat. 250) 287 Profile of krater P 539 (Cat. 250) 287 Stone slab, ST 520 (Cat. 251) 287 Bead, GL 16 (Cat. 252) 288 Foot of vessel, GL 37 (Cat. 253) 288 Stamped amphora handle, P 525 (Cat. 254) 288 Detail of stamp on amphora handle P 525 (Cat. 254) 288 Stamped amphora handle, P 624 (Cat. 255) 289 Detail of stamp on amphora handle P 624 (Cat. 255) 289 Worked stone fragment, ST 410 (Cat. 256) 289 Crown molding fragment, A 416 (Cat. 257) 290 Clamp cover, bottom side, IL 860 (Cat. 258) 290 Sheet fragment, IL 313 (Cat. 259) 290 Disc, IL 314 (Cat. 260) 291 Filler, IL 861 (Cat. 261) 291 Flake, BR 1409 (Cat. 262) 291 Pin, BR 1563 (Cat. 263) 291 Bead, BR 1410 (Cat. 264) 292 Tool, IL 340 (Cat. 265) 292 Knife, IL 341 (Cat. 266) 292 Lekane, P 1626 (Cat. 267) 292 Stamped stone, ST 796 (Cat. 268) 293 Bar, IL 859 (Cat. 269) 293 Stamped amphora handle, P 434 (Cat. 270) 293 Figurine of Opheltes, BR 671 (Cat. 271) 294 Left three-quarter view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271) 294) Right three-quarter view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271) 294

xxii

I L LU S T RAT I O N S

540. Left view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271) 295 541. Right view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271) 295 542. Back view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271) 295 543. State plan of the Heroön with Tomb of Opheltes and findspots of curse tablets indicated 299 544. Curse tablet, IL 327 (CT 1), folded 300 545. Curse tablet IL 327 (CT 1), unfolded 300

Drawing of curse tablet IL 327 (CT 1) 301 Curse tablet, IL 372 (CT 2), unfolded 304 Drawing of curse tablet IL 372 (CT 2) 304 Curse tablet, IL 367 (CT 3), unfolded 307 Drawing of curse tablet IL 367 (CT 3) 307 Curse tablet, IL 326 (CT 4), folded 309 Curse tablet IL 326 (CT 4), select unfolded fragments 310 553. Drawing of fragments of curse tablet IL 326 (CT 4) 311

546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. 552.

TA BLES

8. Counts and frequencies for various skeletalpart categories for medium- and large-size mammals from the Heroön period of use levels 92 9. Frequencies (by count) of various skeletalpart categories for medium- and large-size mammals from various phases and contexts associated with the Heroön 93 10. Comparative zooarchaeological data for hero-cult sacrifice in Greek antiquity 97 11. Comparative zooarchaeological data for animal sacrifices to Olympian deities in the Greek world (including Hellenistic Italy) 98 12. Comparative zooarchaeological data for animal sacrifices to unknown deities in the Greek world 100

1. Distribution of coins by metal and location 47 2. Taphonomy of faunal materials from the Heroön period of use deposits 82 3. State of burning among long-bone fragments from a Heroön period of use context (layer 2 = pottery lot G19:3) 83 4. State of burning among long-bone fragments from a Heroön period of use context (layer 2a = pottery lot G19:4) 83 5. Frequency of taxa from Heroön period of use deposits, by NISP (= Number of Identified Specimens), MNI (= Minimum Number of Individual Animals), and bone weight 85 6. Species and elemental distribution (by side) for Heroön period of use deposits 86 7. Species and elemental distribution (by side) for various contexts 90

xxiii

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY A N D A BBR EV I ATIONS

Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (Princeton 1997). Agora XXX = M. B. Moore, The Athenian Agora, XXX, Attic Red-Figured and White-Ground Pottery (Princeton 1997). AJA = American Journal of Archaeology Alt-Olympia = W. Dörpfeld, Alt-Olympia, I (Berlin 1935). AM = Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung Amandry = P. Amandry, “Sur les concours argiens,” in Études argiennes = BCH Supplement 6 (Paris 1980) 211–253. Amyx and Lawrence = D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence, Studies in Archaic Corinthian Vase Painting = Hesperia Supplement 28 (Princeton 1996). Andrews = A. C. Andrews, “Celery and Parsley as Foods in the Greco-Roman Period,” CP 44 (1949) 91–99. AntK = Antike Kunst Antonaccio = C. M. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (Lanham 1995). Aslamantzidou-Kostourou = Z. AslamantzidouKostourou, “Υστεραρχαϊκός τάφος από το Άργος,” AD 40 (1985 [1991]) 178–193. Asper = M. Asper, ed. and trans., Kallimachos Werke (Darmstadt 2004). Augoustakis = A. Augoustakis, Motherhood and the Other: Fashioning Female Power in Flavian Epic (Oxford 2010). AZ = Archäologische Zeitung

AA = Archäologische Anzeiger AB = C. Austin and G. Bastianini, Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt Omnia (Milan 2002). ABSA = Annual of the British School at Athens AD = Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον Abramson = H. Abramson, “Greek Hero-Shrines” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1978). Adshead = K. Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese: The Transition from Archaic to Classical Politics (Aldershot and Brookfield 1986). Agora IV = R. H. Howland, The Athenian Agora, IV, Greek Lamps and Their Survivals (Princeton 1958). Agora VII = J. Perlzweig, The Athenian Agora, VII, Lamps of the Roman Period: First to Seventh Century after Christ (Princeton 1961). Agora XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, The Athenian Agora, XII, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. (Princeton 1972). Agora XIV = H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, The Athenian Agora, XIV, The Agora of Athens (Princeton 1972). Agora XXII = S. I. Rotroff, The Athenian Agora, XXII, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls (Princeton 1982). Agora XXIII = M. B. Moore and M. Z. P. Philippides, The Athenian Agora, XXIII, Attic Black-figured Pottery (Princeton 1986). Agora XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, The Athenian Agora, XXIX, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and

xxv

xxvi

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Bammer = A. Bammer, “Sanctuaries in the Artemision of Ephesus,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence = SkrAth 8˚, 15 (Stockholm 1998) 27–47. Bammer et al. = A. Bammer, F. Brein, and P. Wolff, “Das Tieropfer am Artemisaltar von Ephesos,” in S. Sahin, E. Schwerthein and J.Wagner, eds., Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner I (Leiden 1978) 107–157. Barakari-Gleni = K. Barakari-Gleni, “Ανασκαφή τάφων στο Άργος,” AD 39 (1984 [1990]) 171–204. Barfoed 2009 = S. Barfoed, “An Archaic Votive Deposit from Nemea: Ritual Behavior in a Sacred Landscape” (M.A. thesis, University of Cincinnati, 2009). Barfoed 2015 = S. Barfoed, “The Significant Few: Miniature Pottery from the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia,” World Archaeology 47 (2015) 1–19. Bastianini and Gallazzi = G. Bastianini and C. Gallazzi, Posidippo di Pella Epigrammi (P.Mil.Vogl. VIII 309) = Papiri dell’Università degli Studi di Milano 8 (Milan 2001). Baur = P. V. C. Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art: The Archaic Period (Berlin 1912). BCH = Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique BdA = Bollettino d’arte Beazley = J. D. Beazley, “Some Inscriptions on Vases: V,” AJA 54 (1950) 310–322. Beer = C. Beer, “Comparative Votive Religion: The Evidence of Children in Cyprus, Greece and Etruria,” in T. Linders and G. Nordquist, eds., Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 = Boreas 15 (Uppsala 1987) 21–29. Benecke = N. Benecke, “Animal Sacrifice at the Late Archaic Artemision of Olympia: The Archaeozoological Evidence,” in U. Tecchiati and B. Sala, eds., Archaeozoological Studies in Honour of Alfredo Riedel (Bolzano 2006) 153–160. Bentz = J. L. Bentz, Pottery at Ancient Corinth from Mid-Sixth to Mid-Fifth Century B.C. (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 1982).

Berger-Doer = G. Berger-Doer, “Euneos et Thoas,” in LIMC IV (Zurich and Munich 1988) 59–62. Bergquist = B. Bergquist, “Feasting of Worshippers or Temple and Sacrifice? The Case of Herakleion on Thasos,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence = SkrAth 8˚, 15 (Stockholm 1998) 57–72. Bethe = E. Bethe, Thebanische Heldenlieder: Untersuchungen über die Epen des thebanischargivischen Sagenkreises (Leipzig 1891). Bevilacqua = G. Bevilacqua, “Un incantesimo per l’odio in una defixio di Roma,” ZPE 117 (1997) 291–293. BICS = Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Biers = W. R. Biers, “Excavations at Phlius, 1924: The Votive Deposit,” Hesperia 40 (1971) 397–423. Birge 1982 = D. Birge, “Sacred Groves in the Ancient Greek World” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982). Birge 1994 = D. Birge, “Trees in the Landscape of Pausanias’ Periegesis,” in S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1994) 231–245. Blatter = R. Blatter, “Adrastos als Friedensstifter,” AA (1983) 17–22. Blech = M. Blech, Studien zum Kranz bei den Griechen = Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 38 (Berlin and New York 1982). Blegen, “Neolithic” = C. W. Blegen, “Neolithic Remains at Nemea,” ed. J. L. Caskey, Hesperia 44 (1975) 251–279. Blegen, “Nemea, 1924” = C. W. Blegen, “The American Excavation at Nemea, Season of 1924,” Art and Archaeology 19 (1925) 175–184. Blegen, “Nemea, 1926” = C. W. Blegen, “Excavations at Nemea, 1926,” AJA 31 (1927) 421–440. BMC Pel. = P. Gardner, A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Peloponnesus (Excluding Corinth), ed. R. S. Poole (London 1887). Boessneck = J. Boessneck, Die Tierknochenfunde aus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben (Böotien) (Munich 1973).

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Boessneck and Driesch = J. Boessneck and A. von den Driesch, Knochenabfall von Opfermahlen und Weihgaben aus dem Heraion von Samos (7 Jh. V. Chr.) (Munich 1988). Bond = G. W. Bond, ed., Euripides Hypsipyle (London 1963). Bookidis et al. = N. Bookidis, J. Hanse, L. Snyder, and P. Goldberg, “Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth,” Hesperia 68 (1999) 1–54. Boulotis = C. Boulotis, “Hypsipyle I,” in LIMC VIII (Zurich and Düsseldorf 1997) 645–650. Bradeen = D. W. Bradeen, “Inscriptions from Nemea,” Hesperia 35 (1966) 320–330. Bravo, “tablette” = B. Bravo, “Une tablette magique d’Olbia Pontique, les morts, les héros et les démons,” in Poikilia: Recueil d’essais offert à Jean-Pierre Vernant (Paris 1987) 185–218. Bravo 2009 = J. J. Bravo, “Recovering the Past: The Origins of Greek Heroes and Hero Cult,” in Sabine Albersmeier, ed., Heroes: Mortals and Myths in Ancient Greece (Baltimore 2009) 10–29. Bravo 2016 = J. J. Bravo, “Erotic Curse Tablets from the Heroön of Opheltes at Nemea,” Hesperia 85 (2016) 121–152. Brein and Wolff = F. Brein and P. Wolff, “Das Tieropfer am Artemisaltar von Ephesos,” in S. Sahin, E. Schwerthein, and J. Wagner, eds., Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner I (Leiden 1978) 107–157. Brelich = A. Brelich, Gli eroi greci: Un problema storico-religioso (Rome 1958). Bremmer = J. N. Bremmer, “Myth and Ritual in Ancient Greece: Observations on a Difficult Relationship,” in R. von Haehling, ed., Griechische Mythologie und frühes Christentum (Darmstadt 2005) 21–43. Brendel = O. Brendel, “Der Schlangenwürgende Herakliskos,” JdI 47 (1932) 191–238. Brillante = C. Brillante, “Un episodio dimenticato della Tebaide,” in A. Mastrocinque, ed., Omaggio a Piero Treves (Padua 1983) 43–55. Broneer = O. Broneer, “The Isthmian Victory Crown,” AJA 66 (1962) 259–263.

xxvii

Brulotte = E. L. Brulotte, “The ‘Pillar of Oinomaos’ and the Location of Stadium I at Olympia,” AJA 98 (1994) 53–64. Buck = C. D. Buck, The Greek Dialects (Chicago 1955). Burkert 1983 = W. Burkert, Homo Necans, trans. P. Bing (Berkeley 1983). Burkert 1992 = W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age, trans. M. E. Pinder and W. Burkert (Cambridge, Mass., 1992). Burkert 1994 = W. Burkert, “Orpheus, Dionysos und die Euneiden in Athen: Das Zeugnis von Euripides’ Hypsipyle,” in A. Bierl and P. von Möllendorf, eds., Orchestra: Drama, Mythos, Bühne (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1994) 44–49. Burn = L. Burn, “Honey Pots: Three WhiteGround Cups by the Sotades Painter,” AntK 28 (1985) 93–105. Cairns = D. L. Cairns, “Ἄωτος, Ἄνθος, and the Death of Archemorus in Bacchylides’ Ninth Ode,” in F. Cairns and M. Heath, eds., Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 10 (Leeds 1998) 57–73. Caskey and Amandry = J. L. Caskey and P. Amandry, “Investigations at the Heraion of Argos, 1949,” Hesperia 21 (1952) 165–221. Chandler = R. C. Chandler, Travels in Greece (Dublin 1776). Cherry et al. = J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, A. Demitrack, E. Mantzourani, T. F. Strasser, and L. E. Talalay, “Archaeological Survey in an Artifact-Rich Landscape: A Middle Neolithic Example from Nemea, Greece,” AJA 92 (1988) 159–176. Christesen = P. Christesen, Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History (Cambridge 2007). Clayman = D. L. Clayman, Berenice II and the Golden Age of Ptolemaic Egypt (Oxford and New York 2014). Cockle = W. E. H. Cockle, ed., Euripides Hypsipyle (Rome 1987). Collinge = A. Collinge, “Aristaios, or His Fatherin-Law?” AntK 31 (1988) 9–19.

xxviii

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Columeau 1996 = P. Columeau, “Les restes de faune du sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Amothonte,” BCH 120 (1996) 784. Columeau 2000 = P. Columeau, “Sacrifice et viande dans les sanctuaires grecs et chypriotes (VIIe s. / Ier s. av. J.-C.) et l’apport de l’habitat de Kassopè,” Pallas 52 (2000) 147–166. Cook = J. M. Cook, “The Agamemnoneion,” ABSA 48 (1953) 30–68. Corinth IV, ii = O. Broneer, Corinth, IV, ii, Terracotta Lamps (Cambridge 1930). Corinth VI = K. M. Edwards, Corinth, VI, Coins 1896–1929 (Cambridge 1933). Corinth VII, i = S. S. Weinberg, Corinth, VII, i, The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery (Cambridge 1943). Corinth VII, ii = D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence, Corinth, VII, ii, Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well (Princeton 1975). Corinth VII, iii = G. R. Edwards, Corinth, VII, iii, Hellenistic Pottery (Princeton 1975). Corinth VII, iv = S. Herbert, Corinth, VII, iv, The Red-Figure Pottery (Princeton 1977). Corinth VII, v = M. K. Risser, Corinth, VII, v, Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery (Princeton 2001). Corinth IX = F. P. Johnson, Corinth, IX, Sculpture 1896–1923 (Cambridge 1931). Corinth XII = G. R. Davidson, Corinth, XII, The Minor Objects (Princeton 1952). Corinth XIII = C. W. Blegen, H. Palmer, and R. S. Young, Corinth, XIII, The North Cemetery (Princeton 1964). Corinth XIV = C. Roebuck, Corinth, XIV, The Asklepieion and Lerna (Princeton 1951). Corinth XV, i = A. N. Stillwell, Corinth, XV, i, The Potters’ Quarter (Princeton 1948). Corinth XV, ii = A. N. Stillwell, Corinth, XV, ii, The Potters’ Quarter: The Terracottas (Princeton 1952). Corinth XV, iii = A. N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, Corinth, XV, iii, The Potter’s Quarter: The Pottery (Princeton 1984). Corinth XVIII, i = E. G. Pemberton, Corinth, XVIII, i, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery (Princeton 1989). Corinth XVIII, iv = G. S. Merker, Corinth, XVIII, iv, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods (Princeton 2000).

Corinth XVIII, vi = R. S. Stroud, Corinth, XVIII, vi, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Inscriptions (Princeton 2013). CorVP = D. A. Amyx, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1988). Coulson and Kyrieleis = W. Coulson and H. Kyrieleis, eds., Proceedings of an International Symposium on the Olympic Games, 5–9 September 1988 (Athens 1992). Cousin and Dürrbach = G. Cousin and F. Dürrbach, “Inscriptions de Némée,” BCH 9 (1885) 348–356. CP = Classical Philology CQ = Classical Quarterly Crabtree and Monger = P. J. Crabtree and J. Monger, “Faunal and Human Skeletal Remains III,” in D. White, ed., The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports = University Museum Monograph 67 (Philadelphia 1990) 113–153. Cropp 2003 = M. Cropp, “Hypsipyle and Athens,” in E. Csapo and M. C. Miller, eds., Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social Life of Myth, Word and Image in Ancient Greece: Essays in Honour of William J. Slater (Oxford 2003) 129–145. Cropp 2004 = M. J. Cropp, ed., “Hypsipyle,” in C. Collard, M. J. Cropp, and J. Gibert, eds., Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays with Introductions, Translations, and Commentaries, II (Oxford 2004) 169–258. Crome = J. F. Crome, “Kerykeia,” AM 63–64 (1938–1939) 117–126. Curtius = E. Curtius, Peloponnesos II (Gotha 1852). Dabney et al. = M. K. Dabney, P. Halstead, and P. Thomas, “Mycenaean Feasting on Tsoungiza at Ancient Nemea,” Hesperia 73 (2004) 197–215. D’Alessio = G. B. D’Alessio, ed., Callimaco, II, Aitia, Giambi, Frammenti elegiaci minori, Frammenti di sede incerta (Milan 1996). Darcque and Treuil = P. Darcque and R. Treuil, eds., L’habitat égéen préhistorique = BCH Supplement 19 (Athens 1990). Daux = G. Daux, “Chronique des fouilles en Grèce en 1956,” BCH 81 (1957) 496–713.

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Davies = J. Davies, “The Origins of the Festivals, especially Delphi and the Pythia,” in S. Hornblower and C. Morgan, eds., Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire (Oxford 2007) 47–70. Davies and Finglass = M. Davies and P. J. Finglass, eds., Stesichorus: The Poems, Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Cambridge 2014). Davis 1980 = J. L. Davis, “If There’s Room at the Top, What’s at the Bottom?” BICS 35 (1980) 164–165. Davis 1996 = S. J. M. Davis, “Animal sacrifices,” in D. Buitron-Oliver, ed., The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion: Excavations in the Archaic Precinct = Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 109 ( Jonsered 1996) 181–182. Demakopoulou = K. Demakopoulou, “Mycenaean Citadels: Recent Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea in the Argolid,” BICS 40 (1995) 151–176. Des Courtils et al. = J. Des Courtils, A. Gardeisen, and A. Pariente, “Sacrifices d’animaux à Hérakleion de Thasos,” BCH 120 (1996) 799–820. Deshayes = J. Deshayes, Argos: Les fouilles de la Deiras = Études Péloponnésiennes IV (Paris 1966). Detienne and Vernant = M. Detienne and J. P. Vernant, eds., La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec (Paris 1979). Dillon = M. Dillon, Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient Greece (London and New York 1997). Dodwell = E. Dodwell, A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece II (London 1819). Doffey = M.-C. Doffey, “Les mythes de fondation des Concours Néméens,” in M. Pierart, ed., Polydipsion Argos = BCH Supplement 22 (1992) 185–193. Drachmann = A. B. Drachmann, ed., Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, 3 vols. (Lipsiae 1903–1927). Driesch = A. von den Driesch, A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites (Cambridge, Mass., 1976). Drougou et al. = S. Drougou et al., “Kentauroi et Kentaurides,” in LIMC VIII (Zurich and Düsseldorf 1997) 671–721.

xxix

DT = A. Audollent, Defixionum tabellae (Paris 1904). DTA = R. Wünsch, IG III.3, Appendix: Defixionum tabellae (Berlin 1897). Durand = J.-L. Durand, Sacrifice et labour en Grèce ancienne: Essai d’anthropologie religieuse (Paris and Rome 1986). Ebert = J. Ebert, Griechische Epigramme auf Sieger an gymnischen und hippischen Agonen (Berlin 1972). Eidinow = E. Eidinow, Oracles, Curses, and Risk among the Ancient Greeks, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2013). Eidinow and Taylor = E. Eidinow and C. Taylor, “Lead-Letter Days: Writing, Communication and Crisis in the Ancient Greek World,” CQ 60 (2010) 30–62. Ekroth 1998 = G. Ekroth, “Altars in Greek Hero-Cults: A Review of the Archaeological Evidence,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence = SkrAth 8˚, 15 (Stockholm 1998) 117–30. Ekroth 1999a = G. Ekroth, “Pausanias and the Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Hero Cult = SkrAth 8˚, 16 ( Stockholm 1999) 145–158. Ekroth 1999b = G. Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods (Stockholm 1999). Ekroth 2002 = G. Ekroth, The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Periods = Kernos Supplement 12 (Liège 2002). Ekroth 2009a = G. Ekroth, “The Cult of Heroes,” in Sabine Albersmeier, ed., Heroes: Mortals and Myths in Ancient Greece (Baltimore 2009) 120–143. Ekroth 2009b = G. Ekroth, “Thighs or Tails? The Osteological Evidence as a Source for Greek Ritual Norms,” in P. Brulé, ed., La norme e matière religieuse dans la Grèce ancienne: Actes du XIe colloque du CIERGA (Rennes, septembre 2007) = Kernos Supplement 21 (Liège 2009) 125–151. Ekroth 2012 = G. Ekroth, “Pelops Joins the Party: Transformations of a Hero Cult within the Festival at Olympia,” in J. R. Brandt and J. W. Iddeng, eds., Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice (Oxford 2012) 95–137.

xxx

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Faraone 1991 = C. A. Faraone, “The Agonistic Context of Early Greek Binding Spells,” in C. A. Faraone and D. Obbink, eds., Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion (New York and Oxford 1991) 3–32. Faraone 2005 = C. A. Faranoe, “Twisting and Turning in the Prayer of the Samothracian Initiates,” MH 62 (2005) 30–50. Faraone and Rife = C. A. Faraone and J. L. Rife, “A Greek Curse Against a Thief from the Koutsongila Cemetery at Roman Kenchreai,” ZPE 160 (2007) 141–157. Farnell = L. R. Farnell, Greek Hero Cults and Ideas of Immortality (Oxford 1921; repr. Chicago 1995). Favier = S. Favier, “A propos de deux vases italiotes du Musée du Louvre,” RLouvre 22 (1972) 1–6. Foley = A. Foley, The Argolid 800–600 B.C.: An Archaeological Survey Together with an Index of Sites from the Neolithic to the Roman Period = Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 80 (Göteborg 1988). Forstenpointner = G. Forstenpointner, “Promethean Legacy: Investigations into the Ritual Procedure of ‘Olympian’ Sacrifice,” in E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Halstead, C. Gamble and P. Elefanti, eds., Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances = British School at Athens Studies 9 (London 2003) 203–213. Fortgens = H. W. Fortgens, P. Papinii Statii de Opheltis funere carmen epicum, Theb. Lib. VI 1–295, interpretatus est (Zutphen 1934). Foster = G. V. Foster, “The Bones from the Altar West of the Painted Stoa,” Hesperia 53 (1984) 73–82. Frazer = J. G. Frazer, Pausanias’s Description of Greece, III, Commentary on Books II–V (London 1913). Friedländer = J. Friedländer, “Neue Erwerbungen des K. Münzkabinets,” AZ 27 (1869) 97–104. Fuhrer 1992 = T. Fuhrer, Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Chorlyrikern in den Epinikien des Kallimachos = Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 23 (Basel and Kassel 1992). Fuhrer 1993 = T. Fuhrer, “Callimachus’ Epinician Poems,” in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, and G. C. Wakker, eds., Callimachus, = Hellenistica Groningana I (Groningen 1993) 79–97.

Gager = J. G. Gager, ed., Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (New York and Oxford 1992). Gallis = K. I. Gallis, “Χρονικά: Αρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα Θεσσαλίας. Νομὸς Λαρίσης,” AD 27 (1972) 411–419. Ganiban = R. Ganiban, “The Death and Funeral Rites of Opheltes in the Thebaid,” in A. Augoustakis, ed., Ritual and Religion in Flavian Epic (Oxford 2013) 249–265. Gantz = T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources (Baltimore and London 1993). Garland = R. Garland, The Greek Way of Death (London 1985). Gebhard = E. R. Gebhard, “The Beginning of Panhellenic Games at the Isthmus,” in Olympia 1875–2000, 221–237. Gebhard and Dickie = E. R. Gebhard and M. W. Dickie, “Melikertes-Palaimon, Hero of the Isthmian Games,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Hero Cult Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian = SkrAth 8˚, 16 ( Stockholm 1999) 159–165. Gebhard and Hemans = E. R. Gebhard and F. P. Hemans, “University of Chicago Excavations at Isthmia, 1989: I,” Hesperia 61 (1992) 1–77. Gebhard and Reese = E. R. Gebhard and D. S. Reese, “Sacrifices for Poseidon and Melikertes-Palaimon at Isthmia,” in R. Hägg and B. Alroth, eds., Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian = SkrAth 8˚, 18 (Stockholm 2005) 125–154. Geisau = H. von Geisau, “Πρῶναξ,” in RE 23 (1957) cols. 740–741. Gell = W. Gell, The Itinerary of Greece (London 1810). Gercke et al. = P. and W. Gercke and G. Hiesel, “Tiryns-Stadt 1971: Graben H,” in Tiryns Forschungen und Berichte VIII (Mainz 1975) 7–36. Gignac = F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, I, Phonology (Milan 1976). Gordon = R. Gordon, “’What’s in a List?’ Listing in Greek and Graeco-Roman Malign Magical Texts,” in Jordan et al., 239–278.

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Grace = V. Grace, “The Stamped Amphora Handles Found in the American Excavations in the Athenian Agora 1931–1932: A Catalogue Treated as a Chronological Study,” Hesperia 3 (1934) 197–310. Graf 1980 = F. Graf, “Milch, Honig, und Wein: Zum Verständnis der Libation im griechischen Ritual,” in Perennitas: Studi in onore di Angelo Brelich (Rome 1980) 209–221. Graf 1997 = F. Graf, Magic in the Ancient World, trans. F. Philip (Cambridge, Mass., 1997). Grant = A. Grant, “The Use of Tooth Wear as a Guide to the Age of Domestic Ungulates,” in B. Wilson, C. Grigson and S. Payne, eds., Ageing and Sexing Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites = British Archaeological Reports, British Series, 109 (Oxford 1982) 91–108. GRBS = Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Groot = M. Groot, “Burned Offerings and Sacrificial Meals in Geometric and Archaic Karystos: Faunal Remains from Plakari (2011–2012),” Pharos 20 (2014) 25–52. Guide = Stephen G. Miller, ed., Nemea: A Guide to the Site and Museum (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1990). Guide2 = Stephen G. Miller, ed., Nemea: A Guide to the Site and Museum, 2nd ed. (Athens 2004). Guldager Bilde and Handberg = P. Guldager Bilde and S. Handberg, “Ancient Repairs on Pottery from Olbia Pontica,” AJA 116 (2012) 461–481. Hadzisteliou-Price = T. Hadzisteliou-Price, “The Type of the Crouching Child and the ‘Temple Boys,’ ” ABSA 64 (1969) 95–111. Hägg = R. Hägg, “Osteology and Greek Sacrificial Practice,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence = SkrAth 8˚, 15 (Stockholm 1998) 49–56. Hägg and Alroth = R. Hägg and B. Alroth, eds., Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chthonian = SkrAth 8˚, 18 (Stockholm 2005). Hall = J. M. Hall, “How Argive Was the ‘Argive’ Heraion? The Political and Cultic Geography of the Argive Plain, 900–400 B.C.,” AJA 99 (1995) 577–613.

xxxi

Halm-Tisserant and Siebert = M. Halm-Tisserant and G. Siebert, “Kerykeion,” in LIMC VIII (Zurich and Düsseldorf 1997) 728–730. Hanell = K. Hanell, “Nemea (4),” in RE 16 (1935) cols. 2322–2327. Harder = A. Harder, Callimachus, Aetia: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, 2 vols. (Oxford 2012). Henderson = J. Henderson, The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy, 2nd ed. (New York 1991). Henrichs = A. Henrichs, “The ‘Sobriety’ of Oedipus: Sophocles OC 100 Misunderstood,” HSCP 87 (1983) 87–100. Herrmann 1962 = H.-V. Herrmann, “Zur ältesten Geschichte von Olympia,” AM 77 (1962) 3–34. Herrmann 1980 = H.-V. Herrmann, “Pelops in Olympia,” in N. Zapheiropoulos et al., eds., Στήλη. Τόμος εἰς Μνήμην Ν. Κοντολέοντος (Athens 1980) 59–74. Herrmann and Herbig = P. Herrmann and R. Herbig, Denkmäler der Malerei des Altertums (Munich 1904–1950). Herter = H. Herter, “Opheltes,” in RE 18 (1939) cols. 635–640. Hesperia 1966 = D. W. Bradeen, “Inscriptions from Nemea,” Hesperia 35 (1966) 320–330. Hesperia 1975 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1973–1974,” Hesperia 44 (1975) 143–172. Hesperia 1976 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1975,” Hesperia 45 (1976) 174–202. Hesperia 1977 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1976,” Hesperia 46 (1977) 1–26. Hesperia 1978 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1977,” Hesperia 47 (1978) 58–88. Hesperia 1979 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1978,” Hesperia 48 (1979) 73–103. Hesperia 1980 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1979,” Hesperia 49 (1980) 178–205. Hesperia 1981 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1980,” Hesperia 50 (1981) 45–67. Hesperia 1982 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1981,” Hesperia 51 (1982) 19–40. Hesperia 1983 = Stella G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1982,” Hesperia 52 (1983) 70–95. Hesperia 1984 = Stella G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1983,” Hesperia 53 (1984) 171–192.

xxxii

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Hesperia 1988 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1984–1986,” Hesperia 57 (1988) 1–20. Hesperia 2015 = Stephen G. Miller, “Excavations at Nemea, 1997–2001,” Hesperia 84 (2015) 277–353. Hoffmann = H. Hoffmann, Sotades: Symbols of Immortality on Greek Vases (Oxford 1997). HSCP = Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Huber and Méniel = S. Huber and P. Méniel, “Annexe 1: Analyses archéozoologique: La faune terrestre du Sanctuaire d’Apollon,” in S. Verdan, ed., Eretria XXII: Le Sanctuaire d’Apollon Daphéphoros à l’èpoque géométrique, Vol. 1 (Lausanne 2013) 243–269. Hunt = Gloria R. Hunt, “Foundation Rituals and the Culture of Building in Ancient Greece” (Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2006). IG = Inscriptiones Graecae Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner = F. W. ImhoofBlumer and P. Gardner, Ancient Coins Illustrating Lost Masterpieces of Greek Art: A Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias (American edition, Chicago 1964). Isaakidou et al. = V. Isaakidou, P. Halstead, J. Davis, and S. Stocker, “Burnt Animal Sacrifice at the Mycenaean ‘Palace of Nestor,’ Pylos,” Antiquity 76 (2002) 86–92. Isthmia I = O. Broneer, Isthmia, I, The Temple of Poseidon (Princeton 1971). Isthmia II = O. Broneer, Isthmia, II, Topography and Architecture (Princeton 1973). Isthmia III = O. Broneer, Isthmia, III, Terracotta Lamps (Princeton 1973). Isthmia VII = I. K. Raubitschek, Isthmia, VII, The Metal Objects (1952–1989) (Princeton 1998). Isthmia VIII = C. Morgan, Isthmia, VIII, The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary (Princeton 1999). IvLindos = Inschriften von Lindos auf Rhodos Jameson = M. H. Jameson, “Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece,” in C. R. Whittaker, ed., Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity = Cambridge Philological Society Supplementary Volume 14 (Cambridge 1988) 87–119.

Jarman = M. R. Jarman, “Preliminary Report on the Animal Bones,” in J. N. Coldstream, ed., Knossos, the Sanctuary of Demeter British School of Archaeology at Athens, Supplementary Volume 8 (London 1973) 177–179. JdI = Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Jeffery = L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries b.c., 2nd ed. (Oxford 1990). Jefremow = N. Jefremow, Die Amphorenstempel des hellenstischen Knidos = Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt 19 (Munich 1995). JÖAI = Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Johnson = F. P. Johnson, “A Note on Owl Skyphoi,” AJA 59 (1955) 119–124. Johnston = S. I. Johnston, “Songs for the Ghosts: Magical Solutions to Deadly Problems,” in Jordan et al., 83–102. Jöhrens = G. Jöhrens, Amphorenstempel im Nationalmuseum von Athen (Mainz 1999). Jordan 1985 = D. R. Jordan, “Defixiones from a Well near the Southwest Corner of the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 54 (1985) 205– 255. Jordan 1988 = D. R. Jordan, “New Archaeological Evidence for the Practice of Magic in Classical Athens,” in Πρακτικά του ΧΙΙ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής Ἀρχαιολογίας

(Athens 1988) 273–277. Jordan 1997 = D. R. Jordan, “An Address to a Ghost at Olbia,” Mnemosyne 50 (1997) 212–219. Jordan 1999 = D. R. Jordan, “Three Curse Tablets,” in Jordan et al., 115–124. Jordan 2000 = D. R. Jordan, “A Personal Letter Found in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 69 (2000) 91–103. Jordan 2008 = D. R. Jordan, “An Athenian Curse Tablet Invoking Palaimon,” in A. P. Matthaiou and I. Polinskaya, eds., Μικρός Ιερομνήμων: Μελέτες εις μνήμην Michael H. Jameson (Athens 2008) 133–144. Jordan et al. = D. R. Jordan, H. Montgomery, and E. Thomassen, eds., The World of Ancient Magic: Papers from the First International Samson Eitrem Seminar at the Norwegian Institute at Athens 4–8 May 1997 (Bergen 1999).

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Kabirenheiligtum V = B. Schmaltz, Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, V, Terrakotten aus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben: Menschenähnlichen Figuren, menschliche Figuren und Gerät (Berlin 1974). Kadletz = E. Kadletz, “Animal Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religion” (Ph.D. diss., University of Washington 1976). Kampakoglou = A. Kampakoglou, “Victory, Mythology and the Poetics of Intercultural Praise in Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices,” Trends in Classics 5 (2013) 111–143. Karageorghis = V. Karageorghis, “Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1979,” BCH 104 (1980) 761–803. Kassapoglou = E. Kassapoglou, “Un lot de petits bronzes d’Erétrie: Témoin d’un culte domestique?” in J. Arce and F. Burkhalter, eds., Bronces y religión romana: Actas del XI congreso internacional de bronces antiguos, Madrid, mayo–junio, 1990 (Madrid 1993) 247–259. Kerameikos XV = B. Vierneisel-Schlörb, Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, XV, Die figürlichen Terrakotten, 1. Spätmykenisch bis späthellenistisch (Munich 1997). Kilian-Dirlmeier = I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Die Schwerter in Griechenland (ausserhalb der Peloponnes), Bulgarien und Albanien = Prähistorische Bronzefunde IV,12 (Stuttgart 1993). K-M = A. Alföldi and E. Alföldi, Die KontorniatMedaillons, pt. 1, Katalog, and pt. 2, Text = Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine 6.1–2 (Berlin and New York 1976 and 1990). Kourouniotes = K. Kourouniotes, Κατάλογος τοῦ Μουσείου Λυκοσούρας (Athens 1911). Krauskopf 1981 = I. Krauskopf, “Amphiaraos,” in LIMC I (Zurich and Munich 1981) 691–713. Krauskopf 1994 = I. Krauskopf, “Septem,” in LIMC VII (Zurich and Munich 1994) 730– 748. Kron = U. Kron, “Sickles in Greek Sanctuaries: Votives and Cultic Instruments,” in R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence = SkrAth 8˚, 15 (Stockholm 1998) 187–216. Kyrieleis 1990 = H. Kyrieleis, “Neue Ausgrabungen in Olympia,” Antike Welt 21 (1990) 177–88.

xxxiii

Kyrieleis 2002 = H. Kyrieleis, “Zu den Anfängen des Heiligtums von Olympia,” in Olympia 1875–2000, 213–220. Laguna = Gabriel Laguna, ed., Estácio, Silvas III: Introducción, Edición Crítica, Traducción y Commentario (Madrid 1992). Lampes d’Argos = A. Bovon, Lampes d’Argos = Études Péloponnésiennes V (Paris 1966). Lang = M. Lang, Cure and Cult in Ancient Corinth: A Guide to the Asklepieion = Corinth Notes 1 (Princeton 1977). Leguilloux = M. Leguilloux, “Sacrifices et repas publics dans le sanctuaire de Poséidon à Ténos: Les analyses archéozoologiques,” BCH 123 (1999) 423–456. LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae I–VIII (Zurich and Munich/ Düsseldorf 1981–1997) LGPN = P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, eds., A Lexikon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford 1987–2013). Livrea = E. Livrea, “Nota al nuovo Callimaco di Lille,” ZPE 32 (1978) 7–10. Livrea et al. = E. Livrea, A. Carlini, C. Corbato, and F. Bornmann, “Il Nuovo Callimaco di Lille,” Maia 32 (1980) 225–253. Lolos = A. C. Lolos, “Antike Scholien zu Anthologia Graeca-Palatina,” Hellenika 33 (1981) 374–381. López Jimeno 1991 = M. López Jimeno, Las tabellae defixionis de la Sicilia griega = Classical and Byzantine Monographs 22 (Amsterdam 1991). López Jimeno 1999 = M. López Jimeno, Nuevas tabellae defixionis áticas = Classical and Byzantine Monographs 44 (Amsterdam 1999). Lovatt = H. Lovatt, Statius and Epic Games: Sport, Politics and Poetics in the Thebaid (Cambridge 2005). Luce = J.-M. Luce, “Géographie funéraire et identités ethniques à l’âge du fer en Grèce” Pallas 73 (2007) 39–51. Lungu = V. Lungu, “La tombe d’un ἭΡΩΣ et l’organisation de la nécropole d’une cité milésienne du Pont Euxin: Le tumulus T-A95 d’Orgamé,” Talanta 32–33 (2000– 2001) 171–188. Lyman = R. L. Lyman, Vertebrate Taphonomy (Cambridge 1994).

xxxiv

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

MacKinnon 2010 = M. MacKinnon, “‘Left’ is ‘Right’: The Symbolism behind Side Choice among Ancient Animal Sacrifices,” in D. Campana, P. Crabtree, S. D. deFrance, J. Lev-Tov, and A. Choyke, eds., Anthropological Approaches to Zooarchaeology: Complexity, Colonialism and Animal Transformations (Oxford 2010) 250–258. MacKinnon 2013 = M. MacKinnon, “‘Side’ Matters: Animal Offerings at Ancient Nemea, Greece,” in G. Ekroth and J. Wallensten, eds., Bones, Behaviours and Beliefs: The Osteological Evidence as Source of Greek Ritual Practice (Athens 2013) 125–143. Maehler 1970 = H. Maehler, ed., Bacchylidis: Carmina cum fragmentis (Leipzig 1970). Maehler 1982 = H. Maehler, ed., Die Lieder des Bakchylides, I, Die Siegeslieder, ii, Kommentar = Mnemosyne Supplement 62.2 (Leiden 1982). Mallwitz 1972 = A. Mallwitz, Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich 1972). Mallwitz 1988 = A. Mallwitz, “Cult and Competition Locations at Olympia,” in Raschke, 79–109. Marbach = Marbach, “Lykourgos (3),” in RE 13 (1927) cols. 2440–2442. Marchand = J. C. Marchand, “Well-Built Kleonai: A History of the Peloponnesian City Based on a Survey of the Visible Remains and a Study of the Literary and Epigraphic Sources” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2002). Matthews = V. J. Matthews, Antimachus of Colophon: Text and Commentary = Mnemosyne Supplement 155 (Leiden, New York, and Köln 1996). Mayser = E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit, mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften, 1, Laut- und Wortlehre (Leipzig 1906). McDowell = R. H. McDowell, Stamped and Inscribed Objects from Seleucia on the Tigris = University of Michigan Studies Humanistic Series 36 (Ann Arbor 1935). McGregor = M. F. McGregor, “Cleisthenes of Sicyon and the Panhellenic Festivals,” TAPA 72 (1941) 266–287.

McPhee = I. McPhee, “Stemless Bell-Kraters from Ancient Corinth,” Hesperia 66 (1997) 99–145. MH = Museum Helveticum Miller, “Eurymedon” = M. C. Miller, “I Am Eurymedon: Tensions and Ambiguities in Athenian War Imagery,” in D. M. Pritchard, ed., War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens (Cambridge 2010) 304–338. Miller, “Excavations” = Stella G. Miller, “Excavations at the Panhellenic Site of Nemea: Cults, Politics, and Games,” in Raschke, 141–151. Miller 1982 = Stephen G. Miller, “Kleonai, the Nemean Games, and the Lamian War,” in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography = Hesperia Supplement 20 (Princeton 1982) 100–108. Miller 1986 = Stephen G. Miller, “Poseidon at Nemea,” in Φίλια έπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν δια τα 60 έτη του ανασκαφικού του έργου, vol. I (Athens 1986) 261–271. Miller 2001 = Stephen G. Miller, “Cult Tables from Nemea,” in Καλλίστευμα: Μελέτες πρός τιμήν της Όλγας Τζάχου-Αλεχανδρή (Athens 2001) 461–468. Miller 2002 = Stephen G. Miller, “The Shrine of Opheltes and the Earliest Stadium,” in Olympia 1875–2000, 239–250. Miller 2004 = Stephen G. Miller, Ancient Greek Athletics (New Haven and London 2004). Miller 2009 = Stephen G. Miller, The Berkeley Plato (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London 2009). Miller 2011 = Stephen G. Miller, “Ancient Nemea: Wine and the Games,” in Stavroula Kourakou-Dragona, ed., Nemea, Beloved Land of Zeus and Dionysos (Athens 2011) 34–53. Moggi and Osanna = M. Moggi and M. Osanna, Pausania guida della Grecia, IX, La Beozia (Rome 2010). Morgan 1990 = C. Morgan, Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century b.c. (Cambridge 1990). Morgan 2002 = C. Morgan, “The Origins of the Isthmian Festival: Points of Comparison and Contrast,” in Olympia 1875–2000, 251–271.

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Morris = I. Morris, Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State (Cambridge 1987). Morton = J. Morton, “The Experience of Greek Sacrifice: Investigating Fat-Wrapped Thighbones,” in M. M. Miles, ed., Autopsy in Athens: Recent Archaeological Research in Athens and Attica (Oxford 2015) 66–75. Mosshammer = A. A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg and London 1979). Musti and Torelli = D. Musti and M. Torelli, Pausania guida della Grecia, II, La Corinzia e l’Argolide (Rome 1986). Mylonas = G. E. Mylonas, “Ἀνασκαφὴ Μυκηνῶν,” PAE 1973 (1975) 99–107. Nagy 1979 = G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry (Baltimore 1979). Nagy 1986 = G. Nagy, “Pindar’s Olympian I and the Aetiology of the Olympic Games,” TAPA 116 (1986) 65–88. Nagy 1990 = G. Nagy, Pindar’s Homer: The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past (Baltimore 1990). NB = Notebook of Nemea Excavations NC = H. Payne, Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period (Oxford 1931). Nemea I = D. E. Birge, L. H. Kraynak, and Stephen G. Miller, Excavations at Nemea, I, Topographical and Architectural Studies: The Sacred Square, the Xenon, and the Bath (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1992). Nemea II = Stephen G. Miller, R. C. Knapp, and D. Chamberlain, Excavations at Nemea, II, The Early Hellenistic Stadium (Berkeley and Los Angeles 2001). Nemea III = R. C. Knapp and J. D. Mac Isaac, Excavations at Nemea, III, The Coins (Berkeley and Los Angeles 2005). Newlands 2011 = C. Newlands, “‘Straight from the Horse’s Mouth’: Arion in Silvae 1.1,” Mouseion, Series 3, 11 (2011) 341–360. Newlands 2012 = C. Newlands, Statius, Poet Between Rome and Naples (London 2012). NGCT = D. R. Jordan, “New Greek Curse Tablets (1985–2000),” GRBS 41 (2000) 5–46.

xxxv

Nobis = G. Nobis, “Tierreste aus Tamassos auf Zypern,” Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 7–8 (1976/77) 271–300. NVAP I = Daniel J. Pullen et al., Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, I, The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill (Princeton 2011). Ogden = D. Ogden, Drakōn: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford 2013). OF II = E. Kunze, Olympische Forschungen, II, Archaische Schildbänder (Berlin 1950). OF IX = P. C. Bol, Olympische Forschungen, IX, Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia (Berlin 1978). OF XXIX = H. Baitinger, Olympische Forschungen, XXIX, Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia (Berlin and New York 2001). OF XXXI = H. Kyrieleis, Olympische Forschungen, XXXI, Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia: Die Ausgrabungen am Pelopion 1987–1996 (Berlin and New York 2006). OF XXXII = H. Baitinger and T. Völling, Olympische Forschungen, XXXII, Werkzeug und Gerät aus Olympia (Berlin and New York 2007). Oikonomides = A. N. Oikonomides, “Amphiaraos, Hypsipyle and the Snake,” Voice of the Turtle 4 (1965) 75–78. ÖJh = Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts in Wien Olympia I = F. Adler and E. Curtius, eds., Olympia, I, Topographie und Geschichte (Berlin 1897). Olympia II = F. Adler and E. Curtius, eds., Olympia, II, Die Baudenkmäler von Olympia (Berlin 1892). Olympia 1875–2000 = H. Kyrieleis, ed., Olympia 1875–2000: 125 Jahre Deutsche Ausgrabungen (Mainz 2002). Olynthus X = D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, X, Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds, an Original Contribution to Greek Life (Baltimore 1941). Pache = C. O. Pache, Baby and Child Heroes in Ancient Greece (Urbana and Chicago 2004). PAE = Πρακτικά της Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Papachatzis = N. D. Papachatzis, Παυσανίου Ελλάδος περιήγησις, βιβλίο 2 και 3, Κορινθιακά-Λακωνικά (Athens 1976).

xxxvi

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Pariente = A. Pariente, “Le monument argien des ‘Sept contre Thèbes,’” in M. Pierart, ed., Polydipsion Argos = BCH Supplement 22 (1992) 195–225. Parkes = R. Parkes, ed., Statius, Thebaid 4, Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford 2012). Parsons = P. J. Parsons, “Callimachus: Victoria Berenices,” ZPE 25 (1977) 1–50. Payne = S. Payne, “Reference Codes for Wear States in the Mandibular Cheek Teeth of Sheep and Goats,” Journal of Archaeological Science 14 (1987) 609–614. PBSR = Papers of the British School at Rome PCPS = Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Pelagatti and Stibbe = P. Pelagatti and C. M. Stibbe, “Un forma poco conosciuta di vaso laconico: Il cratere a campana,” BdA 52 (1988) 13–26. Perlman = P. Perlman, City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece: The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese = Hypomnemata 121 (Göttingen 2000). Peters = J. Peters, “Archaic Milet: Daily Life and Religious Customs from an Archaeological Perspective,” in H. Buitenhuis and A. T. Clason, eds., Archaeolozoology of the Near East: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of Southwestern Asia and Adjacent Areas (Leiden 1993) 88–91. Peters and Driesch = J. Peters and A. von den Driesch, “Siedlungsabfall versus Opferreste: Essgewohnheiten im archaischen Milet,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 42 (1992) 117–125. Pfeiffer = R. Pfeiffer, ed., Callimachus, 2 vols. (Oxford 1949–1953). Pfister = F. Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum = Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 5, ed. R. Wünsch and L. Deubner (Giessen 1909–1912). Piérart and Touchais = M. Piérart and G. Touchais, Argos: Une ville grecque de 6000 ans (Paris 1996). Pikoulas = G. A. Pikoulas, “Οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἀμπελῶνες στὸ ἱερὸ τοῦ Διὸς στὴ Νεμέα,” Horos 14–16 (2000–2003) 395–400.

Pipili = M. Pipili, Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Century B.C. = Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 12 (Oxford 1987). Platt = R. Platt, 1001 Questions Answered about Trees (New York 1992). Pouqueville = F. C. H. L. Pouqueville, Voyage en Grèce, 2nd ed. (Paris 1827). Prost = F. Prost, “Le sanctuaire d’Anios à Délos: Contribution à l’histoire politique et religieuse des Cyclades” (Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris IV, 1997). Pülhorn = W. Pülhorn, “Archemoros,” in LIMC II (Zurich and Munich 1984) 472–475. Pullen = D. J. Pullen, “The Early Bronze Age Village on Tsoungiza Hill, Ancient Nemea,” in Darcque and Treuil, 331–346. Rambach = J. Rambach, “Olympia: 2500 Jahre Vorgeschichte vor der Gründung des eisenzeitlichen griechischen Heiligtums,” in Olympia 1875–2000, 177–212. Raschke = W. J. Raschke, ed., The Archaeology of the Olympics (Madison 1988). RE = G. Wissowa et al., eds., Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Alterumwissenschaft I– (Stuttgart 1893– ). Reese 1984 = D. S. Reese, “Faunal Remains from the Kommos Temples (abstract),” AJA 88 (1984) 257. Reese 1989 = D. S. Reese, “Faunal Remains from the Altar of Aphrodite Ourania, Athens,” Hesperia 58 (1989) 63–70. Rhoussos = T. Rhoussos, ed., Ευριπίδης Υψιπύλη (Athens 1997). Richlin = A. Richlin, The Gardens of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (New York and Oxford 1992). Richter = G. M. A. Richter, New York Metropolitan Museum of Art Catalogue of Engraved Gems: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman (Rome 1956). RLouvre = Revue du Louvre Rohde = E. Rohde, Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, trans. W. B. Hillis (New York 1972 [1920]). Roller 1981a = L. E. Roller, “Funeral Games for Historical Persons,” Stadion 7 (1981) 1–18. Roller 1981b = L. E. Roller, “Funeral Games in Greek Art,” AJA 85 (1981) 107–119.

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Rotroff 2011 = S. I. Rotroff, “Mended in Antiquity: Repairs to Ceramics at the Athenian Agora,” in M. L. Lawall and J. Lund, eds., Pottery in the Archaeological Record: Greece and Beyond. Acts of the International Colloquium Held at the Danish and Canadian Institutes in Athens, June 20–22, 2008 (Aarhus 2011) 117–134. Rotroff 2013 = S. I. Rotroff, Industrial Religion: The Saucer Pyres of the Athenian Agora = Hesperia Supplement 47 (Princeton 2013). Rouse = W. H. D. Rouse, trans., Nonnos Dionysiaca, vol. 3, books 36–48 = The Loeb Classical Library 356 (London 1940). Rudolph = W. Rudolph, “Hellenistic Fine Ware Pottery and Lamps from above the House of the Idols at Mycenae,” ABSA 73 (1978) 213–233. Runnels = C. N. Runnels, “A Diachronic Study and Economic Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid, Greece” (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1981). Ruscillo 1993 = D. Ruscillo, “Faunal Remains from the Acropolis Site, Mytilene,” Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views 37, n.s. 12 (1993) 201–210. Ruscillo 1996 = D. Ruscillo, “The Secret Rites of Lesbos: A Faunal Reconstruction (Abstract),” AJA 101 (1996) 362. Ruscillo 2013 = D. Ruscillo, “Thesmophoriazousai: Mytilenean Women and Their Secret Rites,” in G. Ekroth and J. Wallensten, eds., Bones, Behaviour and Beliefs (Stockholm 2013) 181–196. RVAp = A. D. Trendall and A. Cambitoglou, The Red-Figured Vases of Apulia (Oxford 1978– 1982). Scanlon = T. F. Scanlon, Eros and Greek Athletics (Oxford 2002). Schachter = A. Schachter, Cults of Boiotia, 2. Herakles to Poseidon = BICS Supplement 38.2 (London 1986). Schefold = K. Schefold, Frühgriechische Sagenbilder (Munich 1964). Schiff ler = B. Schiff ler, Die Typologie des Kentauren in der antiken Kunst vom 10. bis zum Ende des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. = Archäologischen Studien 4 (Frankfurt and Bern 1976). Schliemann = H. Schliemann, Tiryns, the Prehistoric Palace of the Kings of Tiryns: The Results of the Latest Excavations (New York 1885).

xxxvii

Scullion = S. Scullion, “Heroic and Chthonian Sacrifice: New Evidence from Selinous,” ZPE 132 (2000) 163–171. Séchan = L. Séchan, Études sur la tragédie grecque dans ses rapports avec la céramique (Paris 1926). SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum SGD = D. R. Jordan, “A Survey of Greek Defixiones Not Included in the Special Corpora,” GRBS 26 (1985) 151–197. SH = H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons, eds., Supplementum Hellenisticum = Texte und Kommentare 11 (Berlin 1983). Shear = I. M. Shear, The Panagia Houses at Mycenae = University Museum Monograph 68 (Philadelphia 1987). Shelton = K. S. Shelton, “Nemea before Zeus: Prehistory and Early History in the Area of the Sanctuary,” in K. Kissas and W.-D. Niemeier, eds., The Corinthia and the Northeast Peloponnese = Athenaia 4 (Munich 2013) 345–349. Shipman et al. = P. Shipman, G. Foster, and M. Schoeninger, “Burnt Bones and Teeth: An Experimental Study of Color, Morphology, Crystal Structure and Shrinkage,” Journal of Archaeological Science 11 (1984) 307–325. Silver = I. A. Silver, “The Ageing of Domestic Animals,” in D. R. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs, eds., Science and Archaeology (London 1969) 283–302. Simon = E. Simon, “Archemoros,” AA (1979) 31–45. Sinn = U. Sinn, “Der sogennante Tempel D im Heraion von Samos, 2. Ein archäologischer Befund aus der nachpolykratischen Zeit mit einem Exkurs zum griechischen Bauopfer,” AM 100 (1985) 129–158. SkrAth = Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet Small = J. P. Small, The Parallel Worlds of Classical Art and Text (Cambridge 2003). Smith = H. R. W. Smith, “A Goddess from Lebadeia,” in Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear = Hesperia Supplement 8 (Baltimore 1949) 353–360. Smolenaars = J. J. L. Smolenaars, P. Papinius Statius’ Thebaid: A Commentary on Book VII,1–451 (Amsterdam 1983). Smyth = H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. G. M. Messing (Cambridge, Mass., 1956).

xxxviii

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Snodgrass = A. M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 b.c. (Edinburgh 1964). Soerink = J. Soerink, “Tragic/Epic: Statius’ Thebaid and Euripides’ Hypsipyle,” in A. Augoustakis, ed., Flavian Poetry and Its Greek Past (Leiden and Boston 2014) 171–191. Sokolowski = F. Sokolowski, Lois sacrées des cités grecques (Paris 1969). Sorrentino = C. Sorrentino, “Il materiale osteologici animale del santuario di Gravisca (scavi 1971–1979),” in F. Colivicchi, ed., Gravisca: Scavi nel santuario greco 16, I materiali minori (Bari 2004) 175–199. Stanzel = M. Stanzel, “Die Tierreste aus dem Artemis/Apollon Heiligtum bei Kalapodi in Boötien/Griechenland” (diss., University of Munich 1991). Stibbe = C. M. Stibbe, Laconian Drinking Vessels and Other Open Shapes: Laconian BlackGlazed Pottery, Part 2 (Amsterdam 1994). Stucchi = S. Stucchi, L’Agorà di Cirene, I, I lati nord ed est della platea inferiore = Monografie di archeologia libica 7 (Rome 1965). Studer and Chenal-Velarde = J. Studer and I. Chenal-Velarde, “La part des dieux et celle des homes: Offrandes d’animaux et restes culinaires dans l’aire sacrificelle nord,” in S. Huber, ed., Eretria XIV: L’aire sacrificielle au nord du Sanctuaire d’Apollon Daphnéphoros (Gollion 2003) 175–185. TAPA = Transactions of the American Philological Association Thompson = H. A. Thompson, “Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery,” Hesperia 3 (1934) 311–476. Tocco Sciarelli et al. = G. Tocco Sciarelli et al., “I santuari,” in A. Stazio and S. Ceccoli, eds., Poseidonia-Paestum, Atti del ventisettesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Taranto 1988) 402–408. Trendall = A. D. Trendall, Paestan Pottery: A Study of the Red-Figured Vases of Paestum (London 1936). Trendall and Webster = A. D. Trendall and T. B. L. Webster, Illustrations of Greek Drama (New York and London 1971). TrGF III = S. Radt, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, III, Aeschylus (Göttingen 1985).

TrGF V = R. Kannicht, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, V, Euripides (Göttingen 2004). Tsiknakis = K. G. Tsiknakis, “Μία περιγραφή του ναού του Νεμείου Διός στα τέλη του

17ου αιώνα,” in D. Katsonopoulou and E. Partida, eds., Φιλέλλην, Essays Presented to Stephen G. Miller (Athens 2016) 289–297. Tylecote = R. F. Tylecote, Metallurgy in Archaeology (London 1962). Vandiver and Koehler = P. B. Vandiver and C. G. Koehler, “Structure, Processing, Properties, and Style of Corinthian Transport Amphoras,” in W. D. Kingery and E. Lense, eds., Ceramics and Civilization, II, Technology and Style (Cincinnati 1985) 173–215. Van Straten = F. T. Van Straten, Hierà Kalá: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden 1995). Vermeule = E. Vermeule, “Baby Aigisthos and the Bronze Age” PCPS 33 (1987) 122–152. Versnel = H. S. Versnel, “An Essay on Anatomical Curses,” in F. Graf, ed., Ansichten griechischer Rituale: Geburtstags-Symposium für Walter Burkert, Castelen bei Basel 15. bis 18. Marz 1996 (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1998) 217–267. Vessey 1970 = D. Vessey, “Statius and Antimachus: A Review of the Evidence,” Philologus 114 (1970) 118–143. Vessey 1973 = D. Vessey, Statius and the Thebaid (Cambridge 1973). Vila 2000 = E. Vila, “Bone Remains from Sacrificial Places: The Temples of Athena Alea at Tegea and of Asea on Agios Elias,” in M. Mashkour, A. M. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, and F. Poplin, eds., Archaeozoology of the Near East IV B (Groningen 2000) 197–203. Vila 2014 = E. Vila, “Étude archéozoologique des vestiges osseux de la fouille dans le temple,” in E. Østby, ed., Tegea I: Investigations in the Temple of Athena Alea 1991–94 (Athens 2014) 545–562. Villari = P. Villari, “Nature des offrandes animals du puits de Piazza della Victoria à Syracuse (milieu du IIe s. av. J.-C.), étude archéozoologique,” Anthropozoologica 11 (1989) 9–30.

S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G RA P H Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Vinogradov = Y. G. Vinogradov, “New Inscriptions on Lead from Olbia,” Ancient Civilization from Scythia to Siberia 1 (1994) 103–111. Wace = A. J. B. Wace, “The Reliefs in the Palazzo Spada,” PBSR 5 (1910) 167–200. Walberg = G. Walberg, Excavations on the Acropolis of Midea, I, The Excavations on the Lower Terraces 1985–1991 (Stockholm 1998). Weber = T. Weber, Bronzekannen: Studien zu ausgewählten archaischen und klassischen Oinochoenformen aus Metall in Greichenland und Etrurien = Archäologischen Studien 5 (Frankfurt am Main and Bern 1983). Weikart = S. Weikart, Griechische Bauopferrituale: Intention und Konvention von rituellen Handlungen im griechischen Bauwesen (Berlin 2002). Wells = B. Wells, “Early Greek Building Sacrifices,” in R. Hägg et al., eds., Early Greek Cult Practice = SkrAth 4˚, 38 (Stockholm 1988) 259–266. West = M. L. West, ed., Greek Epic Fragments from the Seventh to the Fifth Centuries BC = The Loeb Classical Library 497 (Cambridge, Mass., 2003). Whitbread = I. K. Whitbread, Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological and Archaeological Study = The British School at Athens Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 4 (Exeter 1995).

xxxix

Whitley = J. Whitley, “The Monuments That Stood before Marathon: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Archaic Attica,” AJA 98 (1994) 213–230. Wilhelm = A. Wilhelm, “Über die Zeit einiger attischen Fluchtafeln,” ÖJh 7 (1904) 105– 126. Williams, “Nemea, 1962” = C. K. Williams II, “Excavations at Nemea, 1962,” AJA 68 (1964) 201–202. Williams, “Nemea, 1964” = C. K. Williams II, “Nemea, 1964,” AJA 69 (1965) 178–179. Williams, “Corinth, 1978” = C. K. Williams II, “Corinth, 1978: Forum Southwest,” Hesperia 48 (1979) 105–144. Williams and Fisher = C. K. Williams II and J. E. Fisher, “Corinth, 1971: Forum Area,” Hesperia 41 (1972) 143–184. Woodford = S. Woodford, “The Iconography of the Infant Herakles Strangling Snakes,” in F. Lissarague and F. Thelamon, eds., Image et céramique grecque: Actes du colloque de Rouen 25–26 novembre 1982 (Rouen 1983) 121–129. Wright = J. C. Wright, “A Mycenaean Hamlet on Tsoungiza, Ancient Nemea,” in Darcque and Treuil, 347–357. Wright et al. = J. C. Wright et al., “The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: A Preliminary Report,” Hesperia 59 (1990) 579–659. ZPE = Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

SPECIALIZED TERMINOLOGY A N D A BBR EV I ATIONS USED IN THE TEXT AND APPENDICES A = Architecture AR = Silver AT = Architectural Terracotta BR = Bronze C = Coin Cat. = Catalogue entry (see Appendix A) cm. = centimeter(s) CT = Curse Tablet (see Appendix B) D. = depth Diam. = diameter est. = estimated GJ = Gems and Jewelry GL = Glass H. = height I = Inscription IL = Iron or Lead L = Lamps l. = left

L. = length m. = meter max. = maximum min. = minimum mm. = millimeter(s) NB = Notebook of Nemea Excavations no. = number np = not preserved obv. = obverse P = Pottery P. = preserved rev. = reverse r. = right SS = Stone Sculpture ST = Stone T = Testimonia entry (see Appendix C) TC = Terracotta Th. = thickness W. = width

CHRONOLOGICAL TERMINOLOGY

explained in the text, but it may provide a service to explain them briefly here as well. The earliest use of the Heroön was in that period which we commonly refer to as the ArchaicClassical. By this term we mean to call to mind the period extending from the traditional date of the founding of the Nemean Games in 573 B.C.

Because the excavations of the last four decades at Nemea have revealed that human use of the site was periodic, chronological terms have specific meanings in the Nemea publications. These terms, and the evidence that justifies their use, are frequently

xli

xlii

S P E C I A L I Z E D T E R M I N O L O G Y A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S

to the destruction of the Sanctuary of Zeus about 415 B.C. In more f lexible terms that are better ref lections of the lack of precision in the archaeological record, we should understand this first period to be roughly the century and one-half from the early 6th to the late 5th century B.C. After a clear and decisive gap in evidence for human activity, we come to the second period of major activity at Nemea. We usually call this the Late Classical–Early Hellenistic. This ranges from about 330 B.C. when the Games returned to Nemea until about 270 B.C. when the Games were taken away again. This period is also sometimes called more brief ly the Early Hellenistic. The later Hellenistic period is represented only in isolated cases and apparently brief times. We rarely refer to this period since it rarely appears in the archaeological record. The Early Roman period is what might be called in other contexts the Early Imperial. It represents the first clear evidence of Roman inf luence at Nemea and probably is connected with the establishment of the Roman colony at Corinth in 46 B.C. The Early Roman period begins in the Augustan era and continues through all the JulioClaudians, but it is not clear whether it continued beyond them.

The Middle Empire is like the later Hellenistic in its lack of definition and usually goes without a label as a period of activity. At Nemea there are two separate and distinct phases of what is sometimes called more generally the Byzantine period. It has become a useful shorthand to identify these two periods by distinct rubrics. We refer to the first of these periods as the Early Christian. This is, more precisely, the period of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries after Christ, when an agricultural settlement, of demonstrably Christian faith, grew up among the ruins of the old Sanctuary of Zeus. In older literature this period is sometimes referred to as Late Roman, sometimes as Early Byzantine. Such usage is confusing and, at least at Nemea, counterproductive. Early Christian, designating the period from Constantine the Great to Phocas, is a chronologically, historically, and politically correct term. We refer to the second period as the Byzantine period, by which term we designate another welldefined phase of human activity in the valley after a void of several centuries. The chronological limits of the Byzantine period at Nemea are from the 12th to the 14th century after Christ. Thereafter the valley was once again abandoned until the late 19th century.

E L E VA T I O N S , G R I D R E F E R E N C E S , AND MEASUREMENTS

ELEVATIONS

Thus, the notation for the discovery of kotyle P 1584 (Cat. 18) is F/4–19/12, which locates its provenience in the F 19 grid square, and more specifically in the 4th meter from the west and the 12th meter from the north sides of that square. If, however, the place of discovery is not so precisely known, a comma (,) is used to give the maximum limits of the discovery area. Thus, the notation for kotyle P 1600 (Cat. 19) is F/4,10–19/10,15, which limits its place of discovery to the F 19 grid square, somewhere between the 4th and the 10th meter from the west and between the 10th and the 15th meter from the north of that square. It is this system that allows, for example, the discovery place of the curse tablets in Appendix B to be put on a plan (Fig. 543).

Elevations of artifacts and monuments at Nemea are expressed in meters above sea level as derived from a survey marker of the Greek Army located in Section J 17, which has a height of 333.53 m. above sea level. In this publication any three-digit number beginning with the numeral 3 is to be understood as the sea-level elevation whether carried out to millimeters (e.g. 332.591) or centimeters (e.g. 331.64).

GRID REFERENCES For clarity in designating the place of discovery of each ancient artifact or monument, the whole of the site of Nemea has been divided into squares 20 meters on each side, which are labeled by letters from west to east and by numbers from north to south (see Fig. 1). If the provenience of an artifact has been pinpointed to a single meter square, the individual one-meter square is recorded to the right of a slash (/) that follows the 20-meter square notation, and a dash (–) is used between the west-east grid and the north-south grid. Thus, the letter locates the 20-meter grid square in a west-east direction, and the number following the slash specifies the number of meters within that square from the west. The first Arabic number to the right of the dash locates the north-south 20-meter square, and the number following the slash specifies the number of meters within that square from the north.

MEASUREMENTS In general, measurements are given to the nearest millimeter in the case of an object the full original dimension of which is completely preserved and can therefore be measured, and recorded, with such precision, or in the case of an object the total size of which is so small as to make measurement in millimeters desirable for reasons of identification. Measurements are given to the nearest centimeter for objects of reasonable size the full original dimension of which is not preserved or for overall dimensions of the foundations of buildings or monuments. In such cases to use millimeters would imply a precision which is, and was in antiquity, meaningless.

xliii

Introduction

ness. It is the story of a helpless baby who falls prey to a deadly snake, an event witnessed by the Seven against Thebes, who have paused at Nemea on their way to wage war and meet their own fate. This mythic landscape was forever intertwined with the lived experience of the Sanctuary of Zeus, for it was the death of Opheltes that was regarded as the aition or reason for the Nemean Games, and it was ritually commemorated at the baby hero’s shrine. The archaeological remains of the Heroön of Opheltes and its environs constitute the subject of the first chapter of this volume. The results of excavation show that the shrine was a new creation of the Archaic period, one that entailed modification of the preexisting landscape to give it the appearance of a broad earthen mound. Its most salient feature was a construction of natural stones that likely served as a marker for Opheltes’ tomb. The abundance of artifacts recovered from the surface of the Heroön document a range of ritual activity that includes sacrifice, drinking and libations, and votive offerings. The intimate connection between the cult of Opheltes in the Heroön and the celebration of the Nemean Games also finds physical expression in the relationship between the shrine and the early athletic venues of the festival, for the Heroön is attached to, and constructed together with, a long earthen em-

This volume concerns the sacred landscape, both mythic and real, of the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea. Located in the northeastern Peloponnese, the Sanctuary is best known as the site of the Nemean Games, one of the four great Panhellenic athletic festivals of ancient Greece. For about one thousand years, these festivals drew competitors and spectators from throughout the Greekspeaking world and enjoyed a preeminence marked especially by their distinctive prizes, crowns of leaves with no inherent monetary value. Visitors to the actual Sanctuary today find themselves, as no doubt in antiquity, in a picturesque setting at the southern end of the valley of the Nemea River, framed on three sides by impressive mountains and their foothills. Against this backdrop the Temple of Zeus surely takes center stage, but it forms only the most conspicuous part of the sacred landscape of Nemea. Another shrine, first discovered in 1979, sits about 100 meters to the southwest, and while the modern visitor is likely to pass it by unnoticed, for ancient visitors it was of great importance, playing an integral role in the life of the Sanctuary and the Nemean Games. This monument was a hero shrine, or heroön, and it was dedicated to a hero named Opheltes. Opheltes’ story takes us into the mythic landscape of Nemea, one tinged with danger and sad-

1

2

INTRODUCTION

bankment that provided space for spectators of the Early Stadium and the Hippodrome. Furthermore, the period of activity within the Heroön proves to be coterminous with the history of the Sanctuary of Zeus as the location of the Nemean Games. The second chapter, contributed by Michael MacKinnon, presents a specialized study of the excavated faunal remains, consisting of several thousand small animal bones, mostly under one centimeter in size. That evidence points clearly to the practice of sacrifice in the cult of Opheltes and permits conclusions to be drawn about the processes and principles of selection involved. The distinctive pattern of sacrificial practice in the Heroön is then compared with the practices evinced by the study of faunal remains at other cult sites in Greece. A valuable aid in the interpretation of the significance of the Heroön of Opheltes is a careful study of the ancient written and artistic evidence about the myth and cult of Opheltes. I present the results of that study in the third and fourth chapters, where a key concern is to understand how visitors to Nemea and worshippers in the shrine regarded the hero and his connection to the athletic festival. Despite the vast chronological scope of the sources, as well as the diversity of interests that motivate them to retell or reimagine the hero’s story, certain key elements remain constant, including his untimely death, his association with Argos through the figures of the Seven against Thebes, the necessity of his burial with due honors, and the aetiological connection to the foundation of the Nemean Games. Other details of the myth vary greatly, suggesting that visitors to Nemea may not have been exposed to a single, authoritative version of the myth nor had a consistent understanding of how the events of

Opheltes’ demise related to the real topography of the Sanctuary and the surrounding valley. In the final chapter I look outward to consider how the findings from the Heroön of Opheltes contribute to our understanding of the broader phenomenon of hero cult, an important part of ancient Greek religion. As numerous as the Greek heroes were in antiquity, the number of excavated hero shrines is considerably circumscribed, particularly for the period represented by the shrine at Nemea. The Heroön of Opheltes therefore constitutes a valuable example of an archaeologically documented hero shrine with relevance to several aspects of hero cult. For example, it joins the Pelopion at Olympia in challenging the notion that hero cult at the Panhellenic sanctuaries represents an older, pre-Olympian stratum of religion. It also contributes to explaining the choice of a mound or tumulus as the shape of a hero shrine, and its strong aetiological connection to funeral games invites us to look for such connections elsewhere and to see hero cult as participating in broader social changes. Lastly, it lends support to revising our understanding of the nature of sacrifice in hero cult. As the study that follows will make clear, the Heroön of Opheltes was bound to the athletic contests of the Nemean festival. Far from being marginalized within the Sanctuary of Zeus, it occupied a position of prominence within the area of its main venues, the Early Stadium and the Hippodrome. From its seat at the south end of a long earthen embankment, moreover, it solemnly reminded spectators of the origin of the festival, a poignant juxtaposition of the exhilarating celebration of life with the scrupulous commemoration of death.

CHAPTER ONE

The Physical Remains

LOCATION AND HISTORY OF EXCAVATIONS

Early Christian Basilica and parts of the Xenon underneath.3 When the University of California revived excavation at Nemea in 1973 under the direction of Stephen G. Miller, a top priority was the acquisition of a broad swath of land around the visible remains of the temple and other structures.4 Exploration of the land to the south and west led to the discovery and excavation of the Heroön (Fig. 1). In 1979 excavations in Sections F 18, G 18, and F 19 partially uncovered the architecture and associated finds of the Heroön. The subsequent year saw continued exploration of the remains, which extended into Section G 19, thanks to the closing of the provincial road that led north to the Gulf of Corinth and passed—as was discovered then— over the eastern part of the Heroön.5 As a result of the work of this second season, the full outline of the shrine’s later phase was exposed, and the

When Pausanias visited Nemea in the second century after Christ, he observed a simple shrine featuring the tomb of the hero Opheltes: ἐνταῦθα ἔστι μὲν Ὀφέλτου τάφος, περὶ δὲ αὐτὸν θριγκὸς λίθων καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου βωμοί. . . . Here there is Opheltes’ tomb; around it is a stone fence, and within the enclosure are altars. . . .1

For centuries since antiquity, however, the location of this shrine remained hidden. Early investigators from the late 17th to the late 19th century suspected that it was concealed by a broad mound to the south of the remains of the Temple of Zeus, where the ruins of a small church could be seen;2 but when the American archaeologists B. H. Hill and C. W. Blegen excavated the area in the 1920s, they revealed instead the remains of the

Blegen, “Nemea, 1924,” 179–182; Blegen, “Nemea, 1926,” 431–435. Subsequently, C. K. Williams and S. G. Miller carried out further work on the Xenon, resulting in the final publication of this building by Lynn H. Kraynak in Nemea I: Williams, “Nemea 1962,” 201–202; Williams, “Nemea, 1964,” 178–179; Hesperia 1975, 145; Hesperia 1978, 78–80; Hesperia 1981, 55–59; Nemea I, 99–187. 4  Hesperia 1975, 148. 5  The supervisor of the 1979 season was Thomas Knight, followed by Christopher Simon in 1980. 3 

2.15.3 = T 61 in Appendix C. For more discussion of this and other literary and epigraphic sources on the shrine, see Chapter 3. 2  Marino Michiel (1689–1691) apud Tsiknakis, 290–292; Chandler, 233; Gell, 23 and 143 (note his plate 2 where a mound to the left—south—of the temple is labeled tumulus); Dodwell 210; Pouqueville 302; Curtius 509; Cousin and Dürrbach, 349. 1 

3

4

FIG. 1.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

Restored plan of the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea.

excavators identified the structure as a Heroön (Fig.  2).6 The summer of 1983 witnessed two more test trenches inside the shrine, in Section G 19, as well as work to the immediate west in Section E 19.7 There followed a hiatus of some 10 years, during which time attention turned to the study and publication of the previous years’ work, with prolific results.8 6  Hesperia 1981, 60–65. With the shrine’s walls only partly exposed in 1979, excavators speculated that the structure was a palaistra: Hesperia 1980, 194–198. 7  Hesperia 1984, 173–176. Larry Ball and Carol Hershenson supervised. 8  It was during this period that Nemea I and the Guide were published. In them the association of the Heroön with the hero Opheltes appears in print for the first time: Guide, 29, and Nemea I, 73 n. 218. Previously, speculation about the location of the tomb of Opheltes centered on a rubble wall

Excavation resumed at Nemea in 1997 and continued for five years. A major focus of the effort was further exploration of the Heroön and its environs.9 The aim of this second period of work was to understand not only the building phases and contents of the shrine itself but also the relationunearthed near the southwest corner of the Temple of Zeus, in Sections J 14 and J 15: Hesperia 1979, 83–84; Hesperia 1980, 190; Nemea I, 73. This period also saw the preparation of Nemea II, although the formal publication date was not until 2001. The Ancient Stadium of Nemea: A Self-Guided Tour (Athens 1994) and Nemea, A Brief Guide (Athens 1995) were also made available to the general public. 9  The author supervised much of this work. Other supervisors were Barbara Carder, Rebecca Karberg, Nikolaos Poulopoulos, Dylan Sailor, and Tanya Szafranski, as well as the Director himself. For the preliminary report on this period of excavation, see Hesperia 2015, 315–323.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 2.

5

Aerial view of the Heroön in 1980.

ship of the shrine to the rest of the Sanctuary of Zeus. The seeming isolation of the shrine, tucked away in the southwestern corner of the landscape at a distance of over 100 meters from the Temple of Zeus, was always curious.10 From 1997 to 2001, work in Sections G 14, H 14, G 15, F 16, G 16, and F 17 greatly supplemented our knowledge of the western side of the Sanctuary (Figs. 3–6*).11

10  Stella Miller, for instance, once remarked, “The shrine’s location at some little remove from the Temple of Zeus is perhaps odd if one considers Opheltes’ apparent significance at Nemea . . . “: Miller, “Excavations,” 143. See also Guide, 110. 11  Some preliminary exploration had been carried out in earlier years. Caroline Belz oversaw work in Section H 14 in 1979, and in 1982 Paula Hensley and John McEnroe conducted work in Sections G 14 and F 16, respectively: Hesperia 1980, 190–191; Hesperia 1983, 75–77.

REMAINS BEFORE THE SHRINE As will be presented in due course, the earliest Heroön of Opheltes takes the form of a spacious earthen mound founded in the Archaic period. Nevertheless, the history of earlier human activity in the area is extensive, as already indicated by the finding of Neolithic, Bronze Age, and Geometric pottery, as well as one Mycenaean figurine fragment, within the layers of Archaic and later date.12 Excavation in certain areas within and around the Among pottery lots of Archaic or later date, Neolithic pottery was observed in six, Geometric pottery in twenty-four. Most abundant was the finding of Bronze Age pottery, which was present in sixty-five lots. Of these, thirty-four contained fragments of Mycenaean kylikes. The Mycenaean figurine fragment, which was not inventoried, was found in pottery lot F 19:69, containing material of the 6th century B.C. 12 

FIG. 3.

Aerial view of the Sanctuary of Zeus from the southwest in 2001. H = Heroön.

FIG. 4.

Aerial view of the Sanctuary of Zeus from the west in 2001. H = Heroön.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 5.

Aerial view of the Sanctuary of Zeus from the north in 2001. H = Heroön.

shrine subsequently probed deeper levels in an attempt to illuminate the region’s earlier history and in particular to determine whether any of this activity could be related to a predecessor of the Archaic Heroön. The picture that has emerged is one of an uneven landscape—certainly higher to the south—gradually building up on the valley f loor through colluvial action.13 The stratigraphy underlying the shrine includes layers with material of Early Iron Age, Bronze Age (chief ly Late Helladic III), and Neolithic date, all overlying a virgin soil that consists of a sticky blond brown clay with small black inclusions. Like the virgin soil, the layers of Neolithic date generally have a gritty clay consistency, although the color is stained a darker reddish-brown to black. Throughout are numerous small, worn bits of Neolithic pottery, primarily handmade from a soft orange fabric; their size and state of preservation suggest that they came to rest in this See the remarks on the geomorphology of the Nemea Valley by A. Demitrack of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, in Wright et al., 588. 13 

7

area through the action of colluviation and do not represent Neolithic activity in the immediate vicinity.14 The largest expanse of such fill was found under the southern and central parts of the Heroön, in Section F 19. The layer covered an area of over 50 square meters, in F/16,19–19/1,13 (Fig. 7). The northern limit of this expanse forms a natural bank, against which later Bronze Age and Early Iron Age fill accumulated (Fig. 8).15 Other pockets of Neolithic fill were found farther north, but at far lower elevations. The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age layers consist mostly of sandy fills of various hues from light 14  Another Neolithic stratum came to light toward the northeast within the Sanctuary of Zeus, in Section K 14: Hesperia 1979, 83, and Hesperia 1980, 181. West of the Sanctuary of Zeus, Tsoungiza Hill produced an astounding quantity Neolithic material: Blegen, “Neolithic”; Hesperia 1975, 151–152; Hesperia 1976, 176–177; Wright et al., 624–625; NVAP I, 17–35. Other sites in the Nemea region also attest to human activity in the Neolithic era: Cherry et al., 171–176. 15  The difference in elevation is striking. The Neolithic stratum was encountered at an elevation of 331.720, while north of the sloped bank, Late Bronze Age fill continued to a depth of 329.804.

8

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 8. Detail of bank of Neolithic fill in Section F 19, from the north. FIG. 7. Prehistoric levels below the Heroön in Sections F 18, F 19, from the north.

FIG. 9. Late Bronze Age streambeds under excavation in Section F 18, from the east. Visible in the background are the ridge of rubble along the west side of the Archaic Heroön and the superimposed foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön.

to dark. Many layers were high in gravel content as well, suggesting the existence of streams in different beds at different times. Examples are the clear streambeds that emerged in the northwestern quadrant of the later hero shrine in Section F 18 (Figs. 9, 10); their gravel fill contained pottery dated to the end of the LH III period. The existence of stratified pottery clearly points to human activity in these periods. Notable among the pottery recovered from the Late Bronze Age strata is a fragment of a cooking griddle: a f lat, ceramic disc of a hard cooking fabric with an upper surface marked by numerous holes (Cat. 1).

FIG. 10. Contours of streambeds visible in virgin soil of Section F 18, from the southeast. Visible in the background are the ridge of rubble along the west side of the Archaic Heroön and the superimposed foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön.

Other examples of this kind of cooking implement are known from LH III contexts throughout the Argolid.16 While it is true that a settlement of contemporary date existed in the Nemea Valley on Tsoungiza Hill, a distance of about half a kilometer separates it from the Sanctuary of Zeus. Although the pottery is worn, the amount and size of the fragments raise the possibility that activity may have been taking place on the f loor 16  The Nemea fragment comes from pottery lot F 18:64, dated to LH III.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

of the Nemea Valley itself.17 On the other hand, it is unlikely that any substantial activity took place within the area so far explored beneath the Heroön given the absence of whole shapes or of any associated architectural remains. Pottery from the Early Iron Age strata was even more sparse in comparison. The most substantial find comprised numerous joining and non-joining fragments of a Geometric vessel of open shape, perhaps a stemmed krater (Fig. 11).18 The layer of red sand and gravel from which they were recovered, in G/18,20–18/15,20, may represent another layer of silt accumulation before the building of the Archaic Heroön; the same area, however, saw disturbance from the course of the Nemea River in the Early Christian period, so the layer may not be uncorrupted.19 Still, this pottery and that from several other layers contribute to the limited but undeniable evidence of human activity in the area during the Geometric period.20 The layers below the Archaic Heroön furnished a few non-ceramic finds as well, of which perhaps the most impressive is a corroded iron sword 17  For the Bronze Age settlements at Tsoungiza see Pullen; Wright; Wright et al., 616–638; Dabney et al.; NVAP I. The survey of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project found that for the Mycenaean period, Tsoungiza was the only large site of the valley. Smaller find spots were observed around Tsoungiza, however, which may be the residue of subsidiary activities: Davis 1980, 164. A similar explanation may account for other small concentrations of Mycenaean material from the Sanctuary of Zeus, e.g. around the north end of the Long Altar and at the southwest corner of the Temple of Zeus: see Hesperia 1975, 168–169; Hesperia 1979, 82; Nemea I, 22 and n. 59; Shelton, 347–348. 18  Pottery lot G 19:100. 19  The pottery of the layer also included a sherd with a black luster that almost seemed Classical in date, which would argue that the layer has been disturbed. The layer above it, represented by pottery lot G 19:99, certainly formed part of the later Nemea River. The situation is illustrated in Fig. 26*. 20  Cf. Shelton, 347. Her claim, at 346, in regard to “evidence for early ritual and cult practice,” that “abundant ceramics indicate a good deal of activity in the area by the end of the 7th century” is without merit. Geometric pottery has appeared in greater quantities in other parts of the Sanctuary of Zeus, namely, in the vicinity of the Temple of Zeus and its Long Altar: Hesperia 1976, 178–180; Hesperia 1979, 82–83; Hesperia 1982, 23; and Hesperia 1983, 74. A substantial amount also came to light in Section I 17, north of the Bath: Hesperia 2015, 348–349. Also of note is a Geometric bronze horse figurine, BR 20, found in the fill over the Early Hellenistic Stadium on the hillside to the southeast: Nemea II, 238 and fig. 365.

9

FIG. 11. Fragments of Geometric vessel (stemmed krater?).

blade (Cat. 2).21 As discussed in the Catalogue, the Nemean sword fits into the broad category of sword that was used from the Early Iron Age into the Archaic period, with close parallels dated to the end of the 7th century. A scant amount of faunal remains also appeared, mostly bone fragments and a bit of snail shell. These were mostly unburnt, with signs of leaching and erosion, and hence more likely to represent rubbish than ritual activity.22 Apart from the small finds and pottery in these layers, a few architectural features were encountered that may date earlier than the construction of the hero shrine. Most substantial is a segment of a stone wall encountered in the southwest corner of the shrine, in F/3,5–19/11,17 (Figs. 6*, 12, 13). The wall consists of a line of four large stones and a few smaller ones, extending roughly north to south over a distance of three meters. The northern end of the series meets the west scarp of the trench, where the area also appears to have been disrupted by rubble fill associated with The pottery of this layer—a mix of sand, earth, and gravel—is earlier, consisting of worn Late Bronze Age sherds (pottery lot F 18:57). The sword itself clearly lowers the date of the layer at a minimum to the Early Iron Age. From the Bronze Age strata come also a slender bronze pin or needle (Cat. 3) and a few obsidian blades and worked fragments: Cat. 4–5, ST 803, 804, 849, 850, and 851. Two more pieces of obsidian were saved, but not inventoried, with pottery lots F 19:132 and 133. Another piece of obsidian, ST 419, was found in a Neolithic layer represented by pottery lot G 18:29. 22  See further in Chapter 2. 21 

10

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 12. Stone wall, possibly predating the Archaic Heroön, from the east. At left and right, rubble features of the Archaic Heroön.

FIG. 13. Stone wall, from the south. Rubble features of the Archaic Heroön at higher levels.

FIG. 14. Detail of the north end of the stone wall (foreground) and sloping mass of stones of the Archaic Heroön, from the southeast.

FIG. 15. Southwest corner of the Heroön, from the east. Visible at the lowest elevations are the stones of the wall (W) that may predate the Archaic Heroön. Above them passes a rubble retaining wall (R) of the Archaic Heroön, and other rubble features of the Heroön are also visible.

the construction of the Archaic Heroön (Fig. 14). The disruption may explain the positioning of the northernmost stone of the line, which sits at a higher elevation than the others.23 To the south, the wall is partially obscured by another wall, of rubble, crossing above it. This latter wall certainly belongs to the substructure of the Archaic shrine. Where the lower wall emerges on its south side, it appears to make a right angle turn to the southwest, in F/4,5–19/16,17, before disappearing into the western scarp of the trench (Figs. 15,

16).24 Some of the stones forming the corner have shifted out of position, perhaps disturbed by the building of the Heroön; but a total of seven could be observed, some overlying others. The stratigraphy offers little clarification as to whether this wall is contemporary with the mound construction or earlier. The fill overlying the northern segment contained but a few sherds, mostly undiagnostic, but one Geometric.25 The stones of the wall rest in a bedding cut into the dark earth that rises on their east side (Fig.  17).

23  The other three stones rest at an elevation of 331.684 to 331.488. The layers of disturbance to the north are represented by pottery lots F 19:105 and 107.

24  25 

For a color version of Fig. 15, see Miller 2002, fig. 7. Pottery lot F 18:104.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

11

FIG. 16. Detail of the southern extension of the stone wall, from the south.

This fill contained pottery mostly of Bronze Age and Neolithic date, though two sherds were Geometric.26 A different fill formed the bedding for the wall on the west side: a red-orange sandy earth with some gravel. Only about a square meter of this layer could be exposed within the trench, and only two sherds, possibly of Mycenaean date, were unearthed.27 Taken together, the strata to the sides of the stone wall suggest a tenuous terminus post quem of the Late Bronze Age, perhaps even the Geometric period, for its construction. The stones forming the southern corner of this wall, on the other hand, were covered over directly by earth associated with the construction of the Archaic shrine. It is also clear that the rubble wall crossing above it does not rest directly on the lower stone wall; some of the same construction fill intervenes (Fig. 16).28 On stratigraphic grounds, then, the feature could be part of the Archaic Heroön’s construction, but on the other hand it could date as early as the Late Bronze Age. Aside from the stratigraphy, two other observations suggest that the wall more likely antedates the shrine. First, the orientation of the wall, which appears to turn a corner and run west, seems unrelated to the arrangement of the Archaic Heroön, which extends northward and eastward. Second, the signs of disturbance that the shrine’s construction inf licted upon the wall’s southern

Pottery lot F 18:108. Pottery lot F 18:111. 28  Pottery lots F 19:109 and 110. 26  27 

FIG. 17.

Stone wall under excavation, from the south.

corner as well as its north end argue that the wall is an earlier structure. Elsewhere, in G/5,9–18/17,19, a cluster of curious features came to light. First, in G/8,9–18/18, a small construction was found consisting of five slab-like stones resembling a box (Fig. 18): a f lat slab formed the base, three upright slabs formed three sides, and another stone covered it, leaving the south side of the “box” open. Its exact dimensions were not recorded at the time of excavation, but a plan and photographs indicate that no side was greater than 0.35 m. No distinction in the fill was detected in or around it. A few meters to the west, in G/5–18/18 and G/7–18/19, were found two circular areas of dark fill lying 2 m. apart, which, when excavated, produced holes 0.10 m. in diameter and 0.08 m. deep. The fill into which the holes were made and

12

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 18. Stone box and two holes found in G/5,9– 18/17,19, from the south.

on which the stone “box” was erected was a dark reddish sandy earth just over 0.10 m. deep.29 Below this stratum, in about the same location as the stone “box,” was exposed a straight, narrow strip filled with sand and gravel. This strip extended from the south edge of the trench for a distance of about 3.3 m. to the north-northeast before petering out. Excavation of the strip proved it to be a shallow channel only about 0.10 m. deep. Unfortunately the fill of the channel produced only one sherd with dull black glaze, of uncertain date, but the layer into which the channel was cut contained pottery of the LH III period.30 An intriguing aspect of this feature is its orientation, for it lies in direct alignment with the east side of the stone chamber that constituted the most prominent surface feature of the Archaic Heroön (Fig. 19).31 Also aligned with the shallow channel is a series of stones, stacked one atop the other in six crude courses, and embedded in the south scarp of the trench in G/8–18/19 (Fig. 20). The uppermost stone became visible during the clearing of a layer associated with the period of use of the shrine, at an elevation of 332.756; but the entire stack, with its total height of 0.847 m., rests at a level of 331.909, even lower than the shallow channel.

29  Pottery lot G 18:59, which contained but a few sherds, one with black glaze suggesting an Early Iron Age date at the earliest. 30  Pottery lot G 18:62. 31  On the chamber, see below, pp. 35–36.

FIG. 19. Channel aligned with the stone chamber (Tomb of Opheltes), from the north.

The layer upon which the stones rest dates to the LH III period, perhaps as late as LH IIIC.32 All of these several features seem man-made, but we can do little more than guess their purpose. The two holes resemble post holes, which have been identified on occasion in sanctuary settings and interpreted as the remains of simple structures, such as tents or fencing, erected in connection with ritual activity. A notable parallel was found in the Herakleion on Thasos, where excavators found not only the remains of post holes cut into the bedrock but also a narrow drainage channel nearby. These features were associated with sacrifice or dining in the cult of Herakles in the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C.33 Yet in the Herakleion and other sanctuaries, the argument for the ritual usage of such features is bolstered by the finding of the debris of ritual, including burnt bones and fragments of fine pottery, whereas comparable material is altogether lacking in association with the features under the Heroön. While it might be tempting, therefore, to relate the latter to an early form of cult practice, there is nothing to corroborate the claim. Pottery lot G 18:63. Bergquist, 58-66. For discussion of post holes found in other sanctuaries and connected with ritual activity, see Bergquist, 62–63. Among the examples discussed is a set of holes in an 8th century B.C. context at Isthmia, found near a curved groove or channel; see now also Isthmia VIII, 203– 208. In the Herakleion, it should be noted that it is not at all clear that the post holes and drainage channel are contemporary since all were cut directly into the bedrock. At Nemea it is clear that the two holes are later than the channel, which lies under the layer containing the holes. 32  33 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 20. Stack of stones in G/8–18/19, after excavation of the channel and surrounding fill, from the north.

There is uncertainty in the chronology of these features as well. To be sure, all were covered over in the process of constructing the Archaic shrine; how much older they are is harder to determine.34 Based on the stratigraphic evidence, the stack of stones and the narrow channel potentially antedate the shrine’s construction by centuries. Their alignment with the stone chamber of the Archaic Heroön, however, is puzzling. Could this be mere coincidence? The alternative is to associate these features with the preparations for the construction of the shrine, and to regard the absence of any pottery later than the end of the Bronze Age in the associated layers as fortuitous. The stone “box” and the two holes, on the other hand, are sited on the same earth as the field of stones to the east of them that clearly formed part of the surface of the Heroön (Fig. 18). Hence, for a time while the surface features were being laid, the holes and the stone box must have been visible. They were covered over only during the final surfacing of the shrine. Still we are left with the question of when they were made: Was it in the process of the shrine’s construction or at a significantly earlier date? Although there is evidence of earlier human activity in the general area of the shrine, nothing supports the existence of an early form of cult here that can be regarded as a direct predecessor to the

34  The surface of the mound is formed of a sand- and gravelfilled red earth represented by pottery lot G 18:58. The pottery of this lot suggests a date of LH III, but the layer below, pottery lot G 18:59, may lower the date (above, n. 29).

13

cult of Opheltes as it appears from the Archaic period on. Nor is there evidence of a Bronze Age tomb that may have served as the focus of a funerary cult, as some scholars have surmised.35 Even though the Mycenaean material in the area of the shrine represents the most significant concentration of such material found anywhere in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea, nevertheless, when we consider its limited quantity in absolute terms as well as its fragmentary and battered state, it fails to constitute sufficient evidence for cult activity in the Mycenaean period.36 Moreover, between these Mycenaean sherds and the superabundance of Archaic sherds found throughout the shrine, the ceramic record is poor, and there is a clear gap in the stratigraphy separating the Late Bronze Age from the Geometric period, representing at least 200 years.37 Hence it is difficult to argue for continuous use of this location from the Bronze Age to the Archaic period. Finally, as for the few features that may have been built before the Archaic shrine, none of them can be related with any certainty to cult practice. To be sure, it is possible that the presence of visible remains of earlier activity somewhere in the vicinity may have inf luenced the choice of location for the Heroön, but the mounded shrine and the hero cult it supports appear to be new creations of the Archaic period.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARCHAIC HEROÖN At some time in the second quarter of the 6th century B.C., the shrine of Opheltes was built in the form of a vast earthen mound. With a width of approximately 40 meters at its south end, it rises E.g. Herter, col. 637, followed by Simon, 31. The Mycenaean figurine fragment found in the surface debris of the Archaic Heroön (above, p. 5 and n. 12) is certainly tantalizing, but it is hopelessly separated from its original context, wherever that may have been. Some terracotta figurines were found on Tsoungiza: Wright et al., 636; Dabney et al., 211–212. For Early Bronze Age figurines from Tsoungiza see NVAP I, 579–582, nos. 737–745. Apart from the small quantities of pottery found in the area of the Temple of Zeus and the Long Altar (above, n. 17), little Mycenaean material has been found elsewhere in the Sanctuary, although the picture could change with further excavation. 37  Nevertheless a fragment of a Protogeometric skyphos (Cat. 6) did come to light in disturbed fill of the 6th century after Christ (pottery lot G 19:2). 35  36 

14

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

on average some 1.5 meters above the surrounding level of the Sanctuary on the south, west, and east sides; to the north, it continues as a long embankment, over 100 meters in length, which formed the west side of the Early Stadium and probably bordered the east side of the Hippodrome (see Fig.  1).38 The earthen mound itself was in large part an artificial construction. Taking advantage of the naturally uneven landscape, the builders created a broad mound with regularized sloping edges through a process of excavation combined with the importation of newly dumped earth that was supported in places by the construction of rubble walls. To the exterior of these newly fashioned slopes the builders applied a lining of red clay and rubble as a way of retaining them as well as demarcating the new shrine’s limits. While the full perimeter of the mound has not been excavated, the parts of it that were exposed demonstrate a range of construction techniques. Its west profile is clearest in F/1,12–18/1,4 (Figs. 6*, 21, 22*, 23–24). Here the side of the mound rises from a base elevation of 330.806 along a curving slope of about 20 degrees before leveling off at a height of 332.798, a difference of almost two meters.39 The artificial nature of this slope became apparent during excavation. To create the contour of the mound, the builders first modified the existing landscape by cutting back into it at a very steep angle. The result of this cut is a slope with a fairly uniform, steep angle of ascent, approximately 40 degrees (Figs. 22*, 25). It was exposed to a depth of 2.30 m. before the excavation had to be halted at the end of the season; the full depth of the operation thus remains unknown. The existing earth fill behind the slope was tested to a depth of 0.50–0.75 m.; it proved to be hard, rubble-filled, red-brown earth containing mostly Mycenaean pottery mixed with a small amount 38  On the Early Stadium and Hippodrome see Hesperia 2015, 323-331, 344-348. 39  As a glance at the north scarp of the trench reveals (Fig. 23), the uppermost part of the mound has been disturbed by later activity (see below, p. 60). The highest point of the slope, then, may have been still higher. Our estimation of the mound slope height is based on an undisturbed part of the surface of the mound preserved a few meters to the east (represented by pottery lot F 18:78). For a color illustration comparable to Fig. 23, see Miller 2002, fig. 19 and Hesperia 2015, 321, figure 56.

of Geometric and Archaic.40 At the level at which the test was stopped, the fill changed to a lighter, sandier earth; the exterior of the slope, however, seemed a uniform hard red-brown earth along its entire surface. The difference of fills may indicate, therefore, that the sharp slope itself had received a coating of hard earth or clay after being cut. Against this slope the builders heaped successive layers of slightly sandy earth, ranging from light yellow to red in color (Figs. 22*, 23).41 Scattered throughout them, many ceramic vessels, both whole and fragmentary, came to light. The fragments are likely to be parts of vessels that were smashed and scattered in the construction fill; the rest of these vessels may lie in unexcavated parts of the slope to the north or south. As will be discussed below, the ceramic finds seem to have been deliberate foundation deposits, and they were a recurring feature along the edges of the mound. Finally, red clay coats the slope and upper surface of the mound. Rubble was also used as packing within the clay along the lower half of the slope (Figs. 22*, 24). Whether the clay and rubble constitute the original lining of the mound or a later refurbishment is uncertain. The pottery recovered from its removal along the base of the slope included some of the 5th century B.C., among them three Attic red figure sherds.42 Accordingly the preserved layer may represent a refurbishment of the 5th century. On the other hand, since the lining formed the exposed surface of the mound, the possibility cannot be discounted that the layer was original, and the later pottery was pressed into it over time by the impact of human traffic. Other indications of the western slope and stone lining of the mound came to light farther south, in F/4,11–18/12,20. Here a ridge of stones was unearthed spreading east and west from beneath the line of the Early Hellenistic Heroön foundation (Figs. 6*, 21, 26*, 27). The western face of the ridge extends over a distance of eight meters in

Pottery lot F 18:114 (see Fig. 22*). The fill also produced an obsidian flake, ST 821. 41  Corresponding to pottery lots F 18:109–111, 113, and 116. 42  Pottery lots F 18:104 and 112. The former lot represents the red clay lining that overlay much of the rubble; the latter represents red clay that the rubble rested on. Similarly, the area of red clay lining preserved along the upper surface of the mound, represented by pottery lot F 18:78, yielded a small amount of pottery that included some of Classical date. 40 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 21.

15

Detail of state plan, Section F 18.

a north-northeasterly direction (Figs. 27–29).43 It likely continued farther south, as suggested by the visible stones protruding from the unexcavated fill. The width of the western face is about two meters at the south end, contracting gradually to 43  A color version of Fig. 29 can be seen in Miller 2002, fig. 20, and Hesperia 2015, 321, fig. 55.

about one meter at the north. The slope is a moderate one of about 15 degrees, descending about 0.60 m. from an upper elevation of 332.80 down to 332.20. The lowest stones form a discrete border, suggesting that the rubble layer ended here. Since excavation was halted at this level, however, the full extent of the slope remains unknown. While the upper part of the slope is disturbed

16

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 23. Scarp showing the elements of the mound’s west slope, from the southwest. The mound’s surface lining appears as a dark band, covering layers of dumped silt fill. At right is the initial steep slope cut into the existing landscape.

FIG. 24. West slope of mound lined with red clay and rubble, from the southwest.

FIG. 25. Detail of the steep cut of the existing earth inside the mound, from the west.

by the foundation course of the later shrine enclosure, the rest of it clearly was covered over by earth fill dated to the late 4th century B.C.44 This suggests that it was originally exposed to view,

forming the exterior lining of the mound. The ground level was then raised over the rubble slope at some time in the 4th century, perhaps at the time of the shrine’s rebuilding. The eastern side of the ridge consists of much larger stones exposed over an extent of some eight meters, and its height and width vary considerably (Figs. 10, 27). Whether the preserved remains

Pottery lots F 18:34 and 38. The uppermost layer covering the rubble slope was disturbed by activity in the Early Christian period: pottery lot F 18:19. 44 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

represent the original state of the construction or have been altered by subsequent activity, such as the construction of the later enclosure, is unclear. On one hand, the south end is very deeply founded with several courses of stones. The deepest stones lie at 331.690, whereas the peak of the ridge lies at 332.689, a rise of practically one meter (cf. Fig. 26*). Here the ridge is also at its widest: including the west slope, the full width here measures about five meters, and the east side alone measures about 2.25 meters. As one moves north along this side of the ridge, however, its height and width contract, and its resting elevation gradually slopes downward. For most of its length, the ridge consists of only two or three courses of stones and has an average height of 0.40 to 0.50 m. The north end consists only of a single course of stones about 0.20 m. high, just over 1 meter wide, resting at an elevation of 331.80. The west side of the ridge, however, does not extend this far north, but rather comes to an end a meter earlier (Figs. 21, 27). At this point, the full width of the ridge measures just 3.5 meters. The western rubble slope probably did continue farther north at one time, however, and an indication of its original disposition may be seen in a line of stones preserved along the inside of the northwest corner of the Early Hellenistic foundations (Fig.  30). These stones are preserved for a distance of 3.5 m. both to the south and to the east of that corner, and they rest at an elevation of 332.67–332.70. At this elevation, they are unrelated to the stones of the east side of the ridge, which lie lower. According to the stratigraphy, they belong to the Archaic Heroön and not the Early Hellenistic rebuilding.45 The same line of stones was also revealed projecting from the north side of the north foundation course (Fig. 31). Here the stones have a more distinct slope downward to the west, suggesting that they belong to the lining of the west slope of the mound. No sharp, steep cut of the existing landscape was found in conjunction with the building of the stone ridge. Instead, it appears to have been founded at the base of a naturally sloping landscape, while earth fill was imported and dumped over the area to the east. Consequently, while The stones were exposed after excavating the debris from the period of use of the Archaic shrine, represented by pottery lots F 18:3 and 4. 45 

17

FIG. 27. Ridge of stones on the west side of the Archaic Heroön mound, with the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön above it, from the north.

FIG. 28. West side of the stone ridge, from the south.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

18

FIG. 29. West side of the stone ridge, from the west.

FIG. 30. Detail of rubble lining below the northwest corner of the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön and above the east side of the stone ridge, from the east.

FIG. 31. Sloped rubble lining visible below the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the north.

the west side of the ridge formed the outer slope of the mound, the east side was covered over as part of the construction.46 With its larger stones, it functioned as a kind of retaining wall for the imported fill to the east. This fill consisted generally of light-colored sandy earth, sometimes laden with gravel and

sometimes more reddish in hue.47 Once again the practice of making foundation deposits was in evidence.48 Various loose sherds also turned up

46 

Pottery lots F 18:7–17 and 47.

Pottery lots F 18:7–17, 44, 46–47, 51, and 54–56. Complicating the stratigraphy is the existence of a later pit dug through many of the construction layers (see below, p. 39 and n. 125). The disturbance may explain the single Classical blisterware sherd in lot 51. 48  See discussion below, pp. 29–33. 47 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 32.

Detail of state plan, Section F 19.

in the fill, and although some may turn out to belong to votive objects deposited outside the excavated area, others are demonstrably older, of Geometric and Bronze Age date. Finally, some bits of animal bone came to light, but they may be related rather to a later pit that was dug through these layers (see n. 47). Farther south in F/3,10–19/6,11, a much larger mass of stones formed part of the west edge of the mound. The stones cover an area of approximately seven by six meters and include natural, unworked stones of varying sizes, some over a meter in length (Figs. 6*, 32, 33). The mass may continue farther north into unexcavated fill; on the other three sides, however, the limits of the mass have been

FIG. 33. Mass of stones on the west side of the mound, below the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the north.

19

20

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 35. Sloping profile of the mass of stones, as revealed by excavation of the adjacent mound fill, from the south. FIG. 34. West edge of the mass of stones, from the west.

FIG. 36. Curvilinear rubble wall segment of the Archaic Heroön mound and poros blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the south.

determined. The course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön foundations runs across it, just inside of its western edge (Fig. 34). Originally the stones were exposed on the surface of the mound; the earth immediately covering them contained little diagnostic pottery, but appears to have accumulated at a later date.49 Excavation to the south of this mass afforded a view of its relationship to the lower layers (Figs. 14, 35): it was built up over sloping earth fill. The stones of the eastern limit rest at elevations ranging from 332.38 to 332.48. In contrast, the west side is more deeply founded, the lowest stones resting about a meter deeper, at an elevation of 331.43. The mass of stones clearly constitutes another part of the artificial construction carried out along the perimeter of the mound. The sloping, outer edge of the mound must lie farther west, where only partial excavation has been carried out. Also belonging to the construction of the early shrine is a segment of curvilinear rubble wall in F/2,4–19/13,18, with a resting elevation of 332.71–332.73. Averaging 1 meter in width, it is constructed of two faces of larger unworked stones, with smaller rubble packed between (Figs. 32, 36, 37; cf. Figs. 15, 38, 39). The outer face of the curve is preserved in two courses, affording it a greater height than the inner face, which only survives in one course. The wall segment breaks off abruptly at the south end, no doubt disturbed by the laying of the foundations of the later shrine. No continuation of the wall was found south of the later foundation, either. Disturbance is also ap-

49  Pottery lot F 19:75 contained pottery dating into the 5th century B.C.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 37. Curvilinear rubble wall segment of the Archaic Heroön mound and poros blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the west. Note the additional poros blocks visible under the uppermost course of blocks. In the background, the planting pit for a tree on the surface of the Archaic mound.

parent at the north end of the curved wall, where its upper course appears to have been removed to accommodate the later west foundation blocks. Its lower course, however, continues to curve northward underneath the later foundation and emerges from the west side to join with the western edge of the stone mass to the north (cf. Fig. 32). Hence the curved wall and the stone mass to the north are of a piece, and the former, like the latter, constituted another visible element on the surface of the mound. In the space between the curvilinear wall segment and the southwest corner of the later shrine are several orthogonal blocks of soft poros limestone (Figs. 36, 37). At least three blocks, oriented east-west lengthwise, are visible within this space. The Early Hellenistic foundation course rests directly on the ends of two of these blocks, as can be seen when viewed from the west (Fig. 37). From the same angle one makes out two more adjacent blocks oriented with and directly underlying the later foundation. While the full height of the blocks was never completely exposed, their surface dimensions range from 1.25 to 1.35 m. in length, 0.55 to 0.75 m. in width. How do these blocks relate to the structure and chronology of the Heroön? The juncture of the poros blocks with the curved wall segment offers puzzling evidence. A roughly triangular wedge

21

FIG. 38. Southwest corner of the Heroön, after excavation into the Archaic mound, from the south. Visible are the mass of stones (M) of the mound’s west slope, the wall (W) that may predate the Archaic Heroön, the curvilinear rubble wall (C) and deeper rubble retaining walls (R) of the mound, the poros blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure (EH) , and an irregular poros slab (P) at lower left.

FIG. 39. Southwest corner of the Heroön, after excavation into the Archaic mound, from the north. Visible are the mass of stones (M) of the mound’s west slope, the wall (W) that may predate the Archaic Heroön, the curvilinear wall (C) and retaining walls (R) of the mound, and the poros blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure (EH).

of poros gives the impression that the poros feature has been cut through to create a foundation trench for the wall (Fig. 40). The fill of the foundation trench consisted of a red earth with no trace of poros working chips, nor anything at all to assist with dating the features. The fill above the poros blocks is equally unhelpful; it consisted

22

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 40. Detail of the poros blocks and curvilinear rubble wall at the southwest corner of the Heroön, from the south.

of a yellow crumbly earth with working chips and only a few undiagnostic sherds.50 If indeed the foundation trench for the curved wall does cut through the poros blocks, then the latter feature must antedate the construction of the wall and perhaps even the shrine itself.51 The suggestion has been made that the blocks formed part of some kind of platform or base, the original dimensions of which must have been at least 2.35 m. by 4.30 m.52 There is another possibility to consider, however. The triangular wedge of poros in fact may be merely an area of soil dense with poros bits, rather than the remains of an actual block that has been cut away. The soft poros stone is easy to dig through and often has been confused with earth during excavation; conversely, pockets of soil dense with poros have been thought at first to be actual stone blocks.53 With the evidence for the anteriority of the blocks called into question, we can consider the possibility that the blocks are Pottery lot F 19:61. As has been stated in previous publications: Hesperia 1981, 64, and Guide, 108. 52  Hesperia 1981, 64. 53  Chris Simon, excavator of this area, noted the difficulty of distinguishing between stone and earth: NB F 19 III, 417. See also the remarks of T. Knight in NB F 18 I, 28–30. An instance of mistaking a dense area of poros bits for solid stone occurred during the exploration of the foundation trench along the south course of the later shrine: NB F 19 III, 513 and 519.

FIG. 41. Rubble retaining walls of the Archaic mound, from the west. At a higher level to the right, the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön.

later in date: that they are, in actuality, a part of the construction of the Early Hellenistic Heroön. There are several reasons to prefer this interpretation of the evidence. First, ashlar blocks of soft poros were not used anywhere else in the Archaic shrine; they are, however, used in its Early Hellenistic phase, for the surviving foundation course, as well as in the foundations of other late 4th-century buildings elsewhere at Nemea. Moreover, the length and width of the poros blocks are consistent with the dimensions of the other blocks of the Early Hellenistic Heroön. Finally, the use of additional blocks below the foundation course has a parallel at the northeast corner of the Heroön, as will be discussed in conjunction with the later shrine. The function of the lower level of poros blocks may have been to support this corner of the foundation, since it was being built over the sloping edge of the earlier mound.54 The presence of the curvilinear rubble wall gives one indication that the southwest edge of the

50  51 

54  Mention should be made of an amorphous poros slab found in F/2,3–19/19,20, just south of the Heroön (visible in Figs. 38, 42, 44; cf. Figs. 6*, 32). Barely a meter separates it from the poros blocks of the southwest corner, though its top elevation is somewhat lower, 332.641 vis-à-vis 332.790. With a maximum preserved dimension of 2.00 m., it is also much larger than the blocks. It rests on fill of 5th-century date (pottery lot F 20:30). Whether this isolated piece of limestone has anything to do with the Heroön of either phase remains unclear.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 42. Rubble retaining walls of the Archaic mound, from the east. In the background, the curvilinear rubble wall indicates the level of the upper surface of the mound. Also visible is the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön.

Archaic mound is to be located here. It is here as well that the dumped fill and features of the western profile of the mound intersect with a pair of east-west rubble walls, more deeply founded, that form part of the southern perimeter of the mound (Figs. 6*, 32, 38, 39, 41–44). The more southerly of the two walls, in F/2,17– 19/16,19, was uncovered for a length of some 18 meters. For the westernmost 7 meters, it lies more or less directly beneath the south foundation course of the second phase of the Heroön. The south face is composed of six or seven irregular courses of unworked stones of varied sizes (Fig. 44). Its preserved height is uneven, reaching a maximum of about 1.20 m. The north side of the stone wall, on the other hand, was built up in sloped courses of rubble, suggesting that the wall served to retain earth to the north (Figs. 41–43). At its base, the maximum width measures 2.25 m. As one proceeds eastward, the wall’s orientation shifts slightly to the north, and its integrity seems to dissolve into a jumble of stones interspersed in earth fill at its easternmost extent, in the area of F/16,18–19/16,18 (Figs. 6*, 32, 45, 46). If we assume a relatively uniform width for the wall, its south face would continue under the line of the Early Hellenistic Heroön foundation, but this could not be verified by excavation without damaging that later foundation. In F/4,10–19/14,16, a second retaining wall of unworked stones runs roughly parallel to the

23

FIG. 43. Cobbled surface between the retaining walls of the mound, from the east.

FIG. 44. Southern retaining wall of the Archaic mound, exposed beneath the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the south.

southern one, 3 meters away (Figs. 32, 38, 39, 41– 43).55 Exposed for a distance of 7 meters, it averages 1 meter in width, expanding to 1.5 m. at its western limit. Like its counterpart to the south, this wall has a more neatly defined southern face, but it stands only two courses high. The wall’s resting elevation also slopes downward some 0.20 m. from east to west. Another wall segment was unearthed just over 5 meters to the east in F/16,19– 19/14,15 (Figs. 45, 46). A length of 4 meters was

Measuring from the top of the southern retaining wall. Since this wall is built up on a slope of rubble, the base of the wall comes much closer—within a meter—to the northern retaining wall. 55 

24

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 45. Elements excavated within the southern side of the Archaic mound in F/16,19–19/14,18, from the east. Visible are a scatter of stones overlying a cobbled surface (center) and a segment of rubble retaining wall (right). The foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön is also exposed at a higher level at left.

FIG. 46. Scattered stones, cobbled surface, and rubble retaining wall excavated within the southern side of the Archaic mound in F/16,19–19/14,18, from the south. In the foreground, part of the foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön.

exposed, and its average width measured 1 meter. This second wall segment likely represents a continuation of the wall segment to the west; it has the same alignment and likewise consists of unworked stones arranged in two courses. As with the western perimeter of the mound, the southern perimeter involved extensive modification of the existing terrain. In the area between and around the two retaining walls, the ground level was excavated away to form a wide trough. The Archaic strata associated with the mound slope sit directly on Neolithic fill and virgin soil.56 Another step in the construction of the shrine’s southern perimeter was the laying of a surface of small, rounded cobblestones in a bedding of yellow earth, sand, and gravel.57 The surface extended across the length of the space between the two retaining walls in F/4,14–19/16,17 (Fig. 43). Again in F/16,19–19/15,18 to the east, where the southern retaining wall peters out, some of the jumbled stones sit on top of the cobbled surface (Figs. 45, 46). A strip of the same surface, just over a meter wide, also came to light along the south side of the larger retaining wall in F/4,10–19/19,20 (Fig. 47). Yet another patch of cobblestones was

preserved in F/3,5–19/12,14 on the north side of the lower retaining wall, at its west end. The level of the cobbled surface is not even; it lies deeper in the space between the two retaining walls and higher to the north and south of them.58 The purpose of this surface is unclear. Perhaps it was needed to stabilize the ground level for the building of the retaining walls or provide drainage, or else was used to roughly indicate the surface area to be covered in the construction of the mound’s edge. Also unclear is the sequence of construction of the southern retaining wall and the cobbled surface. At its western end, the wall is certainly founded below the level of the cobbled surface, at 331.352–331.384. Furthermore, a thin layer of red sand and gravel lay f lush with the base of the wall and appears to have extended under the southern strip of the cobbled surface.59 These observations suggest that at least the lowest courses of the retaining wall were laid before the placement of the surface. On the other hand, a gap of some 0.50 m. lies between the wall and the preserved surface. A soft, red, silt earth fills this gap, quite different from the yellow sand and gravel packed

The Neolithic stratum is represented by pottery lots F 20:42 and F 19:136. At the lowest elevations, the mound fill sits directly on virgin soil. 57  Pottery lots F 19:101, 109, 110, 127, 130, and 131, as well as lot F 20:40.

Elevations range from 331.562 to 331.920. The sand and gravel layer was excavated as layer 24 against the wall, but it yielded no pottery. Underneath the cobbled surface it corresponds to pottery lot F 20:41.

56 

58  59 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 47. Cobbled surface south of the southern retaining wall of the Archaic mound, from the south.

around the cobblestones.60 The situation resembles a construction trench cut through the cobbled surface for the building of the stone retaining wall, which suggests that the cobbled surface was built earlier. This sequence prevails at the eastern limit of the wall, where it becomes a jumble of stones (Figs. 45, 46). Since the stones clearly rest on top of the cobbled surface, they must postdate it. The slighter, northern retaining wall came later in the construction of the mound’s perimeter. The west end of the retaining wall rests directly on the surface of cobblestones. From there the wall rises over a sloped bedding of earth. The continuation of the wall exposed farther east sits even higher: on a bedding of fill 0.45 m. above the cobbled surface. In all, earth was brought in to a height of nearly two meters to build up the shrine’s southern edge around the retaining walls. This construction fill was not of uniform consistency. As observed in the construction of the western edge of the shrine, different earth fills were laid in alternating layers.61 The fills were sandy, at times having an admixture of gravel or clay, and ranged in color from dark red to light yellow-orange. The contents of the various earth layers furnished more examples of foundation deposits, including whole vessels, or substantial fragments thereof, and other deposited objects. The southern face of the wall, while impressive, was not exposed to view but rather lay buried within the mound’s edge; for against its south face Layer 23 in the trench, no pottery. Pottery lots F 19:88, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98–104, 106, and 115–118. 60  61 

25

was found more of the imported soil, and within that lay more votive pottery.62 The original profile of the mound’s southern edge, however, is perplexing. The east scarp of the trench in Section F 20 illustrates the situation (Fig. 48). Instead of a clearly sloped profile, the soft fills extend away from the retaining wall for about 1.5 m., then end in an abrupt, nearly vertical profile. Against this mass lay a series of superimposed hard-packed road surfaces.63 Three phases of a road could be distinguished running along the south of the Heroön mound in F/1,10–20/1,5. The earliest, at an elevation of 331.669–331.937, may be dated to the early 5th century B.C.64 Above it, at an elevation of 332.096–332.308, lay a second road surface likewise datable to the early 5th century.65 The third surface, at an elevation of 332.345–332.536, dates to the late 4th century B.C.66 The elevation of the lowest surfaces demonstrates that the mound originally rose at least 1.5 meters above the area to its south. The width of the road surfaces measures approximately 4 meters, although its south edge in all three phases was difficult to define. Future excavation is required both to clarify the original disposition of the southern slope of the Heroön and to determine whether the section of road encountered here is part of the same thoroughfare that runs along the south side of the 4th-century Xenon.67 Farther east, in G/16,18–19/17, a small test trench revealed another segment of an east-west wall (Figs. 6*, 49, 50). The low wall is made of unworked stones in two courses and measures 0.75–1.00 m. wide. It extends for 2.25 m., where the east foundation course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön passes over it. The wall segment continues for another 0.50 m., for a total excavated length of about 3.25 m. (Fig. 51). Given the limited area of the trench, it is unclear how the wall Pottery lots F 20:21 and 23. For a color illustration of this scarp, see Miller 2002, fig. 6. 64  Pottery lot F 20:38. 65  Pottery lot F 20:33. 66  Pottery lot F 20:26. 67  The main east-west road of the Sanctuary runs through Sections I 19–Q 19: Hesperia 1981, 57–58; Hesperia 1982, 30; Hesperia 1983, 92; Hesperia 1988, 8; and Nemea I, 99, 102, 104, 115, 139, 161, 185, and 250. In Early Hellenistic times, this road also may have joined a “Sacred Way” connecting the Sanctuary and the stadium to the southeast: Nemea II, 151. 62  63 

26

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 48. Scarp in Section F 20 showing the south edge of the mound, from the west. Note how the silt fill of the mound at left forms a nearly vertical boundary with the series of gravel-packed road surfaces at right.

segment relates either to the features found to the west or to the southern edge of the shrine, but it undoubtedly belongs to the construction of the Archaic Heroön. The east end of the wall merges with a cascade of rough stones sloping down to the east in G/18,20–19/15,18 (Figs. 51, 52). The slope, exposed for an area of 3 × 3 m., descends approximately 1.10 m. and appears to constitute part of the east slope of the Archaic hero shrine. Unfortunately, the course of the Nemea River in later times has washed away most of the east side of the mound, just as it washed away much of the east foundation of the Early Hellenistic enclosure (see below). Later fill associated with the Early Christian and Byzantine course of the Nemea River abuts and partially covers the slope, so that evidence for the relationship of the slope to the original ground level to the east is irretrievable. Assuming the stones are in their original positions, it is still impossible to tell whether the stones lined the surface of the mound or were covered over in turn by more mound fill. Overlying the upper part of the rubble slope was a variegated silt

fill that produced fragmentary remains of three vases.68 The layer thus resembles the same kind of construction fill with votives as found along the western and southern limits of the shrine, but this is not conclusive. The east slope of the Archaic Heroön may be detectable in one other area: G/14,17–18/15,17, just north of the preserved northeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön (Figs. 6*, 53). Here a field of rubble was exposed that shows a slight slope downward from west to east, from 332.386 to 331.956 (Figs. 54, 55). It may have continued to the north and west, beyond the limits of the excavated area. To the south, the field has a sharp border running parallel to the Early Hellenistic foundation course, as if the rubble had been cleared away to make room for constructing the latter. No trace of it was found immediately south of the foundation course, either. The eastern, lower edge of the rubble has an irregular border. For another two meters to the east, in 68 

Pottery lot G 19:74. The vases are Cat. 22, 34, and 44.

FIG. 49.

Detail of state plan, Section G 19.

FIG. 50. Rubble wall beneath the east wall of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the west.

FIG. 51. Rubble wall beneath the east wall of Early Hellenistic Heroön and rubble slope of the east side of the Archaic mound, from the north.

FIG. 52. Rubble slope of the east side of the Archaic mound, from the east.

FIG. 53.

Detail of state plan, Section G 18.

FIG. 54. Rubble at the northeast corner of the Heroön, from the north.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 55. Rubble at the northeast corner of the Heroön, from the west.

G/17,18–18/15, more stones came to light, but at deeper levels ranging from 331.627 down to 330.816. The whole area east of the rubble field has been so heavily disturbed by the Nemea River of the Early Christian period, however, that it is impossible to identify with certainty the original slope of the Archaic Heroön.69

THE FOUNDATION DEPOSITS The excavated portions of the shrine’s perimeter yielded numerous artifacts buried in the construction fill. The fact that so many of them were relatively complete and in many cases carefully positioned suggests that these objects were intended as dedications in conjunction with the foundation of the new shrine.70 In addition, these same layers contained very little in the way of isolated, stray sherds that would suggest haphazard disposal.71 The placement 69  Pottery lots G 19:88, 89, 91, 94, and 98–100. Of these, lot 99 contains pottery of the Early Christian period. Lots 88 and 89, while containing no pottery later than the 4th century B.C., produced fragments of glass vessels, clearly indicating that the layers are actually much later in date. 70  The total of such dedications is 46 if we include the three vases Cat. 22, 34, and 44. As discussed above, however, their inclusion among the foundation deposits is not certain, and the reader should bear this in mind throughout the following discussion. 71  Many of the construction layers excavated around the edges of the shrine were strikingly “pure”: workmen would dig for hours without finding a single sherd, and then suddenly encounter one of the deposited objects. Other layers contained many uninventoried sherds, but most of these consisted of substantial parts of distinct vessels that may represent additional dedications. Among the sherds could be observed

29

of foundation deposits within important structures has been documented at many other sites in ancient Greece and is the subject of a recent dissertation by Gloria R. Hunt. According to her, Greek foundation deposits take two distinct forms. One, more common in East Greece, is characterized by deposits of prestige objects including coins and objects of precious metals. The other mainly consists of the dedication of ceramic vases and is found throughout much of the rest of the ancient Greek world.72 The Heroön deposits are of the latter type; all but four of the objects are ceramic vessels associated with drinking and libation. The most common type by far is the kotyle (Cat. 7–24).73 Other drinking vessel shapes include the kantharos (Cat. 25– 27), the two-handled cup (Cat. 28–30), the mug (Cat. 31–33), and one kylix (Cat. 34). The deposits also contain several service vessels: five oinochoai (Cat. 35–39) and two kraters (Cat. 40 and 41). Miniatures round out the pottery, among which are four examples of the miniature kotyle (Cat. 42–45). The remainder are a kalathiskos (Cat. 46), a miniature bowl (Cat. 47), and a krateriskos (Cat. 48). The provenance of the vessels in the deposits is heavily weighted toward Corinth. In addition to the kotylai and the kylix, one of the kraters and one of the oinochoai are certainly Corinthian. So too are the miniature kotylai. Yet Argive vessels fragments of kotylai, including one figured example, as well as parts of a polychrome oinochoe, kraters, a kantharos, an aryballos, miniatures, and some coarse vessels (pottery lots F 20:23, 40 and 41; F 19:88, 89, 91–93, 95, 96, 98, 100, 115–117, 127, 128, and 131; F 18:7, 12, 13, 16, 44, 56, 109, 111, 113, and 116; and G 19:62). From these same layers come some tile fragments, including an inventoried pan tile fragment, AT 428. A few layers produced worn sherds of earlier periods, perhaps to be associated with the preexisting strata that were being modified for the creation of the mound (pottery lots F 19:96, 130, 104, 110, 111, 127, 128, and 131; and F 18:11, 46, 47, 51, 54–56, and 109). 72  Hunt, 6–7, 117–118. Hunt, 14–15, summarizes earlier scholarship on Greek foundation deposits, which includes principally Burkert 1992, 53–55; Sinn; and Weikart. 73  A note on terminology is necessary: This text and the catalogue adhere to the distinction between the shapes kotyle and skyphos made in more recent scholarship on Corinthian ceramics. Namely, the kotyle is the earlier Corinthian cup shape with a slight, flaring ring foot, whereas the skyphos has a thicker, torus ring foot: Williams and Fisher, 155 n. 18; Bentz, 14; Corinth XVIII, i, 26; Corinth VII, v, 54. Previous Nemea publications, as well as notebooks and other archival material, more often adhere to the older system espoused in Corinth XIII, 97–98, 104–108, 119, and 123–128, and Agora XII, 81–83, which applies the term skyphos to both shapes.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

30

FIG. 56.

Bronze phiale (Cat. 49), in situ.

are also in evidence. Most conspicuous are the kantharoi and the small two-handled cups. The mugs may be Laconian, or else Argive imitations of Laconian. In some cases the vases identified by shape as Corinthian or Argive may in fact be imitations made closer to Nemea, such as at Kleonai or Phlious.74 In addition to these variations in shape and provenance, the manner in which the vessels were deposited also varies significantly from case to case. Many of the vessels appear to have been placed carefully in the earth so that their original shape was preserved. Forces subsequent to their deposition often fractured them: the impact of earth dumped over them, the settling of the earth over time, the errant modern pick, or re-exposure to the sun. While some were placed upright (Cat. 20 and 28), others were placed upside down (e.g. Cat. 7, 32, and 49; cf. Fig. 56). Still others lay on their sides (e.g. Cat. 35, 39, and 40; cf. Fig. 57). There is no clear correlation between a vessel’s orientation and either its shape or provenance.75 The 1924 votive deposit at Phlious in the neighboring valley produced pottery imported from Corinth and Argos as well as seemingly local imitations and variants: Biers, 399– 402. In his analysis of pottery from the survey of the Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, R. F. Sutton, Jr., signals the difficulty of distinguishing local pottery from that produced at Corinth and Argos: Wright et al., 646. Two kilns found during the survey offer concrete evidence for local ceramic production. 75  See also Hesperia 2015, fig. 57, for an illustration of the discovery of Cat. 26, a kantharos found essentially intact and placed on its side. Hunt does not comment directly on this kind of variation, although it emerges from her survey of foundation deposits that such variations do exist. For instance, in a foundation deposit associated with a Geometric 74 

FIG. 57.

Cup and oinochoe (Cat. 28 and 35), in situ.

In at least one case it is clear that what was laid in the ground was only part of a vessel. In F/14– 19/16, a coarse oinochoe (Cat. 35) was placed on its side, its mouth tilted downward to pour into another vessel, a small two-handled cup (Cat. 28; Fig. 57).76 While the cup was found whole, a good third of the body of the oinochoe was missing, together with its handle, indicating that the vessel either had been damaged already or was ritually broken before being set in place.77 wall on Mount Barbouna at Asine, some of the vessels were found standing upright (another was found upside down, but the excavator doubts that this was its original position): Hunt, 79; Wells, 261–262. Illustrations of another Geometric foundation deposit from the Asine acropolis, the so-called Crown Prince’s deposit or deposit D, show vases both upright and lying on their sides: see Wells, fig. 6 (detail reproduced as Hunt, fig. 76) and fig. 8. 76  For a color illustration, see Miller 2002, fig. 14; Hesperia 2015, fig. 58. 77  As noted, the oinochoe was placed on its side; the missing portion was oriented upward in the fill. One might argue for the possibility that the pitcher was deposited whole, but then some subsequent disturbance sheared away its upper part. Opposing this possibility is the fact that another 0.50 m. of undisturbed construction fill covered the vessel. The stratigraphy would look very different if the damage had been done at some later time (e.g. in conjunction with laying the foundations of the Early Hellenistic Heroön). We are left only with the possibility that the damage was inflicted from above in the very act of heaping up the construction fill. This seems unlikely given the evidence for the careful placement of objects throughout these layers. Moreover, in this scenario one would expect the broken fragments to turn up somewhere else in the fill, but no trace of them was found. Another vase that seems to have been deposited as a fragment is the coarse round-mouthed oinochoe (Cat. 36), which is preserved only in its upper half. Hunt notes other vases that appear to have been “halved” in foundation deposits

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

In many other cases there is clearer evidence that the vessels were intentionally broken as part of the act of dedication. Rather than preserving the original form of the vessel, the fragments were found in a jumbled pile; yet after mending, some of these vases proved to be largely complete (e.g. Cat. 8, 25, 34, and 46). The few missing fragments perhaps could have fallen outside of the main concentration of fragments as a result of the force of smashing the vessel; simple oversight during excavation also may have been a factor. Other vases were lacking more substantial parts of their bodies. In this regard two patterns may be noteworthy. First, a number of the fragmentary kotylai were missing the area around one handle (Cat. 9, 13, 18, 20, 21, and 24). Two of the three small Argive cups exhibit the same breakage (Cat. 29 and 30). A different pattern of breakage involves cups that lack all or part of the base (Cat. 16, 17, and 23). Both patterns suggest that some vases were deliberately broken in specific ways as part of the ritual attending their dedication. While Hunt has not found much evidence for ritual breakage as a standard practice in foundation ritual,78 a parallel for cups broken around one handle does exist in other contexts at Nemea. A deposit found below the Bath and dated to the first half of the 5th century contained several skyphoi with this kind of breakage,79 and the North Pit Deposit, described below, contained similarly broken cups. The broken vases from the foundation deposits raise further questions. Where, for instance, are the missing fragments of the incomplete vases? One possibility is that the vases were broken outside the construction area, and only parts of them thrown in; or the vessels were broken on the spot, and select fragments were then removed. Still another possibility is that the missing fragments were also dedicated, but scattered elsewhere in unexcavated areas. As to how the vases were broken, from Asine (Geometric) and Pergamon (Late Hellenistic): Hunt, 79, 97, 105, and 119. 78  Hunt, 119. On the distinction between foundation ritual and foundation deposit, which is but one part of the former, see Hunt, 16 and Chapter 4. 79  Nemea I, 259–261 and fig. 374; Hesperia 1984, 181 and pl. 38:b. The deposit was heaped over a pit and contained a number of bones as well as miniature vases, one-handlers, lamps, an oinochoe, and a lekanis. The quantity of vessels, the presence of the miniatures, and the bones suggest a ritual character for the deposit.

FIG. 58. in situ.

31

Remains of a vase with a rock lodged in it,

were they smashed individually by being thrown to the ground, or were two vases smashed against each other and their remains deposited? There is evidence that stones were used in at least some cases. A small, fist-size stone was found near the incomplete remains of one mug (Cat. 33). The fragmentary base of another vase was found with a rock still lodged in it (Fig. 58).80 The sacrificial deposit from below the Bath once again provides a parallel for the use of stones: several of the skyphoi were found with fist-size rocks placed in them.81 A few vessels were found not only in fragments but scattered in the construction fill. The sherds of a Corinthian oinochoe (Cat. 37), for instance, were found scattered over a small area of F/16,17–19/12,13. Through mending, it became clear that part of the body was missing. Perhaps in this instance the vessel was shattered and then part of the body withheld while the rest was dumped in the construction fill. Likewise, one of the kraters (Cat. 41) was found scattered vertically through more than a meter of fill. In this instance, though, the vessel proved virtually complete after conservation. The occasional arrangement of the vessels in groups intimates the ritual setting in which the votive dedications were made. One example is the pairing of oinochoe and cup described above: the The remains of the vase, perhaps a krater, were not inventoried but rather kept with pottery lot F 18:116. A color illustration of its discovery is shown in Miller 2002, fig. 11, but there and at p. 246 it is erroneously identified as the kantharos P 1671 (= Cat. 26). 81  Nemea I, 259–261 and fig. 375; Hesperia 1984, 181–182 and pl. 38:g. 80 

32

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

cup was positioned as if to receive what was being poured from the oinochoe (Fig. 57). Another example is a cluster of four kotylai (Cat. 15–18) and an oinochoe (Cat. 36) found in area F/4,5– 19/11,12 (Fig. 59).82 The close proximity of the vessels suggests that they were used for libations by a small group of participants, then deposited as an ensemble.83 In addition to all the ceramic vessels, we found one bronze phiale of mesomphalic type (Cat. 49), which had been placed upside down (Fig. 56).84 The preponderance of drinking vessels in the votive deposits found around the perimeter of the hero shrine is salient. It suggests that libation and drinking were a major part of the rituals attending the construction of the mound, just as they were a part of the activity throughout the life of the shrine. A few bits of animal bone were recovered from the construction layers, as well as some carbonized wood.85 While sacrifice certainly played an important role in the functioning of the cult of Opheltes, analysis of these bone fragments reveals that most are unburnt, and often leached and eroded, suggesting instead that they are randomly discarded remains.86 82  See Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 13, for a color illustration of the group. 83  Compare the assemblages in the foundation deposits from the Asine acropolis (above, n. 75) and from Temple D at Samos, both of which combine drinking cups with service vessels: Hunt 66–68, 79–80, 115–116. From foundation deposits elsewhere come examples of the stacking of vases or the use of one vase as a cover or lid for another: Hunt, 69, 71, 93, 97, 105. In some of these cases one could argue that the placement reflects the constraints of the space available for the foundation deposit, but within the Heroön construction layers, where space is abundant, the grouping of vases must have greater significance. 84  Although the phiale was found in a different stratum of the construction fill, it still lay only a few centimeters below, and in the same area as, the group of kotylai and oinochoe described above. Hence it may belong to the group, in which case it was the first object in. As new fill was laid over it, the rest of the objects followed. 85  Bone: pottery lots F 18:47, 51, 54, and 55; F 19:98, 110, 118, and 131; and F 20:41. The bits of bone in lot F 18:51 may derive from a later pit that cuts through this layer and that was found to contain bone remains (see below, p. 39). Carbonized wood: pottery lots F 19:88 and 117. 86  See further in Chapter 2. One source could have been the remnants of the meals of the workers building the shrine. The possibility that the bones and carbon may result from a sacrificial meal should not be wholly excluded, however. Such remains are frequently encountered in foundation deposits,

FIG. 59. Group of four kotylai (Cat. 15-18) and an oinochoe (Cat. 36), in situ.

Although drinking vessels dominate the foundation deposits, a few other kinds of votive were found. Two of them are the remains of weapons: iron spearheads (Cat. 50–51). The final votive is a fragmentary terracotta figurine representing a centaur (Cat. 52).87 The centaur, now partly restored, has the head, arms, torso, and genitalia of a youthful male attached to an equine body. The more sensitive modeling evident in the preserved part of the face and the incised detailing of the hair contrast with the cruder rendering of the rest of the figurine. The positioning of the hands suggests that the centaur may have been holding some object, now lost.88 Whatever the special iconographic significance of this centaur, the inclusion of figurines in foundation deposits is not without parallel. The foundation deposit of the 5th

leading Hunt to argue that sacrifice and/or ritual dining often played a part in foundation ritual: Hunt, 106, 114 (cf. 17). 87  The construction layers also turned up a piece of obsidian, ST 794; a piece of rock crystal, ST 523; and a flat fragment of a spatula-like iron object (Cat. 53). The status of these objects as votives is less clear. A bronze arrowhead, Cat. 240, which was found at the very edge of one of the construction layers, probably became embedded in the surface of the mound and was not part of the construction fill proper. Some unidentifiable fragments of iron and bronze were found in pottery lots F 18:113 and F 19:103 and 118. 88  One suggestion for what he was holding is a small child, perhaps the baby Opheltes himself, on the analogy of representations of Cheiron with the baby Achilles or Asklepios: Miller 2002, 246 and cf. fig. 18. See further discussion in Catalogue, ad loc.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

century B.C. Temple of Aphrodite in Argos, for instance, furnished several different terracottas.89 In sum, the more than 40 objects included in the various foundation deposits made throughout the perimeter of the Heroön mound constitute the largest reported finding in association with any single ancient Greek structure, and no doubt other votive objects lie buried in the remaining unexcavated portions.90 In the absence of literary documentation about the purpose of foundation rituals in ancient Greece, Hunt has marshaled comparative evidence from other cultures together with the evidence of myth and the archaeological remains themselves to argue that they served for purification, propitiation, and magical protection.91 Generally, but not exclusively, associated with sacred structures, the practice underscores the importance of the construction of the Heroön within the sacred landscape of Nemea. Only one other hero shrine, the West Gate Heroön at Eretria, has produced remains that have been identified as a foundation deposit, but the true nature of the deposit is questionable.92 With its abundance of evidence for foundation deposits, therefore, the Heroön of Opheltes remains unique among excavated hero shrines.

DATE OF THE ARCHAIC HEROÖN Since all the votives come from deposits sealed within the construction fill of the Heroön’s perimeter, the date of the votives provides a terminus post quem for the inauguration of the shrine. The Corinthian pottery offers the most reliable evidence for date. Most of the vessels that can be dated based on shape and decoration appear to belong to the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. The most securely datable piece is the Corinthian krater (Cat. 40), which is of the distinctive “Chalkidian” type, recognized by its composite handles. Alas, the alkaline Nemean soil Hunt, 83–84, 107; see also 120–121 for other examples. The next largest is deposit D, the foundation deposit associated with the Geometric wall on the Asine acropolis, with some 20 vases: Wells, 262; Hunt, 79–80. 91  Hunt, 208. 92  Hunt, 93–95, and personal communication. The deposit contains but a few sherds of different vases, and they antedate the construction of the triangular temenos above it by over 100 years. 89  90 

33

does not treat painted decoration very well, but a close examination of the krater reveals that it had been richly decorated with incised and polychrome painted details, with a figured scene on each side. In the best-preserved part of one scene, one can make out a youthful male rider riding left upon a horse, part of a procession of three riders. The other side has traces of winged figures. According to D. A. Amyx’s study of Archaic Corinthian pottery, all of the known examples of Corinthian kraters of Chalkidian type date to the Late Corinthian I period or slightly earlier, corresponding roughly to the years 575–550 B.C.93 Most of the other objects from the foundation deposits, to the extent that they are datable, fall within this range as well, evincing a date in the second quarter of the 6th century for the shrine’s construction.94 A problem arises, however, within the group of eighteen kotylai. It demonstrates some variation in shape and decoration, which may indicate a broad range of dates for these cups. The majority are black glazed kotylai, for which H. Palmer proposed a classification into three groups based on stylistic elements.95 Nine of the vases (Cat. 10, 13, and 15–21) fall into her group ii, which she dates to the first half of the 6th century. Another kotyle (Cat. 12) belongs to the earlier group i, dated to the first quarter of the century. Five more, however, are either transitional (Cat. 14) or belong firmly in her group iii (Cat. 7, 11, 23, and 24), with dates extending into the last quarter of the 6th century. Also posing a problem is the small patterned kotyle, Cat. 22. Based on its restored

CorVP, 428 (on chronology) and 511–512. See discussions of date in Catalogue, ad loc. Apart from the inventoried objects, some of the pottery lots associated with the construction of the shrine were originally dated to as late as the mid-5th century. Pottery lots F 19:56, 89, and 102 were assigned Classical dates based on the presence of a sherd in each lot with lustrous glaze. Yet examples of lustrous glaze are also known from the 6th century (compare e.g. the glaze on Cat. 32 and 33). Pottery lots F 18:51 and 111 yielded a few 5th-century sherds, but in these cases contamination of the stratigraphy could explain their presence. Finally, pottery lots F 19:101 and 109 and lot F 20:40 each produced a single large sherd originally identified as Classical blisterware. The fabric is heavier, however, and more akin to that of Type A Corinthian transport amphorai, which were produced beginning in the early 7th century: see Vandiver and Koehler, 176. 95  Corinth XIII, 105–108. 93  94 

34

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

profile, it most resembles kotylai dated to the early 5th century B.C. Should the date of the Archaic Heroön be lowered on the basis of these objects? In the case of Cat. 22, a substantial part of the body of the vessel was missing, so that the amount of restoration is extensive. It is possible that the restored profile is incorrect. Another consideration is its find spot, at the southeast corner of the Heroön in G/18–19/18. As noted above, this area was heavily disturbed by the course of the Nemea River in the 6th century after Christ, and it is uncertain whether this vase, together with Cat. 34 and 44, truly belongs to the foundation deposits of the mound. As for the group iii black-glazed kotylai, Palmer’s defining criteria are the presence of added red bands on the interior, the steepening profile, and the width of the reserved band with rays. Whether these characteristics truly define a distinct group with chronological significance could use confirmation. Moreover, while the chronological termini of the groups may be firm among the North Cemetery graves, they may not be valid outside that context.96 Palmer herself expresses caution about the usefulness of the kotylai for absolute dating.97 Comparison of the pottery from the foundation deposits to the pottery recovered from the surface of the mound supports a construction date before the middle of 6th century B.C. Specifically, Corinthian Conventionalizing pottery, a style that f lourished from the second half of the 6th century on, was found in abundance in the ashy layers representing the period of use of the Heroön (e.g. Cat. 73–75).98 Excluding the patterned kotylai and miniature kotylai, which begin earlier in the century, nothing of this style of pottery appears in the foundation deposits. On balance, then, the evidence from the foundation deposits suggests that the Heroön was completed sometime in the second quarter of the Later scholarship has tinkered somewhat with Palmer’s dates of the North Cemetery graves, but the revisions are not more than a decade or two in any case: see Corinth VII, v, 10–13. 97  Corinth XIII, 103: “The consensus is, however, that the skyphoi are almost hopeless for chronological purposes and this is in large part true.” 98  In addition to the inventoried examples included in the Catalogue, profuse numbers of Conventionalizing sherds were observed in the related pottery lots. Very recognizable were body sherds of kotylai with linked lotus buds, a motif that heralds the beginning of the style: Corinth VII, v, 1, 23–25. 96 

6th century. Thus, its construction may have coincided with the establishment of the Nemean Games as a Panhellenic festival, traditionally dated to 573 B.C., or else followed closely afterward, within a generation at most.99 As will be documented in Chapter 3, there was a strong aetiological connection between the hero Opheltes and the Nemean Games, which would account for the close chronological relationship between the construction of the Heroön and the institution of the Games.

SURFACE FEATURES OF THE ARCHAIC SHRINE Bounded on three sides by its artificially mounded slopes laden with foundation deposits, the Archaic Heroön presented worshippers with a broad area of trapezoidal shape covering over 600 square meters, elevated above the surrounding level of the Sanctuary by about 1.5–2.0 m. Across this area the elevation is fairly level, ranging from 333.00 to 332.75. As will be described in greater detail later, the north end of the Heroön is joined to an earthen embankment that extends away from it to the north.100 Although subsequent activity The traditional date is provided by Eusebius, who places the foundation in the fourth year of Olympiad 51, corresponding to 573/572 B.C. The Armenian translation of Eusebius gives the following year: Hanell, col. 2324. For an interpretation of the political circumstances surrounding the foundation of the Games, see McGregor, 277–287; Marchand, 176–182. Given that nearly a millennium separates the foundation of the Games and Eusebius’ work, one might question the accuracy of the reported date, although scholars have been relatively silent on this issue. Mosshammer, especially 84–112 and 128–168, offers detailed discussion of the general problems entailed in Eusebius’ notices about early Greek history. For the uncertainty of the chronographic tradition in regard to the list of Olympic victors and the foundation of the Olympics, see Christesen, especially Ch. 2. In connection with the Isthmian Games, it is interesting to note that a comparable discrepancy has been observed between the traditional date of their institution and the archaeological evidence for the earliest athletic activity: Gebhard. 100  With reference to Fig. 6*, this large, level area covers most of Sections F 19 and G 19, within the rubble perimeter described above. Further north, the contour of the mound changes. This seems to be related to the transition between the level shrine surface to the south and the embankment to the north, which has a triangular, sloping profile. While the west side of the shrine, in Section F 18, maintains the same level, the east side, in Section G 18, drops off fairly suddenly 99 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 60. Stone enclosure (Tomb of Opheltes) in G/6,7–19/1,3, from the north.

appears to have damaged the shrine’s surface in many areas, it survives in places as a hard red crust with the consistency of clay, just like the lining observed along the mound’s west slope. The excavated portions of the mound’s perimeter seem unsuitable as a means of access to the central space of the shrine, but it cannot be ruled out that some accommodation for access was made in the unexcavated or disturbed areas along the west, south, or east slopes. A more convenient means of approach would have been from the north, along the adjoining embankment. The principal feature of the shrine was a stone structure unearthed in G/6,7–19/1,3. It is loosely built, composed of f lat blocks of unworked conglomerate limestone placed on end and standing some 0.37–0.47 m. above the surface. Originally the stones formed a roughly rectangular shape, 2 × 4 m. in exterior size, with a north-south orientation; three quarters of it still remain in situ (Figs. 49, 60). The north end, which extended into Section G 18, was removed during the earliest excavation in the area before the significance of the stones was realized. Nevertheless, a photograph taken during the course of the work in 1979 shows the tops of stones, some of which may have completed the rectangular form (Fig. 61).101 to the range of 332.50–332.30. This contour can be seen in cross section A (Fig. 26*), where the Archaic surface is represented by pottery lots F 18:43 to the west and, to the east, G 18:56, 58, and G 19:86. 101  Guide2, 129. The general outline shape of the north end is perhaps also to be seen in a plan in NB G 18, I, 28. In some previous publications the construction has been called

35

FIG. 61. Stones in G 18, some possibly of the north end of the enclosure (Tomb of Opheltes), from the east.

A layer of rubble at the level of the shrine’s surface filled the space within, and stones of more varied size extended around it as well (Fig. 60). This field is densest to the west, south, and northeast of the structure within a two-meter radius, yet small arcs and clusters of stones were exposed as far as eight meters away (cf. Figs. 49, 53), suggesting that the original size of the field was much greater.102 The rectangular structure, along with the field of stones, is firmly founded upon the mound surface and no doubt was a focal point of the shrine from the start.103 With its upright stones, the crude rectangular monument remained a visible feature throughout the history of the shrine, even in the variously a “naïskos,” “small room,” and “small chamber”: e.g. Hesperia 1981, 64; Hesperia 1984, 173. The dimensions given in Hesperia 1981, 64 (1.40 by at least 3.15 m.) are for the interior. 102  Some parts of the rubble field were removed for excavation. This includes half of the area within the rectangular enclosure, where a test trench was dug. Moreover, many more stones were found churned up in fill of the 6th century after Christ, especially to the north of the structure (see Fig. 61). These may have originally belonged to the mound surface and were displaced by Early Christian farming in the area. The possibility cannot be excluded that some of the stones may have once belonged to the construction of the stone enclosure itself, and that it was originally more substantial than what is preserved. 103  Hesperia 1984, 173. The stratigraphy offers some confirmation: Excavation around the structure yielded layers with Archaic pottery, e.g. pottery lots G 19:24 and 27. Test Trench N, excavated within the rectangular enclosure, turned up seven sherds of 7th and 6th century date (pottery lot G 19:38).

36

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

time of the Early Christian farming community.104 Not only is it the most conspicuous element on the surface of the mound, but also dense layers of sacrificial debris, pottery, and other finds, to be described below in greater detail, surround it, futher signaling its importance. The testimony of Pausanias aids in the identification of the stone feature. Within the shrine’s enclosure wall, he reports, is the Tomb of Opheltes, as well as altars (2.15 = T 61; see Appendix C). Because of its prominence and its uniqueness in the shrine, the excavated feature can be identified as the very tomb mentioned by Pausanias.105 To be sure, a deep test trench inside it yielded no sign of an actual burial; the association of the Heroön with the burial place of Opheltes arose from legend.106 It has also been proposed that the feature served as an altar.107 Indeed the debris around it contains clear remnants of burnt sacrifice, and there is precedent for a hero’s tomb doubling as an altar.108 Still, this identification is less likely given that Pausanias explicitly distinguishes between the tomb and the altars, and moreover speaks of the altars in the plural. There is also no evidence of burning on the stone chamber itself, although we

The stones were nearly completely covered by a thick layer of fill dating to the Early Christian period (pottery lot G 19:2). At the bottom of this layer could be discerned the ubiquitous oblong farming trenches of this period, at an average elevation of 333.07. 105  The identification was first proposed by A. Futrell in Guide, 106 and 108, n. 60. 106  Guide, 108, n. 60. Futrell, citing as a parallel the Tomb of Achilles at Elis, also calls the Tomb of Opheltes a cenotaph, and the term reappears in Guide2, 129, but it is not really appropriate from the perspective of the ancient Greeks. To them, a cenotaph was a tomb monument dedicated to a hero (or the ordinary dead) whose actual remains were either buried elsewhere or lost. The Greeks thought that Achilles’ real resting place was outside Troy; hence the monument at Elis was a cenotaph. In the case of Opheltes, there is no evidence to suggest that his true grave was reckoned to be anywhere other than in the shrine. So while the burial may be legendary, the monument was probably not a cenotaph by ancient Greek reckoning. 107  Guide, 108. Compare also the perspective drawing of the Early Hellenistic shrine in Guide, fig. 35, where the structure is shown as a solid rectangular altar with a fire burning on top. The interpretation is omitted in Guide2. 108  An example is the shrine of Aiakos on Aigina; Pausanias (2.29.8) describes a low altar there that was also thought to conceal the hero’s grave. 104 

FIG. 62. Two stone blocks, unearthed in a large area of blackened fill (= Deposit F 18, F 19:1) near the west side of the Heroön, from the south.

cannot be sure that the structure is complete as preserved.109 Elsewhere in the shrine four isolated rectangular blocks came to light. Two of them were found along the west side in F/8,9–18/20,19/1 and F/8,9–19/3,4; they are oriented roughly parallel to each other and to the Early Hellenistic Heroön wall (Figs. 6*, 32, 62). The northern block resembles a rectangular slab, broken on one of the short sides (Fig. 63). It measures 0.73 m. wide by 0.17 m. thick, and its maximum preserved length is 1.15 m.110 The anathyrosis on the preserved short end, with the joint contact surface along the bottom edge as discovered, shows clearly that this block is now upside down and not in its original position, where it adjoined at least one other similar block. The southern block is more heavily weathered, making it difficult to discern any original surfaces. As preserved, however, its maximum dimensions are 1.16 m. by 0.60 m. by 0.28 m. Its interior was completely filled with the same disturbed Early Christian fill (pottery lot G 19:2) found outside it. There is no evidence for how this interior space was treated during the functioning of the cult, or even whether it was open to view. Perhaps it was covered by some superstructure, now lost. 110  The dimensions of the blocks were not recorded when originally excavated. The measurements and detailed photographs presented here result from an examination of the remains in 2008, and it was apparent that the blocks had suffered some further deterioration since their discovery. 109 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

37

FIG. 63. Detail of northern stone block near the west side of Heroön, from the south.

Another block was situated in the vicinity of the southwest corner of the shrine, in F/12–19/12,13 (Figs. 32, 64).111 It is unclear, again because of the weathering of the block, whether the north and west sides of the block are original, but the preserved dimensions are 1.15 m. by 0.58 m. by 0.22 m. Yet a fourth block may be recognized in the southeast part of the shrine, at G/6,7–19/16 (Figs. 49, 65). Its original height can be measured as 0.17 m., and the maximum preserved length and width are 0.74 m. and 0.62 m., respectively. Like the two blocks along the west side of the Heroön, it is tilted upward, and the upper corner has been worn away to approximately the level of the surrounding earth. It is difficult to say with certainty what function these blocks served. One possibility is that they are the remains of individual altars, perhaps even those reported by Pausanias.112 In the case of the two parallel blocks along the west side, this is impossible to prove. They are not in their original positions, as both were found tilted upward, embedded in a shallow pit of black earth with debris from the use of the shrine.113 Certainly in their 111  Also visible right of and above center in Hesperia 1981, plate 23f. 112  Guide, 106, and compare fig. 35; Guide2, 129 and fig. 91. See also Hesperia 1981, 64. 113  Pottery lots F 18:3 and F 19:3. See below, p. 38, for more on this pit. The claim at Guide, 106, that all the blocks are “firmly positioned” is misleading. Hesperia 1980, 195, attributes the displacement of the blocks to Early Christian farming, but in fact it could have happened anytime from

FIG. 64. Stone block at F/12–19/12,13 and surrounding pits, from the west, with west wall of Early Hellenistic Heroön in the foreground.

FIG. 65. Stone block fragments at G/6,7–19/16, from the west.

38

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

present state they could not function as altars, but it is unclear whether they were still in their original positions when Pausanias visited the shrine.114 If we assume that the blocks originally lay f lat on the ground, they could have served as low altars, with offerings placed directly on their upper surfaces, or else as bases for taller altars. Other possible uses for the blocks could have been to support votives or perirrhanteria (many fragments of which were found within the shrine; see below). There is somewhat more evidence that the block to the southwest functioned as an altar: an oval pit approximately 2.30 × 1.10 m abutted its north side, in F/12,13–19/11,12 (Fig. 64). The pit proved to have a depth of 0.45 m., and its contents included black earth, charred wood, some lumps of clay, and some Classical pottery.115 This material could perhaps represent the residue of sacrificial activity associated with the block. As no trace of burning was found on the block itself, however, we must suppose that the block only served as the altar’s base. Furthermore, it is clear that the block was in place prior to the construction of the later enclosure, because the layer of debris from the first phase of the shrine runs f lush against its side. Thus, whatever its function, it belonged originally to the earlier phase of the Heroön.116 It may have continued in that capacity into Pausanias’ day as well, for the upper part of the block was found to be covered by fill of the Early Christian and Byzantine periods.117 Sacrificial debris from the first phase of the Heroön also surrounds the fourth, very fragmentary block, located to the southeast,118 but it is unclear whether the material should be related to it rather than to activity centered on the Tomb to the north. It cannot be in its original position, nor is it clear that the block remained visible in the second phase of the shrine or later.119 the filling of the shallow pit until the Early Christian period, when the upper parts of the blocks were covered over (pottery lots F 18:2 and F 19:2). 114  The excavators at first surmised that they may have served as bases for internal roof supports (Hesperia 1980, 195) before realizing, in the subsequent season, that they were dealing with an open air structure. 115  Pottery lot F 19:23. 116  Hesperia 1981, 64. 117  Pottery lots F 19:6–8. 118  Pottery lots G 19:20 and 21. It should be noted that the only written record of this fourth block is a reference to a “line of stones” in NB G 19, I, 79 (cf. plans on pp. 68 and 76). 119  It was covered over by more fill of late-4th-century date:

In summary, while the interpretation of these blocks as the remains of altars seems a viable possibility, there is insufficient evidence to confirm it. Only one block appears to be in its original position, situated in the Archaic shrine and having a f lat upper surface suitable to hold offerings or serve as a base for a taller construction. Pausanias informs us that there were altars within the shrine enclosure in his day, but we cannot be sure that any of the excavated blocks were visible at the time of his visit.120 We have already had occasion to note the presence of pits on the surface of the Archaic shrine. These fall into two general groups. First, there were extensive areas of soft, black earth fill of fairly shallow depth. One such area occupied the western and southwestern parts of the shrine in Sections F 18 and F 19 (Figs. 62, 64).121 Another was located to the south of the Tomb of Opheltes (Fig. 66).122 These pits contained a great quantity of pottery, including many whole or nearly whole vessels, and other small finds, as well as a great amount of burnt animal bone. Since the pottery ranges in date from the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic period, we are dealing with an accumulation of debris over the life of the Heroön. Whether the material was deposited in these broad areas over time, or else was spread in these two areas as a result of one or more acts of cleaning, is difficult to judge. A possible context for cleaning could have been the preparation of the area for the renovation of the shrine in the Early Hellenistic period.123 pottery lot G 19:17. Yet an altar is represented in this location in the perspective drawing of the Early Hellenistic Heroön in Guide, fig. 35; see also Guide2, fig. 91. 120  If these are not the remains of the altars reported by Pausanias, then we must assume that those have since disappeared. If made of cut stone, they surely would have been attractive as building material and perhaps removed, as was most of the superstructure of the later Heroön, in the Early Christian period. 121  Pottery lots F 18:3; F 19:3, 19, 20. The first two lots have been designated Deposit F 18, F 19:1. See Hesperia 1980, 196; and Hesperia 1981, 64. 122  Deposit G 19:1, corresponding to pottery lots G 19:2–10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21. See Hesperia 1981, 64–65. Lots 2, 13, and 15 represent disturbed fill and contain some later material, though most of their contents probably belong to the original deposit. 123  The chronological implications of these two large deposits will be taken up again in the discussion of the dating of the Early Hellenistic Heroön (below, pp. 70–71).

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 66. Remains of a pit found south of the Tomb of Opheltes, from the east.

In addition to these two larger pits, several smaller, discrete ones were found across the mound. Of these, many were very shallow areas, less than 0.15 m. deep. Not much can be said about their function, and in some cases they may just represent the vestiges of the numerous Early Christian farming trenches discovered and mostly removed in the layers above.124 A few of the small pits, on the other hand, are of more substantial depth, like the previously discussed pit on the north side of the block in F/12–19/12,13. A second pit of this type was situated in F/13,14–18/17,18. Roughly oval in shape, it measured 0.90 × 1.25 m., and had a preserved depth of 0.72 m.125 Its black earth fill produced some carbonized wood, animal bone fragments, and several stones with signs of burning. There were tile fragments as well, including a large part of a Corinthian cover tile, and some pottery, including a krateriskos (Cat. 142) and fragments Ten such pits were found in the area of F/19,20–19/6,16. Most of these contained nothing but small nondescript sherds: pottery lots F 19:11–18. One of them (F 19:17) also contained a small burnt bone fragment, similar to the thousands found in the larger debris areas, and more recognizable Classical pottery, including the handle of a miniature. The elongated oval shape of this pit, however, is very reminiscent of the farming trenches, and the material may just represent disturbed fill. 125  The pit was first detected during excavation of layer 12 (pottery lot F 18:47), which would place it entirely within the construction fill of the mound. Its contents clearly include later material, however; so the pit must have been dug through the mound’s surface, through layers 9, 11, and 12. This would give the pit an original depth of about one meter. 124 

39

of at least four vessels: a drinking cup, a coarse oinochoe, a krater (?), and a coarse vessel (chytra?) with traces of burning.126 Halfway down the side of the pit was found part of a red clay lining. With a thickness of 0.15 m., it extended for 0.55 m. around the pit and had a maximum preserved depth of 0.11 m. Its upper surface was f lat and level, like a rim, which suggests that the full, original lining was confined to the lower part of the pit. A short distance away, in F/14–18/16,17, a much smaller, round pit was excavated; it measured a mere 0.30 m. in diameter, with a preserved depth of 0.17 m.127 It contained black earth with some carbonized wood and bits of burnt animal bone but nothing else. Another pit was found in F/20– 19/11. It was round, with a diameter of about 0.90 m. and a depth of 0.44 m. In this case the pit was clearly cut through the shrine’s surface. The black earth that filled it contained part of a Corinthian pan tile and some 40–50 nondescript sherds.128 A few observations can be made about these four pits in regard to their function. First, the relatively small amount of finds in these pits rules out their use as votive dumps.129 Only one of the pits provides any positive evidence of being in use for some duration: the fact that the pit in F/13,14– 18/17,18 was furnished with a clay lining, which was subsequently largely destroyed, implies that it was a more elaborate construction in use for some time.130 The other pits could have been opened and closed at one time. Three of the four pits contained burnt material, suggesting a possible association with burnt sacrifice or cooking. There is no evidence, however, that fires were lit in the The pit was excavated in two phases, represented by pottery lots F 18:49 and 52. 127  It was found in the same layer as the previous pit. Once again, if we assume that the pit was dug through the surface of the mound, it would have had an original depth of about 0.40 m. On the other hand, there is nothing datable in the contents of this pit that requires it to postdate the construction of the mound. 128  Pottery lot F 19:10. 129  Better candidates for votive dumps do exist elsewhere at Nemea. Compare, for instance, Deposit K 12, 13:1, which furnished nearly 100 fragments of terracotta horse and rider figurines, among other finds: Hesperia 1981, 55. See also the discussion of the North Pit Deposit below. 130  The lumps of clay reported in the pit by the block in F/12–19/12,13 could perhaps be traces of a lining for that pit, but they could also just be the remains of the dug up mound lining. 126 

40

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

pits themselves. Moreover, there is good evidence against this in the case of the pit in F/13,14– 18/17,18; for its red clay lining was soft and malleable, not scorched or baked hard, as one would expect from exposure to intense heat. Finally, the little datable evidence from the pits fails to clarify whether they were made during the functioning of the cult or during a period of disuse.131 We can speak with greater certainty about the function of a pit found in the southwest corner of the Heroön, in F/8–19/14,15 (Fig. 37). Small but well defined, roughly 0.70 m. in diameter and 0.50 m. deep, it contained a mix of blackened earth and carbon as well as earth of red and green hues. In addition, a few undiagnostic sherds were found, and a single burnt bone fragment.132 The excavation of the sides of the pit revealed smaller, round cavities (Fig. 67). These can be recognized as the negative impressions of large tree roots, a distinctive feature of many of the tree planting pits found to the southeast of the Temple of Zeus.133 The pit in the Heroön can therefore be assigned the same purpose. Unfortunately no evidence was recovered for the kind of tree that was planted there, nor does Pausanias (2.15 = T 61) make any mention of it in his description of the Heroön.134 Complementing the evidence for the internal features of the shrine is the evidence for ritual activity. Burnt bones, pottery, and other small finds richly document the practice of sacrifice, libations and drinking, and votive offerings. The greatest concentrations of material were found in the two aforementioned deposits spread broadly over the Heroön although much of the material was also found churned up by the Early Christian farmers in the overlying layers. The churning up of ma131  For a hiatus in activity at the Sanctuary from the late 5th century into the 4th, see below, pp. 59–60. 132  Pottery lot F 19:57. 133  Nemea I, 91 and figs. 104, 105. 134  Elsewhere Pausanias does make note of trees and groves. He describes a grove of cypress trees around the Temple of Zeus, for instance, and he observed trees in the Pelopion at Olympia (5.13.1). For other examples of trees and groves associated with heroes, see Birge 1982, 39–42; Birge 1994, 236–237. A cypress tree would be a logical choice in the Heroön, given its funereal connotation: Nemea I, 96. Note, however, that the pits for the cypress grove around the Temple were all of greater diameter, at least 1.10 m. (see previous note); so perhaps a different kind of tree should be expected. Vase painting may help in the matter; see the discussion in Chapter 4.

FIG. 67. Tree planting pit with root holes, excavated in F/8–19/14,15, from the southwest.

terial from the shrine is most obviously shown by the presence of fragments of pottery that physically join with others in the undisturbed layers below: the joining fragments of a saucer (Cat. 110) constitute but one example. It is not always simple, however, to distinguish the material in these disturbed layers that originally belonged to the period of use of the shrine. Certainly there is later material present, but for some objects it is difficult to make this determination.135 Moreover, there is the potential for material to have been moved into or out of the area of the hero shrine after the cult ceased to function.136 In the discusThere is no doubt, for example, that a series of lamps and lamp fragments (Cat. 54–60), which can be dated typologically to the second through sixth centuries after Christ, can be excluded from consideration as evidence for the activity within the hero shrine. Two steatite buttons (Cat. 61, ST 515), are also likely to be later, as is a bronze buckle (Cat. 62). We are less certain about a segment of bronze chain link (Cat. 63) and three bronze fragments of pins or something similar (Cat. 64, Cat. 65, BR 808). The last two may belong to cosmetic spoons, an implement that otherwise only appears in Early Christian and later contexts at Nemea (compare e.g. Cat. 66 and BR 688 from Early Christian layers to the north of the Heroön). 136  This can be demonstrated in at least two instances. First, a fragment of one Early Christian lamp (Cat. 55) from the area of the Heroön joins with another fragment of the same lamp (L 242) found in Section K 19 more than 80 meters away. Second, a terracotta antefix, AT 126 (Nemea I, Cat. 55), from the layers overlying the shrine can be identified as originally belonging to the Xenon, a building contemporary with the final phase of the hero shrine. So too a fragmentary painted terracotta sima (Cat. 67) and a Corinthian pan tile (Cat. 68) 135 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

sion that follows, therefore, I proceed with caution to include material from the disturbed, overlying layers that is comparable to what was found in the undisturbed layers below or whose very nature suggests a relation to the ritual activity within the Heroön. Through careful excavation over 6,800 animal bone fragments were recovered, though most are less than 0.01 m. in size. As M. MacKinnon discusses in greater detail in the next chapter, the vast majority of them are heavily calcined, indicating that they were consumed by fire and hence are surely the remains of burnt sacrifice. When species could be determined, most of the bones (about 80%) belonged to sheep or goats, mixed with smaller percentages belonging to cattle and pigs. Not all parts of the skeletons of these animals were present in the debris. Among the sheep or goat bones, for example, there was a marked preference for the upper part of the limb, more specifically the left hind limb, and a smaller percentage belonged to the skull. The cow and pig remains include the large long bones of cattle and skull fragments of both species. These findings suggest that the cult entailed primarily the sacrifice of the left upper hind limbs of sheep or goats, though at times other parts of all three species were sacrificed as well.137 The great number of ceramic drinking vessels recovered from the excavations offer ample evidence for ritual drinking and libations within the Heroön. In fact the majority of the inventoried vessels that were found in the shrine served this purpose (Fig. 68). The most common shapes are the kotyle and skyphos (Cat. 69–78), but the assemblage also includes one-handlers (Cat. 79– 81), kantharoi (Cat. 82, 83), stemless cups (Cat. 84–86), and mugs (Cat. 87).138 Service vessels are present in smaller numbers. Kraters (Cat. 88–91), together with oinochoai and jugs (Cat. 92–98), in all likelihood originally belonged to other buildings elsewhere in the Sanctuary. 137  The relation of the sacrifices in the Heroön to hero cult sacrifice in general will be taken up in Chapter 4. 138  Other inventoried but here uncatalogued drinking vessels from within the Heroön are P 450, P 489, P 502, P 511, P 540, P 566, P 585, P 587, P 661, P 664, P 1603, and P 1735 (kotyle/skyphos); P 532 and P 573 (one-handled cup); P 659 (kantharos); and P 498 and P 652 (mug). From the immediate vicinity of the Heroön come a few more examples: P 1556 (skyphos); P 1566, P 1653 (one-handled cup); P 490, P 1741 (kantharos); and P 1246 (mug).

41

FIG. 68. Graph of relative percentages of inventoried vessels from the Heroön, grouped by function.

constitute the majority of examples, and there is one example each of a dinos (Cat. 99) and a storage jar (Cat. 100).139 Other types of pottery from the Heroön require alternate explanations. Several oil jars were found—an alabastron (Cat. 101), five aryballoi (Cat. 102–106), and a lekythos (Cat. 107)— which may be better explained as the accoutrements of athletes, perhaps left behind as dedications.140 Other vessels may have been used to hold offerings left behind in the shrine. These include several small bowls and saucers (Cat. 108–111), a lekanis (Cat. 113), a saltcellar (Cat. 114), and pyxides (Cat. 116–117).141 Most of the pottery from the Heroön is fine ware, although many of the oinochoai are coarse. Other shapes of coarse vessels, to be associated with cooking or food preparation, are few in number (Cat. 121–125).142 As noted in the Catalogue, two of the kraters (Cat. 90 and Cat. 91) are very small and may well have functioned as cups. A fragmentary Archaic krater of Argive type, P 1748, was found just outside the shrine to the northwest, in Section F 18. The Heroön also produced one other example of a coarse round mouth oinochoe, P 495, in addition to the catalogued examples. 140  Another example was found just west of the shrine in E 19: P 1263. 141  Additional examples from just outside the Heroön are Cat. 115 (saltcellar), P 1750 (lekythos), P 1247, P 1259, and P 1696 (bowls). Another bowl, Cat. 112, is fragmentary but preserves traces of a graffito. While no plates were found inside the Heroön, a few came to light in its immediate vicinity: Cat. 118–120. 142  Cat. 124 and Cat. 125 resemble drinking cups in shape and so may have served that function instead. In addition to Cat. 123, two other examples of coarse round lids were found inside the Heroön: P 452 and P 481. From disturbed 139 

42

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

In general, the quality of the pottery from the hero shrine is not high, in terms of both manufacture and decoration, and the number of examples with figural decoration is limited. In addition to a fragmentary Corinthian red-figure glaux skyphos (Cat. 78), a fragment of another such cup has been inventoried (P 450), as well as some fragments of black-figure pottery (Cat. 128–132). A bronze mender (Cat. 133) may once heve been used to hold together a vessel used in the shrine. There is also some slight evidence for the use of metal vessels within the Heroön. One bronze fragment, for instance, may at one time have secured the handle of a situla (Cat. 134), and from the disturbed fill overlying the shrine comes a bronze kylix handle (Cat. 135).143 A better measure of the number of vessels that were used in the hero shrine comes from the myriad uninventoried sherds found in the layers above its surface. In an attempt to assess the minimum number of additional vases represented in these layers, we counted the ceramic fragments preserving more than half of the base, so that no two sherds could belong to the same vessel. In this way we could deduce that the Heroön possessed a minimum of 190 vessels in addition to the inventoried examples. Of them, the dominant identifiable shape is the skyphos or kotyle (81 examples), mostly of Corinthian manufacture (77 examples). Other shapes represented among the bases include the Corinthian aryballos or alabastron (3), stemmed cups of Corinthian (1) and Attic (1) manufacture, as well as a mug, a krater, and three Argive kantharoi.144 Excavation within the shrine also unearthed the remains of numerous votive objects. These include fill in the Heroön comes a fragmentary coarse mortar or low bowl, Cat. 126, and just to the west of the Heroön was found a lopas-casserole, Cat. 127. 143  The disturbed fill yielded a few other bronze fragments that may derive from vessels once used in ritual (BR 800, BR 864, BR 868). In the immediate vicinity of the shrine to the south and west were found another two vessel fragments (BR 1126, BR 1348), whether they were used in the shrine or not. 144  It must be noted that for half of all the bases (95) the vessel shape could not be determined; hence the apparent dominance of the skyphos/kotyle shape could be illusory. Still, the result is consistent with the inventoried examples. Of the 95 unidentified bases, 81 were certainly produced somewhere other than at Corinth or Athens. A similar count was done with handle fragments, with comparable results.

FIG. 69. Graph of relative percentages of inventoried miniature pottery shapes from the Heroön.

the numerous miniature vessels found in the same layers as the burnt animal bones and pottery of regular size (Fig. 69).145 The dominant shapes here are small versions of the kotyle and skyphos (Cat. 136–138), kantharos (Cat. 139; cf. Fig. 70), bowl (Cat. 140; cf. Fig. 71), krater (Cat. 141, 142; cf. Fig. 72), and footed cup (Cat. 143, 144).146 Other shapes include the kalathiskos (Cat. 145, 146) and miniature versions of the plate (Cat. 147) and phiale (Cat. 148).147 The count of base fragments from the relevant layers shows that a minimum of 184 distinct miniature vessels were present, yielding a ratio of close to 1:1 between fine miniatures and fine full-sized vessels among the hero shrine pottery. The original shape of twelve of them is clear. Eight are miniature patterned kotylai and skyphoi; the others are krateriskoi (2) and miniature bowls (2). Thus, at least among the miniature base fragments of identified shape, the kotyle and skyphos once again dominate. Other recognizable Hesperia 1981, 64, and NB, G19, I, 11–31. Other inventoried examples from the Heroön: P 538, P 576 (miniature kotyle/skyphos); P 526, P 575, P 581, P 583, P 588, P 1313 (miniature kantharos); P 482, P 1655, P 1742 (miniature bowl); P 521, P 523, P 527, P 530, P 537, P 578, P 1618, P 1706 (krateriskos); and P 1543 (miniature footed cup). Five more miniature bowls (P 1245, P 1265, P 1266, P 1571, P 1654) came to light to the west of the Heroön in E 19, and two more in Section G 14 to the north (P 1699, P 1707). A miniature version of a one-handled kantharos, Cat. 149, was found to the northwest of the Heroön in Section F 18. 147  A miniature kothon, Cat. 150, was found just outside the shrine to the west. 145  146 

FIG. 70. Miniature kantharoi from the Heroön (l. to r.): P 588, P 575, Cat. 139, P 581, and P 526.

FIG. 71. Miniature bowls from the Heroön (l. to r.): P 1742, P 1655, P 1265, Cat. 140, and P 1654.

FIG. 72.

Krateriskoi from the Heroön (l. to r.): P 578, P 1618, P 530, Cat. 141, P 1706, P 523, and P 527.

44

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

shapes that were not identified among the miniature bases include the miniature oinochoe, the kalathiskos, and the miniature lekanis. Three other sherds belong either to miniature phialai or bowls. Objects with dedicatory inscriptions are rare. An example is a fragmentary cup-skyphos (Cat. 86) that bears two scratched inscriptions on its exterior. One, in retrograde along the upper wall, is incompletely preserved, but it clearly marks the cup as the dedication of a victor: ---]ιβρος νικάσ ̣α[ς] μ’ ἀνέ[θηκε]. The second inscription is upside down with respect to the former and written along the bottom of the wall. The string of letters is not readily understood but may represent another name. Both inscriptions are discussed in greater detail in the Catalogue. The second inscribed object found within the hero shrine is a broad fragmentary rim of a ceramic perirrhanterion (Cat. 151). Two joining fragments of the rim preserve six letters, which perhaps are the remains of another dedicatory inscription by a victor, as discussed in the Catalogue. A fragmentary f luted shaft (Cat. 152) may belong to the same perirrhanterion. Fragments of the rims and bases of other specimens (Cat. 153–157) were recovered in and around the hero shrine as well, but whether these should be considered votive dedications or standard furnishings is unclear.148 Also votive in character are several figurines, of which two may represent the hero Opheltes himself.149 The upper part of a stone figurine (Cat. 159) appears to represent a female holding a small child, perhaps the child Opheltes in the arms of his nurse Hypsipyle. The baby hero may also be seen in a small, squatting terracotta figurine (Cat. 160). Other fragments of terracotta figurines represent animals such as horses and perhaps a bull (Cat. 161–163), a male figure with conical cap (Cat. 164), the leg of perhaps a jointed doll (Cat. 165), a female in chiton (Cat. 166), and at least one horse and rider group (Cat. 167).150 While Another probable fragment of a perirrhanterion found in the Heroön is a large ceramic rim fragment, P 589. It is also worth mentioning here a fragment of limestone that has been worked on one side into a raised, flat, circular surface of approximately 0.23 m diameter (Cat. 158). It was found in disturbed fill and so it is uncertain that it was originally used in the shrine, but if so it may have functioned as the base for the columnar stand of a perirrhanterion or some other object. 149  See further discussion in Chapter 4. 150  From the disturbed layers above the shrine come another 148 

two other fragments of terracotta figurines were recovered immediately outside the Heroön to the west and northeast (TC 180 and TC 288, respectively), the relative dearth of figurines in the surrounding excavated areas reaffirms their function as votive offerings in the shrine. Compared with the numbers of figurines found at many other shrines, on the other hand, the number found in the Heroön is quite small.151 A great quantity of other small objects of various materials were recovered in excavation, but it would be tendentious to identify them all as votives simply by virtue of their presence within the shrine. One likely candidate, however, is an iron kerykeion over half a meter in length (Cat. 171). If intended as an attribute of Hermes, in his chthonic aspect of leading the souls of the deceased to the underworld, then its presence in the Heroön is not so surprising, given the focus on the Tomb of Opheltes in the shrine. It is also possible that the staff is the offering of a victor in the competition of heralds. If so, then it can be numbered with other examples of uninscribed athletic equipment, such as a bronze strigil (Cat. 172), an iron horse bit (Cat. 173), and two iron javelin points (Cat. 174, 175), which likewise may have been dedicated by competitors in the Nemean Games.152 A bronze piece has been identified previously as the bronze horn from a statue of a goat (Cat. 176), but it is more likely to be an example of the separately cast lock of hair from a bronze statue of a human or divinity, amply attested at other sanctuaries. In either case, the piece cannot definitely be attributed to a votive in the Heroön since it was found in disturbed fill and may have originated somewhere else. The same must be said two fragments of animal figurines and a fragmentary horse and rider (Cat. 168–170). 151  A larger deposit of horse and rider figurines, containing nearly 100 fragments, came to light immediately north of the Temple of Zeus, in grid squares K 12, 13. Found together with some other votive objects as well as burnt and unburnt animal bones, the material seems to represent a dump of votive and sacrificial remains associated with an act of cleaning within the Sanctuary: Hesperia 1981, 55. 152  The strigil and the horse bit were found in the disturbed layers above the shrine. Several other javelin points were found outside the shrine: IL 381, IL 481, and IL 482 to the west; IL 328 and IL 374 to the northwest; and IL 395 to the northeast. This distribution does cast some doubt on the votive nature of the javelin points inside the shrine, but it remains plausible.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

for an enigmatic bronze object resembling a hollow polyhedron (Cat. 177). Two more bronze objects merit mention here because of their possible connection with the ritual activity of the shrine. These are small rectangular hinged boxes (Cat. 178, 179), which were found not in the Heroön itself but just outside it to the west and the north. Although Cat. 179 is more fragmentary, both appear similar in construction, featuring a shallow rectangular box “bottom” and corresponding shallow “lid” that are held together by a hinge and pin at one short end. A small bronze ring fastened to the lid by a small brad facilitates opening and closing the box, and the bottom of the box is perforated by three small holes in a triangular arrangement. A similar specimen with the three perforations has been found at Isthmia and has been identified as a drain cover.153 Another possible interpretation comes to mind, however, after consideration of another bronze hinged box, BR 648, found in a well deposit at Nemea.154 This one is ovoid rather than rectangular in shape but is otherwise similarly constructed of two halves, one of which is perforated, joined by a hinge and pin. What is more, the box was found to contain unidentified fibrous material and was interpreted as a locket. One may venture a pure guess, then, that the hinged boxes from outside the Heroön may have served as lockets of some kind, which may once have held some material—perhaps aromatic, thus explaining the perforations—and may have been connected in some way to the experience of pilgrims visiting the shrine. At any rate it is hoped that fellow scholars will be able to shed more light on these curious objects. Iron spearheads (Cat. 180–182) also came to light within the shrine, all of them of a size and shape comparable to Cat. 50 from the shrine’s foundation deposits. Like the weapons from the latter context, all of these too may have been intentionally deposited as votive offerings; but since there is also evidence for military violence within the Sanctuary of Zeus (see below), this conclusion cannot be regarded as certain. In fact several other spearheads were found outside the shrine in the immediate vicinity. The same ambiguity applies

153  154 

Isthmia VII, 135–136 (no. 524). Hesperia 1979, 77, and pl. 21b.

45

to a single iron arrowhead found within the shrine (Cat. 183).155 Votive offerings from the domestic sphere are notably scarce. A loom weight (Cat. 185) and a spindle whorl (Cat. 186), both of terracotta, may constitute votive offerings made by women.156 Items of personal jewelry do not appear to have been offered as votives in the shrine at all since not one example has been found in the undisturbed layers of the Heroön.157 Coins constitute another possible class of votive offering, and indeed a great number of them were found in and around the Heroön. The excavated areas of grid squares E 19, F 18, F 19, F 20, G 18, and G 19 produced, in all, 499 coins of Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic date, mostly of bronze. They demonstrate the diversity of mints represented across the Sanctuary of Zeus as a whole (Fig. 73). In particular, they show the combination of large numbers of coins from nearby poleis (e.g. Corinth, Argos, Sikyon, and Phlious) and sporadic coins from far-off poleis (e.g. Elea, Syracuse, Ambrakia, and Kos) that is characteristic of a Panhellenic sanctuary like Nemea.158 The overlying disturbed fill yielded two more spearheads (IL 310, IL 380). A spear butt (Cat. 184) was found outside the shrine to the west and another (IL 631) to the south. Interestingly, Cat. 184 was found in a vertical position, as if from a spear planted upright in the ground, and its pointed end was found to be wedged into an indentation on the surface of a worked stone fragment. If not a chance arrangement, it suggests some kind of intentional display, but it defies further explanation. On the finding of numerous arrowheads outside the Heroön, see below. 156  Another terracotta loom weight (TC 290) was found north of the shrine in Section G 14. 157  Several examples did come to light in the overlying layers of Early Christian and later disturbance, however, as well as outside the limits of the shrine; yet two of them, a bronze ring with an incised cross (GJ 43) and a bronze fibula of Roman Aucissa type (GJ 144) are clearly of later date, and the others may be so as well. They include steatite and glass beads (GJ 34, GJ 42, GJ 130), finger rings of iron (GJ 41) and bronze (GJ 54), and one example each of a bronze earring (GJ 53), fibula (GJ 99), and pin (GJ 145). A bronze pin fragment from west of the Heroön may belong to another fibula (BR 1114). Compare items of personal jewelry found in the graves of members of the Early Christian community: Guide2, 73; Hesperia 2015, 298. 158  R. C. Knapp’s discussion of the circulation of bronze coinage at a Panhellenic site is illuminating: Nemea III, 3649. In addition to the mints listed in Fig. 73, the following mints are each represented by a single coin in these excavated grid squares: Ambrakia, Arkadia, Elea, Elis, Heraia, Ioulis, Kassandros, Kos, Lebadeia, Lokris Opontion, Melitaia, 155 

46

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 73. Mints represented by two or more coins in the area of the Heroön.

What activities resulted in so many coins being deposited in and around the Heroön? The answer must take account of their distinctive pattern of distribution. As shown in Table 1, only 31 of the coins, or about 6%, were found inside it. Of these, 20 were found in the overlying layers of Early Pheneos, Salamis, Syracuse, Tegea, and Teos. Later layers of the same area also yielded one identifiable coin of the Roman Imperial period (Nemea III, Cat. 1040) and several coins of Early Christian and later periods, but these are not germane to the present discussion and are not included in any of the coin counts. Also excluded are a few illegible bronze coins that by their size are probably of Imperial date or later.

Chistian and later date, and so while some may have been churned up from the debris layers of the shrine, others may be instrusive. This leaves a mere 11 coins (about 2%) that were certainly left inside the shrine during its use. The overwhelming majority of the coins (468, about 94%) were found outside the limits of the Heroön in excavated areas to the north, west, and south, with the densest area of coins lying to the west of its southwest corner (Fig. 74).159 Roughly the same percentages hold true when we exclude the illegible coins from consideration. For the purpose of 159 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

COINS, BY METAL Bronze Coins Legible Illegible Silver Coins All Legible Iron Coins All Illegible Total Coins Legible Illegible

FIG. 74.

47

TABLE 1 Distribution of coins by metal and location. INSIDE HEROöN UNDISTURBED DISTURBED TOTAL OUTSIDE CONTEXTS CONTEXTS INSIDE HEROöN 10 16 26 454 9 12 21 426 1 4 5 28 1 4 5 12

ALL LOCATIONS 480 447 33 17

0

0

0

2

2

11 10 1

20 16 4

31 26 5

468 438 30

499 464 35

Density of pre-Roman coins in and around the Heroön.

48

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

In his study of the coins from Nemea, R. C. Knapp adduces a number of textual and archaeological parallels for depositing coins as votive offerings in a cult context,160 and the small number of coins found inside the Heroön may very well have been deposited for this reason. Some support for this interpretation can be seen in the distribution of the few silver coins in the area. Table 1 shows that of the seventeen silver coins from the area, twelve come from outside the Heroön, one from the debris layer inside it, and four from the disturbed layers above. In fact the single coin from the undisturbed debris layer, a silver stater of Aigina minted 500–480 B.C., C 1649 (Nemea III, Cat. 373), is one of the two most valuable coins from the area, the other being a second Aiginetan stater minted 480–431 B.C., C 1645 (Nemea III, Cat. 381), which comes from the disturbed layers of the Heroön.161 Depending, then, on how distinguishing inside from outside, I used the more precise limits furnished by the foundations of the enclosure wall that was built around the Heroön in the Early Hellenistic period (to be discussed later); the enclosed area includes the original upper surface of the Archaic Heroön. Knapp, Nemea III, 30, writes that the Heroön contained 57 coins of Classical date, a number that I cannot reconcile with my study of the material. The eleven coins (and their mints) from the undisturbed debris layers of the shrine are of Philip II, C 1650 and C 1728 (Nemea III, Cat. 44 and Cat. 52); of the Lokrian League, C 1648 (Nemea III, Cat. 163); from Boiotia, C 1646 (Nemea III, Cat. 194); from Aigina, C 1649 (Nemea III, Cat. 373); from Corinth, C 1567, C 2939, and C 2940 (Nemea III, Cat. 521, Cat. 631, and Cat. 656, respectively); from Argos, C 1507 (Nemea III, Cat. 1717); and from Pheneos, C 1726 (Nemea III, Cat. 1957). There was also an illegible bronze coin, C 4921. From the disturbed layers come coins of Syracuse, C 1643 (Nemea III, Cat. 4); Kassandros, C 1641 (Nemea III, Cat. 81); Demetrios Poliorketes, C 1534 (Nemea III, Cat. 84); Melitaia, C 1724 (Nemea III, Cat. 126); Leukas, C 1533 (Nemea III, Cat. 148); Phokis, C 1506 (Nemea III, Cat. 184); Thebes, C 1401 (Nemea III, Cat. 221); Euboia, C 1723 (Nemea III, Cat. 235); Athens, C 1647 (Nemea III, Cat. 306); Aigina, C 1645 (Nemea III, Cat. 381); Corinth, C 1532, C 1720, and C 1644 (Nemea III, Cat. 675, Cat. 682, and Cat. 806, respectively); and Argos, C 1639 and C 1490 (Nemea III, Cat. 1206 and Cat. 1372). There were also four illegible bronze coins: C1385, C 1502, C 1629, and C 1638. 160  Nemea III, 34–35. 161  The other three silver coins from the disturbed layers are from Phokis, C 1506 (Nemea III, Cat. 184); Thebes, C 1401 (Nemea III, Cat. 221), and Sikyon, C 1639 (Nemea III, Cat. 1206). The silver coins from outside the Heroön are from Lokris Opontion, C 1501 (Nemea III, Cat. 160); Boiotia, C 2860 (Nemea III, Cat. 191); Corinth, C 1486 (Nemea III, Cat.

many of the coins from the disturbed layers were actually churned up from below, this means that from nearly 6% to 30% of the silver coins were left inside versus outside the shrine, a greater concentration than when the bronze coins are included. This bias toward higher value coins inside the Heroön would be consistent with the votive nature of the coins; for as a sign of gratitude and devotion a worshipper might be motivated to leave behind a coin of relatively high value. As for the coins found outside, Knapp writes, “Although these coins were not found in the Heroön . . . , the original deposition of many of them in a sacred place, probably by putting them on the altar, is likely.”162 If he means that many of the coins were originally deposited on an altar or somewhere else within the Heroön, it is hard to explain how any significant number of them subsequently ended up outside it except by the deliberate clearing and dumping of votive material. The pattern of distribution of the coins, however, is at odds with that for the other types of votive material associated with the shrine, such as the miniature pottery and the terracotta figurines, which are largely concentrated within the limits of the shrine. The other situation that Knapp may be envisioning is what was found at the Corycian Cave near Delphi, one of the parallels that he cites.163 There, the excavators found outside the Cave a small altar with significant votive debris around it, including broken figurines and about half the total number of coins from the site. At Nemea, however, no similar altar has been found outside the Heroön, and again the lack of any significant amount of other types of votive material accompanying the coins argues against a practice of depositing votives somewhere outside the shrine. Instead, we should look for other reasons for the high number of coins outside the Heroön, particularly near the southwest corner, where they 539); Sikyon, C 2726 (Nemea III, Cat. 1214); the Achaian League, C 1491 (Nemea III, Cat. 1562); Argos, C 1402, C 1703, C 1773, and C 2780 (Nemea III, Cat. 1643, Cat. 1770, Cat. 1771, and Cat. 1772, respectively); and Arkadia, C 1555 (Nemea III, Cat. 1912). There are also two silver coins from later excavations which do not appear in Nemea III: one from Histiaia, C 4102, and the other from Athens, C 4353. The coin from the Achaian League is actually a silver-plated coin with a bronze core. 162  Nemea III, 34 (emphasis in original). 163  Nemea III, 35.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

are most plentiful. As Knapp himself documents, there are commercial grounds for having coins in sanctuaries. Vendors would have been on hand to sell visitors various products like food and other supplies for their stay at Nemea, souvenirs, supplies for ritual activities (e.g. firewood, fillets, and wreaths), and even votive offerings; and much of this commerce would have been conducted in bronze coinage.164 It is therefore very possible that the high concentration of bronze coins outside the Heroön is the ref lection of vending activity in the area, as the frequent exchange of bronze coins would inevitably have led to a high frequency of dropping them. Given the proximity to the Heroön, it is even possible that some of the items being sold were destined for use or dedication in the Heroön like, for instance, the miniature votive vessels.165 In sum, while the few coins found inside the Heroön likely constitute votive offerings, the vastly greater number of coins found outside it are less likely to ref lect a votive practice. Rather, they are more likely to indicate commercial transactions taking place in the immediate vicinity of the Heroön, transactions that may have included goods related to the activities taking place within the shrine. We can be more certain of the function of another class of objects from inside the Heroön. Four lead curse tablets (Appendix B, CT 1–4) with inscribed texts were found within the shrine’s limits.166 All were found folded, and two preserve nail holes. Although two of the texts are very fragmentary, all four contain erotic spells of the trennungzauber type, by which someone hopes to bind one of a pair of lovers in order to make the other one available. To be sure, the tablets are not votive objects in the same sense as the other objects under consideration, but their deposition nevertheless constitutes a ritual act performed within the shrine. Other items from the Heroön may once have played a utilitarian role there. For instance, the Nemea III, 29 and n. 94, 33–35. Compare the testimony from Delphi that small votive tablets were being sold for three chalkoi each: Nemea III, 33. 166  An additional three folded lead tablets were recovered from the area within the shrine (IL 369, IL 370, IL 373). They probably represent curse tablets as well, but they remain illegible. Full treatment of the curse tablets will be found in Appendix B. 164  165 

49

perirrhanteria represented by the fragments mentioned above, regardless of their status as dedications, would have provided water for ritual cleansing. In a similar fashion two iron blades (Cat. 187, 188) may constitute the remains of sickles used in the sacrifices for the baby hero.167 A total of six ceramic lamps of Classical and Early Hellenistic date (Cat. 190–195) were found scattered in the shallow deposits within the shrine and in the disturbed layers above them. The presence of the lamps may point to occasional nocturnal rituals and the need for light, but another plausible use for the lamps was to start the fire for the burnt offerings.168 Finally, four fragmentary grinding stones may have been used in the preparation of food offerings, if not brought to the shrine as votives from the domestic sphere (Cat. 197–200).169

A third blade (IL 379) was found in the overlying disturbed fill, as well as a fragment of a possible whetstone (Cat. 189). Two other blades (IL 309, IL 436) came to light in later layers to the north of the shrine. 168  Another lamp (L 59) and two lamp fragments (L 253, L 254) were found just outside the shrine to the northwest, and to the west of the shrine was found a lamp stand (Cat. 196). One may contrast the few lamps found in and near the Heroön with the great number of lamps, of a unique type, found at the hero shrine of Palaimon at Isthmia in the Roman Imperial period. The excavator, O. Broneer, associated those lamps with nocturnal rituals performed at the shrine: Isthmia II, 100-109; Isthmia III, 35–49. 169  A fifth example (ST 428) came to light to the northwest of the shrine. There remains a small class of objects found within the shrine about which little can be said regarding their original use. It includes iron objects such as a small hoop (Cat. 201), a nail (Cat. 202), pins (Cat. 203, 204) and rod fragments (Cat. 205, IL 388). An iron collar (Cat. 206) and a piece of iron wire (Cat. 207) could be intrusive. From the overlying disturbed layers come a bronze strip (Cat. 208), several hoops of iron and bronze (Cat. 209, 210, IL 391, IL 437, BR 798), an iron peg (Cat. 211), and two lead ingots (Cat. 212, IL 368). Many more of these kinds of small metal objects were found outside the shrine as well, in all directions: hoops (Cat. 213, BR 1037, BR 1111, BR 1112), nails and stud fragments (Cat. 214–216, BR 1088, BR 1362, BR 1364, IL 632, IL 671, IL 674, IL 848, IL 878), pins and rod fragments (Cat. 217, IL 383, IL 618, IL 886), small perforated discs (Cat. 218, BR 756, BR 680, BR 1520), needle fragments (Cat. 219, BR 1115), bronze strips (BR 1347, BR 1363, BR 1365, BR 1380), a lead strip (Cat. 220), a lead ingot (IL 805), a bronze stylus (Cat. 221) and wire (Cat. 222). Lastly, some fragments of obsidian were found in both undisturbed layers of the shrine (ST 797, ST 798, ST 818) and in disturbed contexts (ST 819, ST 820), but they are also found in scattered contexts throughout the Sanctuary in general. 167 

50

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

A

B

C

FIG. 76a-c. Profile of the west side of the embankment seen in the south scarp of Section F 16, from the north. Visible at left (A) is the original slope of the embankment, which cuts through the relatively horizontal layers below. A refurbishment of the slope is indicated by overlying dark fill (B) that slopes down to the Early Hellenistic starting line blocks at far right (C).

THE EMBANKMENT The Heroön itself sits at the south end of a long, ridged embankment that extends away from it in a north-northeasterly direction for at least 100 meters. Two contiguous east-west trenches in Sections F 16 and G 16 combine to provide a cross-section through the embankment. As the stratigraphy documents (Fig. 75*), and a view of the south scarp confirms (Fig. 76), the west side of the embankment drops at a fairly steep slope of about 30 degrees, just as the west slope of the shrine does farther to the south. The situation here differs in one significant respect, however: while the slope does cut through the preexisting stratigraphy, even reaching down to virgin soil,170 the contouring of the preexisting landscape was not followed by the addition of construction fill and votive deposits. Instead, the same red clay lining that was evidenced to the south was found applied directly to the contoured slope, and this constitutes the outer surface of the embankment. The east side of the embankment, in contrast, possesses a more gradual slope of only 5 degrees, descending 1.5 meters over a span of some 20 meters (Fig. 77). Again the slope is lined with red clay, here applied to a sharp, even cut through the preexisting stratigraphy (Fig. 78). At the base of the eastern slope, resting directly on the red clay lining, is a band of rubble at least 2 meters wide (Figs. 78, 79). The trenches illustrate that the methods of construction employed for the slopes of the embankment are entirely consistent with the constructed slopes of the shrine to the south. Moreover, the chronological evidence points to the building of the embankment and shrine at the same time.171 Further possible evidence for the embankment may be seen in a row of stones exposed in G/16,18–18/1,13 (Figs. 6*, 22*, 80). The clearing of sand and gravel associated with the west bank of the Nemea River in the Early Christian period partially revealed a line of rubble meandering for a distance of just under 13 meters.172 Because of the The earlier layers correspond to pottery lots F 16:53–57, ranging from Archaic back to Neolithic date. 171  Pottery lots F 16:53, G 16:24. 172  The silt fill covering the rubble is represented by pottery lot G 18:50. The small amount of pottery contained nothing later than the 2nd century B.C., but the true date of the layer is surely later: the layer below (pottery lot G 18:51), which 170 

FIG. 77.

East side of the embankment in Section G 16, from the southwest.

A

B

C

D

FIG. 78a-d. Profile of the east side of the embankment seen in the south scarp of G 16, from the north. Note how the slope, lined with red clay, cuts through the relatively horizontal layers below.

52

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 79. Band of stones at the base of the embankment’s east slope, from the southwest. Note also the traces of a second layer of stones in the scarp, from a refurbishment of the embankment.

disturbance caused by the river, it is impossible to tell the original disposition of the line of rubble. In addition, the physical and chronological relationship between it and the embankment remains ambiguous since the area to the west of the stones was not excavated to the same depth. In favor of a connection between the two is the fact that the rubble falls in the general line that can be projected southward from the rubble band exposed in Section G 16. Also, the stones in Section G 18 rest at a fairly close range of elevation: 331.115– 331.500. Allowing for a gradual drop in elevation as one moves north in the valley (see below), the range compares favorably with the elevation of the rubble band to the north, at 330.697–330.917. The embankment continues northward into

FIG. 80.

Sections G 14 and H 14 at least 120 meters from the southern limit of the hero shrine, with no sign of ending. Across this distance the profile of the embankment remains fairly constant. In G/3,6– 14/16,20, more of its steeper, western side was exposed, with large stones offering support for the construction of the slope (Figs. 81*, 82). The crest of the embankment in Section G 14 measures 331.317 in elevation, giving a sense of the pronounced downward slope of the valley from south to north: in Section F 18, the crest lies at 332.798, a change in elevation of about 1.5 meters over a distance of some 80 meters. The eastern side of the embankment, lined with more of the distinctive red clay, bears a gentler slope. Here some interesting features came to light. In G/14,20–14/8,10 and H/1,7–14/9,11, a rubble wall was exposed that stretches 12.5 meters from east to west across the embankment’s slope (Figs. 81*, 83–86).173 The full extent of this wall to the east is unknown, for the lower part of the embankment was not fully excavated. As preserved, it has a well-defined north face. Its south side, on the other hand, is an irregular tumble of stones, giving the wall a width varying between 1.25 and 1.75 m. The limited excavation area on the wall’s south side made it difficult to essay whether the stones had fallen from the wall or were built in this manner. What is certain is that the uppermost part of the wall has been disturbed. At its west end, where the slope of the embankment lifts the wall higher, a layer of Early Christian date cuts across its top, and several farming trenches as well as displaced stones were found nearby.174 As a result, while the wall is preserved to a maximum

Row of stones in Section G 18, possibly related to the embankment, from the east.

consisted of pure river sand and gravel, was Early Christian in date.

173  174 

First reported in Hesperia 1980, 191. Represented by pottery lots G 14:23, 24, and 26–29.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

53

FIG. 82. Trace of stone lining of embankment in Section G 14, from the west.

FIG. 83. Rubble wall across embankment in Sections G 14, H 14, from the north.

FIG. 84. Rubble wall across embankment and course of poros blocks along base of embankment in Sections G 14, H 14, from the east.

FIG. 85. East end of the rubble wall and the course of poros blocks, from the south.

height of 0.80 m. in five to six courses lower down the embankment, it survives in fewer courses as it ascends the slope westward. Furthermore, though incompletely excavated, the eastern end of the wall was covered over by a layer with destruction debris from the late 4th century B.C.175 Whether this wall is original to the construction of the embankment is unclear. It does rest directly on the red clay lining of the embankment; thus it is possible that it was part of the original plan. As for a terminus ante quem, a sandy red-orange Pottery lots H 14:6, 7, 11. The layer contained a great quantity of small unworked stones, which may be a result of the partial demolition of the wall. These stones now lie in a loose pile on the high baulk just south of the rubble wall, as can be seen in Fig. 84. For more on this layer see also below, pp. 62–63. 175 

FIG. 86. Rubble wall across embankment and course of poros blocks along base of embankment in Sections G 14, H 14, from the west. In the foreground at right, the excavated remains of the North Pit and adjacent patch of burning.

54

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

fill overlies the embankment surface, abutting the north face of the rubble wall and covering the bank of stones on the south. The pottery of this fill can be dated to the 5th century B.C.176 From these observations we can conclude that the wall was built at some time in the 6th or 5th century, and at some point in the 5th century the embankment’s original surface and the lower part of the wall were blanketed with sandy earth. Whether the wall continued to serve its original purpose, or a modified one, is unclear, but it clearly falls out of use by the end of the 4th century. With regard to its function, one might be drawn at first glance, based on the sloping rubble of its south side, to seeing it as a retaining wall. Given the uncertainty about whether the stones are fallen over, however, we should be cautious. Also problematic for this interpretation is the fact that the fill piled over the south side of the wall is in no way different from the earth found on the north side of the wall. It is more likely, then, that the wall served to define an area of the embankment, but without further investigation a more precise interpretation of the wall is impossible. The presence of the transverse rubble wall does prompt one further question, namely, the conceptual relationship between the embankment and the Heroön at its south end. If the shrine is bounded on its west, south, and east sides by its mounded slopes, something else must have marked its northern limit. It may be that this limit was indicated merely by the change of elevation that must have occurred as the level area of the shrine transitioned to the gentle, east slope of the embankment;177 but the fact remains that the transverse rubble wall is the only feature along the excavated areas of the embankment to delimit the space to the south. Could an ancient visitor to the site, therefore, standing this far north on the embankment, still have been considered to be within the sacred enclosure of the shrine? We will have cause to return to this question. A few meters east of the visible traces of the wall, in H/10,12–14/2,15, a long line of poros blocks runs in a north-northeasterly direction Pottery lots G 14:25, 30–32, 34, 35; H 14:13–16, 24. The last lot does include a few intrusive sherds of 4th-century date. Also associated with these lots are a fragment of a coarse mortarium or bowl, Cat. 223, and a krateriskos, P 1715. See below for further discussion of this layer. 177  See above, n. 100. 176 

(Figs. 81*, 84, 85, 87, 88). This course was uncovered for 14 meters and has a width of 0.45–0.50 m. Its upper surface is very weathered, to the point that the joins of the individual blocks cannot be made out. There are also signs of damage, the most significant being a 1.5-meter-long gap in the course in H/11,12–14/10,11, which may be related to a pit dug in later times through the layers above this spot.178 The area around the limestone course was not excavated, but the investigation of another pit dug against its west side in H/9,10–14/13,14 offered a glimpse of its depth, which is limited to a single course of blocks.179 Packed against it on the other side is a distinctive, hard, red-orange clay. The position and orientation of this poros course, parallel to and at the base of the embankment, combines with other evidence to suggest that we may be dealing with a curb along the western edge of the Early Stadium track.180 The heavy weathering of the poros blocks, suggesting long exposure to the elements, would be consonant with such an interpretation. The embankment itself, with its long, broad, gentle slope pitched to the east, easily would have accommodated a crowd of spectators watching the track. The west slope of the embankment, on the contrary, would have presented more of a challenge for seating because of its steepness. Nevertheless, from the crest one has a clear view out to the west, where the Hippodrome was presumably located, simply on the basis of available space.181 Possible evidence for the Hippodrome may be seen in layers of compacted sand and gravel surfaces of Classical date discovered along the base of the embankment in F/1,3–18/1,10 and again in E/18,20– 17/12,16 and F/1,3–17/12,16. Across the surfaces we were able to delineate the ruts of wheels moving in a north-south orientation (Figs. 6*, 21, 89–92).182 The individual ruts measured 0.01–0.02 178  This large pit of black earth was first excavated in 1979 (pottery lot H 14:8), and the remains of it were picked up again in 2001 (pottery lot H 14:21). The contents of the pit date to the Hellenistic period and include a segment of bronze chain, Cat. 224. As for the gap in the poros course, the excavation season ended before it could be explored. 179  Pit: pottery lot H 14:20, of Late Classical/Early Hellenistic date. 180  Miller 2002, 247; Hesperia 2015, 323. 181  See Miller 2002, 247–248; Hesperia 2015, 344–348. 182  In Section F 18, a single surface with ruts was exposed at an elevation of 331.464–331.592, under a compact fill of

FIG. 87. Course of poros blocks in Section H 14, from the north.

FIG. 89. Surface with wheel ruts in F/1,3–18/1,10, bisected by the later terracotta water channel, from the north.

FIG. 88. Course of poros blocks in Section H 14, from the south.

FIG. 90. Detail of the surface with wheel ruts in Section F 18, from the east.

56

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

m. in width, and the few distinct sets of parallel ruts possessed disparate intervals, of 0.55–0.57 m. and 1.50 m. The narrow ruts imply thin wheels supporting relatively light weight, and the measured interval of 1.50 m. does suit the axle width of a chariot. The preserved area of ruts exposed in Sections E 17 and F 17 measures roughly five meters wide along the embankment.183 Whether these surfaces belong to the Hippodrome itself or are merely part of a route that chariots used to reach it remains unclear. FIG. 91. Surface with wheel ruts in Sections E 17 and F 17, from the west. The west slope of the embankment rises in the background.

FIG. 92. Detail of the wheel ruts in Sections E 17 and F 17, from the south.

THE NORTH PIT DEPOSIT In area G/11,14–14/7,10, in line with the rubble wall that climbs the east slope of the embankment, a pit with an irregular border came to light (Figs. 81*, 86, 93). This pit, which was filled in with a mixture of dark reddish clay and a lighter sandy earth, was dug directly into the red clay surface of the embankment. Though shallow around the edges, it becomes more circular toward the center and reaches a maximum depth of 0.54 m. It was in this deeper area—within G/11,12–14/8,9—that a deposit of various finds was unearthed.184 At the top of the pit was a cluster of stones and, nearby, a Corinthian skyphos lying on its side (Cat. 225). Removal of the stones uncovered in turn a bronze oinochoe (Cat. 226) nestled sideways among some smaller stones (Fig. 94). Below the oinochoe were more stones, and among them some more ceramic vases (Fig. 95). These consisted of a trefoil olpe sand and gravel with Classical pottery (lots F 18:94, 97). For a color illustration of this surface, see Miller 2002, fig. 24. Again, a single surface of similar elevation, 331.452–331.564, was exposed in Section F 17; it likewise was covered by a layer of sand and gravel of Classical date (pottery lot F 17:16). Adjacent work in E 17, on the other hand, detected a series of 5 rutted surfaces beginning at an elevation of 332.036– 331.973, or about 0.50 m. higher, and ending with the same surface as found to the east (shown in Figs. 91, 92). The layer above the topmost surface, as well as all the intervening layers, was of Classical date (pottery lots E 17:10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20). The lowest surface in Sections E 17 and F 17 was tested for another 0.30–0.40 m., yielding silt and gravel with more Classical material (pottery lots F 17:19, 20), but no sign of more wheel ruts. 183  No trace of these surfaces was found along the embankment in Section F 16, but the seasonal flooding of the Nemea River in the Classical period may have erased the evidence. 184  Deposit G 14:1. Uninventoried material saved as pottery lot G 14:33.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 93. Excavated remains of the North Pit (NP) and adjacent patch of burning (B) at west end of the rubble wall across the embankment, from the north.

57

FIG. 94. Bronze oinochoe (Cat. 226), along with stones and an animal bone, in situ in the North Pit, from the south.

(Cat. 227), two Corinthian kotylai (Cat. 228, 229), a Laconian stemless cup (Cat. 230), and lowest in the pit, an Argive kantharos (Cat. 231). Much like the vessels from the foundation deposits of the Heroön, these show signs of deliberate breakage and positioning within the pit. While some were placed sideways (e.g. Cat. 225, 226), others were set upright (e.g. Cat. 231). The bronze oinochoe (Cat. 226) was fairly well preserved when found, having only one break at the base. The skyphos (Cat. 225) and one of the kotylai (Cat. 228) show the same pattern of breakage; they are missing the area around one handle. The other kotyle (Cat. 229) is missing part of a handle, but the handle stubs are very worn, suggesting this damage occurred long before the cup ended up in the pit. Lastly, the stemless cup (Cat. 230) was found broken nearly in half. Whether the stones in the pit—unworked fieldstones of f lat or round shape—were used to inf lict any of the damage is unclear.185 Some tile fragments and loose sherds were also present in the fill, including some recognizable fragments of kotylai, miniatures, and coarse pottery. Also recovered were the remains of some iron objects: two of them resemble small blades (Cat. 232, 233), and the third is a rod or spit found in three fragments (Cat. 234). Finally, the pit produced some interesting faunal remains.

Among the smaller stones, near the bronze oinochoe, rested a large piece of long bone, probably from a cow (Fig. 94), while a much smaller fragment, perhaps of a sheep, was found at a lower level. Most curious, however, are the 9 bone fragments found in one half of the stemless cup (Cat. 230); analysis reveals them to be avian, seemingly from a young chicken.186 To judge by the pottery, the content of the pit represents a broad chronological range of about 100 years, from the mid 6th to mid 5th century B.C.;187 yet the oldest pots were not at the bottom

Recall that there was evidence for this practice in the Heroön foundation deposits as well as elsewhere in the Sanctuary: see above, p. 31, and n. 79.

186  Analysis provided by M. MacKinnon, personal communication. 187  For the dates of the objects in the deposit, see the Catalogue, ad loc.

185 

FIG. 95. Stones and pottery under excavation in the North Pit, from the south.

58

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

of the pit, and the earth fill was uniform throughout. Hence the pit must have been dug and filled all at one time, sometime after the middle of the 5th century B.C. This date rules out interpreting the pit as a foundation deposit for the construction of the embankment, despite the observed similarities in the character and treatment of its contents and the objects in the Heroön foundation deposits. An alternative explanation is that the pit represents some act of cleaning and disposal of objects that had been around for some time, though the total number of objects is fairly small. The cow and sheep bone remains reinforce this impression, for the fragments likewise show signs of having been exposed to the elements for a long time. On the other hand, the special treatment given to the vases suggests a ritual purpose for the pit. Significant in this regard may be a small area of blackened earth located at its eastern extremity, in G/13,14–14/9,10 (Figs. 86, 93). This shallow lens of earth and carbon, at most 0.07 m. deep, was situated on top of the red clay lining of the embankment and produced some fragments of drinking cups of late Archaic date.188 Maybe a meal was cooked here and consumed in conjunction with the creation of the pit deposit? Although the cow and sheep bone fragments show signs that they were exposed to the elements for a long time, the avian remains in the cup do not. Do these bones constitute the remains of the ritual meal? The alignment of the pit with the rubble wall a few meters away raises yet another question: is this relationship purely coincidental, or is the position of the pit deliberate? Since the construction date of the wall cannot be fixed with greater precision, it is possible that it and the pit are contemporary, in which case the pit deposit may represent a foundation deposit in association with the wall.189 This returns us once more to the question posed earlier, about the relationship of the embankment to the Heroön. If the wall does mark the notional

entrance to the sacred temenos from the north, then perhaps the pit in some way pertains to the cult of Opheltes. Intriguing as these questions are, firm answers are impossible given the present state of our information.

CLASSICAL AND EARLY HELLENISTIC MODIFICATIONS Founded by the middle of the 6th century, the Archaic Heroön witnessed approximately a century and a half of activity. While the shrine itself continued in its same form during this time, its surroundings did undergo some change. Some of this was the result of natural processes. During the Archaic and Classical periods, the course of the Nemea River ran to the west of the shrine and embankment. In fact, in Section F 16, layers of silt and gravel from the seasonal f looding of the river were found directly against the embankment’s base.190 As a result of this periodic deposition of earth, the area to the west of the embankment experienced a rise in ground level over time. Apart from the natural accumulation of silt in the surrounding terrain, there is clear evidence for a refurbishment of the embankment itself. Specifically, its east slope was covered over with a thick layer of reddish, sandy fill. We have already noted this modification in Sections G 14 and H 14, where it abutted both sides of the rubble wall straddling the embankment slope.191 The layer becomes deeper as it descends the slope, reaching a maximum thickness of 0.55–0.75 m. Characteristic of the layer is its rich ceramic content; a great quantity of broken fragments of 6thand 5th-century vases was recovered, much of which was resting on, even pressed into, the embankment’s original red clay surface. It appears that loose sherds accumulated on the surface while

The gravel-filled layers of the river are represented by pottery lots F 16:48, 50–52 (see Fig. 75*), which contained ceramic material from Mycenaean to 5th-century date. Before its location was established by excavation, it had been supposed that the river ran in more or less the same course as in the Early Christian period, i.e. east of the Heroön and west of the Bath and Temple of Zeus, where we now locate the Early Stadium: Hesperia 1980, 190; Nemea I, 76, 81, 216. Note also the heavy gravel layers in section D 17; Hesperia 2015, 318–319. 191  Above, pp. 53–54. 190 

Pottery lot G 14:35 189  For other examples of foundation deposits for walls, see Hunt, 71 (Minoa, Amorgos); 76 (Yria, Naxos); 79–80 (Asine, various locations); 98–99 (Gela). Most of these pertain to temenos walls, with the exception of the deposits at Gela, which are associated with the city wall. The deposit at Minoa, which was found placed in the gap of a Geometric wall, may have one other element in common with the North Pit Deposit: one of the cups reportedly contained “bones, possibly of a bird.” 188 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 96. Renovated embankment with second band of rubble, from the south.

it was in use, and were continually being trampled by human traffic. The new sandy earth coating was encountered wherever the east slope of the embankment was exposed. In G/9,10–14/16,20, the same sort of fill covered the upper part of the slope, with pottery concentrated on the surface.192 A longer stretch of the embankment’s crest was exposed several meters to the south, in G/4,7–15/7,20 and 16/1,5; here too the sandy fill was found, with a maximum thickness of 0.75 m. and much pottery distributed in similar fashion.193 Finally, in Section G 16, where the full profile of the embankment was revealed, the fill covers nearly its entire extent and reaches a maximum thickness of 0.55–0.75 m. over the lower part of the slope. Furthermore, a new band of stones was placed at the base of the slope, some 0.55 m. above the original band (Figs. 75*, 96; cf. Figs. 77–79). Once more a large amount of pottery was collected, most of it along the original embankment surface.194 The layer’s ceramic content indicates that this refurbishment took place sometime after the middle of the 5th century B.C.195 The mid-5th-century Pottery lot G 14:8. Pottery lots G 15:16, 17, 20. 194  Pottery lots G 16:21–23. 195  The pottery includes Cat. 223, a fragmentary coarse mortarium or bowl of Classical type, and fragments of Corinthian blisterware, a fabric that begins to be produced in the second quarter of the century. Also helping to establish the date of the layer is a silver stater of Aigina (Cat. 235), of a type datable from 510 to 485; compare Nemea III, Cat. 371–376. Other small finds from the refurbishment fill are a silver ring, Cat. 236; an iron nail head, IL 863; a lead mender, Cat. 237; a piece of lead wire, Cat. 238; a fragment of a terracotta 192  193 

59

FIG. 97. Arrowheads from the environs of the Heroön (l. to r.): BR 1564, BR 1592, BR 1541, BR 1036, BR 1571, BR 1593, BR 1591, and BR 1127.

date of the North Pit Deposit provides an additional terminus post quem for the work, for the pit was dug directly into the embankment lining before the refurbishment occurred. The impetus for the new slope is not at all clear; perhaps the work was part of a larger project affecting the whole Early Stadium. Within a few decades, at the end of the 5th century B.C., a violent conf lict took place at Nemea. The Temple of Zeus was damaged by fire, and the remains of weapons have been found throughout the Sanctuary.196 The conf lict may account for the presence of no less than 27 bronze arrowheads in the layers outside the Heroön and along the embankment (Cat. 239, 240; Fig. 97).197 Afterward, there is good evidence that the horse figurine, TC 291; and three bronze arrowheads, BR 1564, BR 1571, and BR 1593 (see Fig. 97). 196  Archaeological evidence: Hesperia 1975, 160; Hesperia 1977, 8–10; Hesperia 1978, 65; Hesperia 1979, 82; Hesperia 1980, 184–186; Hesperia 1981, 51; Hesperia 1982, 22; Guide 2, 49–50, 52–53; Nemea I, 71 and n. 214. The occasion for the violence is not certain, for no ancient source mentions the destruction of the Sanctuary. Opinion now generally leans toward events related to the Peloponnesian War, and specifically the machinations of Sparta against Argos, which involved troop movements through the Nemea Valley: Guide2, 53 and n. 48; Marchand, 188–189; Nemea III, 14. Marchand’s analysis demonstrates that there is no reason to associate the violence with a conflict between Argos and Kleonai over control of the Games. 197  In addition to the two catalogued examples, these are BR 681–683, 685, 731–733, 795, 803–805, 1035, 1036, 1047, 1048, 1127, 1145, 1382, 1541, 1561, 1564, 1571, and 1591– 1593. Another three arrowheads are of iron (IL 330, IL 332, IL 483), of which IL 330 was found in disturbed fill overlying the shrine. Of course, it would be wrong to assume that all

60

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 98. North-south line of stones at the top of the embankment in Section F 18, from the northeast.

Sanctuary remained in disuse for more than half a century; Argos continued the tradition of the Nemean Games by holding them in the city.198 Sometime in the last third of the 4th century, probably in conjunction with Macedonian interest in the Panhellenic festivals, the Games returned to the Sanctuary of Zeus, leading to an extensive

Classical arrowheads at Nemea must derive from this particular conflict. The embankment refurbishment just described antedates the conflict, yet it produced three examples. Even these may be related to the conflict, however, if we consider that the refurbished surface constituted the ground level into which arrows may have been shot when the violence took place. It is worth noting that only one arrowhead, Cat. 183, was found in undisturbed fill within the area of the hero shrine proper at the south end of the embankment. Could this reflect the intention of the combatants to avoid firing directly into the shrine? 198  Miller 1982, 107; Miller, “Excavations,” 144; Nemea I, xxx; Nemea II, 1; Nemea III, 14. The evidence from the Sanctuary manifests itself as a clear gap in the archaeological record for the first half of the 4th century: Hesperia 1978, 83; Hesperia 1979, 90; Hesperia 1988, 8; Guide2, 49–50; Nemea I, 128. The material from the Heroön is in agreement; a perusal of the Catalogue produces nothing that securely belongs to this period. For the gap in the numismatic record, see Nemea III, 22. Perlman, 134–137, argues against the move to Argos on the basis of her understanding of the relationships of Kleonai and Argos to each other and to the Sanctuary. Marchand, however, challenges previous ideas about these relationships, contending that Argos was always in control of the Nemean Sanctuary and its Games. To explain the move to Argos she offers other good reasons, namely the Sanctuary’s state of disrepair, its remove from the city of Argos, and the continuing threat of hostile action from enemy states: Marchand, 188–189.

FIG. 99. Refurbished west slope of the embankment with traces of a new stone lining.

program of demolition, reconstruction, and new building.199 In this period of renewal the embankment underwent further change. In Section F 18, a fivemeter-wide swath of sandy earth cuts across the top of the original Archaic slope. Within this fill, in F/10,11–18/1,4, a line of stones runs parallel to the embankment, i.e. in a north-south orientation, at an elevation of 332.094–332.333 (Figs. 22*, 98). The pottery associated with the earth around and over the stones is primarily Archaic and Classical, with a few sherds dating to the 4th century.200 At the western edge of the area, in F/6,8–18/1, a heap of stones, including one large worked block, was placed along the embankment’s west slope (Figs. 99, 100). The block, with maximum preserved dimensions of 0.30 × 0.78 × 0.48 m., preserves anathyrosis on one face. A few of the stones around it also turned out to have worked surfaces, and signs of burning as well. These are clearly the remains of demolished structures, possibly originating from the Early Temple of Zeus itself. Interestingly, the fill associated with the modifications observed in F 18 also brought to light a heavy iron tool (Cat. 241) resembling a hand pick. With a thick, tapering handle and a beak-like head, the tool may very well have been

Hesperia 1977, 21–22; Hesperia 1979, 103; Miller 1982, 107; Miller, “Excavations,” 144–145; Guide2, 32, 55, 64; Nemea I, 86–87 (Sacred Square resurfacing), 173–176 (Xenon), 236–237 (Bath); Nemea II, 90–93 (Stadium), 173 (Apodyterion); Nemea III, 14–15; Marchand, 192–194. 200  Pottery lots F 18:105–108. 199 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 100. Detail of worked block and stones added to the west slope, from the south.

61

FIG. 101. North-south line of stones at the top of the embankment in Section F 16, from the northeast.

put to use in breaking up the stone material that was reemployed along the embankment.201 To the north, in Section F 16, the transformation of the embankment’s west slope was more extensive; a whole new slope was constructed over the original one. The second one was furnished with a light red lining of clay and gravel (Fig. 76). Its top again featured a line of rubble running parallel to the embankment, in F/16–16/11,13 (Fig. 101); it may represent a continuation of the rubble line found to the south (Fig. 98). The pottery associated with the newly laid earth furnishes a date of the late 4th century for the work.202 More reused material turned up along the top of the embankment farther north, in G/3,5–14/3,11 (Figs. 81*, 102). Several blocks were partially exposed, some of which bear the clear traces of lifting grooves, dowel holes, and anathyrosis that are characteristic features of the Early Temple of Zeus.203 They lie embedded in a light, clay-like earth fill that extends roughly north to south along the west side of G 14. Though the area was not more fully excavated, some testing of this fill pointed to a date in the 4th century B.C. for their incorporation into the embankment.204 201  Unfortunately, we are unable to find a published ancient parallel for this tool. Additional finds from the associated layers include a large fragment of a Corinthian pan tile, AT 513; two of the bronze arrowheads mentioned earlier, Cat. 239 and BR 1541 (see Fig. 97); and a label-like strip of bronze with attachment holes at both ends, Cat. 242. 202  Pottery lots F 16:42–49. 203  Hesperia 1983, 75. 204  Pottery lot G 14:3, to which also belongs an inventoried

FIG. 102. Line of blocks from the Early Temple of Zeus reused along the embankment in Section G 14, from the south.

62

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 103. Starting line blocks in Section F 16, from the west. Note their relation to the embankment, whose profile is clearly visible in the south scarp after excavation in Sections F 16 and G 16.

FIG. 105. Detail of the east end of the starting line blocks, from the north.

The refurbishment of the west slope may have to do, at least in part, with a pair of starting line blocks brought to light in F/7,9–16/12,13 (Figs. 75*, 76, 101, 103–105). Their upper surfaces feature two continuous grooves carved along their length, much like the balbis blocks of the Early Hellenistic Stadium. In fact the stratigraphy confirms a date in the Early Hellenistic period for their placement.205 The alignment of the grooves across the two blocks further assures us that they are in their original positions: they are sited directly against Laconian mug, Cat. 243. The same fill was excavated in a later trench located a few meters south of the line of reused blocks. There too it yielded a date of the 4th century (pottery lot G 14:9). 205  Pottery lot F 16:42.

FIG. 104. Starting line blocks and their surrounding surface, from the north.

the base of the renewed embankment slope at an elevation of 330.383–330.407, almost two meters below the crest; and they are oriented for a course that runs northward alongside the embankment. Measuring just under three meters long, the starting line is far too short for a conventional stadium track with multiple lanes. Since the surrounding stratigraphy proves that the line is complete as preserved, the likeliest interpretation is that it constitutes part of a practice track.206 Turning our attention to the east slope of the embankment, we find that a new, thin layer of white clay earth was applied to the slope. In Section G 16, this layer was preserved over the eastern, lower half of the slope, in G/11,20– 16/10,13, where it possessed a thickness of ca. 0.25 m. (see Fig. 78).207 The same layer was detected in Section H 14, again over the lower half of the embankment, covering roughly H/2,12–14/1,20.208 Hesperia 2015, 333. Pottery lots G 16:15, 16. Apart from the pottery, this layer produced a chert core (Cat. 244). Fragments of chert were found sporadically in layers of Classical and later date on both sides of the embankment: Cat. 245, 246, ST 421, ST 433, ST 434, ST 619, ST 632, ST 633, ST 639, ST 640, ST 814, ST 839, ST 847. Another chert core, ST 848, from Section G 14, comes from a layer that may predate the construction of the embankment. 208  This is the layer described earlier (p. 53) as covering the east end of the rubble wall and containing a scatter of small stones that may have belonged to it. More of the same white clay layer, it seems, came to light along the embankment in G/8,16–18/1,14; but the layer was not excavated. Exploration of a cut through it (see below, n. 213) did reveal, however, that the layer was at least 0.20 m. deep. 206  207 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 106.

Terracotta water channel, from the east.

While in Section G 16 the ceramic material from the layer included nothing necessarily later than the 5th century B.C., here the material extended into the late 4th century, a date corroborated in part by the presence of a silver hemidrachm of Corinth.209 The late 4th century witnessed resurfacing elsewhere in the Sanctuary, in the area of the Sacred Square;210 the decision to resurface Pottery lots H 14:6, 7, 11, 23. From the last lot also comes a one-handled cup of Corinthian shape, P 454, datable to the 4th century. The coin is C 1477 = Nemea III, Cat. 487, dated 350–338. See also Hesperia 1980, 190 and pl. 40:f. In addition, the layer produced some fragments of worked stone (one is inventoried, A 156) and one burned fragment of an antefix from the Early Temple of Zeus, Cat. 247, further confirmation that the layer was laid after the destruction of the Sanctuary at the end of the 5th century: Hesperia 1980, 190–191. Note that in the preliminary report no distinction is made between the white layer and the underlying red-orange sandy layer that we have presented here as an earlier, 5th-century refurbishment. 210  Nemea I, 86–87. 209 

FIG. 107. west.

63

Terracotta water channel, from the north-

the embankment at this time may ref lect the exigencies of the revived athletic festival. While a new stadium was being planned and built on the hillside to the southeast, an interim venue was needed, for which the Early Stadium was a logical choice.211 What remains obscure, however, is the chronological relationship between the modifications on the two sides of the embankment. Were they contemporary projects, or were they planned and executed independently at different times? The embankment experienced one additional change in the Early Hellenistic period. Specifically, in F/1,20–18/5,9, a trench was carved through it in order to lay a terracotta channel that supplied water to a reservoir built to the west (Figs. 6*, 21, 106, 107).212 The channel consists of 211  On the chronology of the Early Hellenistic Stadium, see Nemea II, 90–93. 212  Hesperia 2015, 335–344. The remaining course of the channel was exposed in Section E 18 as well to the point where it enters the reservoir, a total exposed length of 36 m.

64

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

a series of Corinthian cover tiles laid end to end over other tiles with a rectilinear exterior. It runs roughly due east-west for its final 16 meters, but its path veers somewhat to the southeast through the embankment. Although the water channel has not been excavated farther east, its path can be extrapolated to the area of the Bath.213 Indeed its tiles are of the same type used in the aqueduct that presumably supplied the Bath; the probability is strong, therefore, that the channel serving the reservoir belongs to the same water system.214 Governing the installation of the conduit, naturally, was the need to preserve a steady, gentle grade for the f low of water. A narrow trench varying between 0.50 and 1.00 m. in width provided the bedding for the channel for most of its exposed extent. At the crest of the embankment in F/8,12–18/5,7, however, it was necessary to dig a much deeper trench to maintain the appropriate grade. To allow the workers room for installing the tiles, a wider cut of 1.00–1.20 m. was made, at the bottom of which was dug the continuation of the bedding trench.215 Material from the fill of both the bedding trench and the wider cut at the top of the embankment offers disappointingly little aid in dat213  Excavation in Section G 18 did expose and partly explore what probably represents the continuation of the bedding trench for the channel. It is a strip of dark reddish-brown earth, 0.90–1.10 m. wide, exposed for a length of 8 m., from G/8–18/11,12 to G/15–18/13. White clay fill surrounds the cut. Its size, position, and orientation perfectly match the water channel trench exposed in the adjacent section. The fill was tested only to a depth of ca. 0.20 m., yielding many tile fragments, two fragments of lead construction material (Cat. 248, 249), and pottery of late-4th or early-3rd-century date (pottery lot G 18:48). Curiously, an identical cut was found parallel to this one, but 1–2 m. north of it. Excavation showed that it bottomed out after a depth of about 0.20 m, and was entirely confined within the white clay fill into which it was dug. Its contents were of similar type and date to that of the southern cut (pottery lot G 18:49). Could this reflect the start of a trench for the water channel that was quickly abandoned and shifted to the south? 214  On the aqueduct, see Nemea I, 227–232, 300 (Cat. 89). It was exposed for a length of 80 m. along the south side of the Xenon, and although its connection to the Bath’s reservoirs is not preserved, it is the only logical destination for the water. A tempting possibility is to connect our channel with a separate line of the aqueduct that was discovered veering southwest, away from the Bath, in Section J 19: Hesperia 2015, 314–315. 215  Over the course of Section F 18, the elevation of the channel drops from 331.776 to 331.568, a grade of 1%.

ing the installation of the tile channel. Fragments of 6th- and 5th-century pottery were present, as well as some Corinthian imitation blisterware. The presence of the latter confirms that the project belongs to the revival of the Sanctuary in the last third of the 4th century, but nothing else in the fill allows us to refine the date.216 The decision to run a water channel through the embankment perhaps ref lects a more significant change in the Sanctuary, namely that the Early Stadium had become obsolete and the Early Hellenistic Stadium was now in operation. If this interpretation of circumstances is correct, then a date closer to the end of the 4th century, or perhaps even in the early 3rd century, would be more likely. It is clear, moreover, that the trench for the water channel cuts through the late-4th-century layers associated with the refurbishment of the west slope, and therefore postdates it. Likewise one would expect the channel to postdate the laying of the white clay layer over the east slope, if its course through the embankment does ref lect the abandonment of the Early Stadium.217 Further evidence for the date of the channel is its orientation through the embankment, which is parallel to, and thus seems designed in relation to, the second architectural phase of the Heroön. As we shall see presently, this second phase of construction is a late project, taking place in the first quarter of the 3rd century B.C.

THE EARLY HELLENISTIC HEROÖN The remodeling of the Sanctuary of Zeus in the Early Hellenistic period extended to the Heroön of Opheltes as well. In this second phase, the shrine received an enclosure wall resembling a lopsided pentagon (Figs. 2, 6*). Whatever the relationship of the shrine to the embankment in earlier times, the new enclosure architecturally focuses the cult activity upon the area of its south end. The new enclosure encompassed an area of 216  Pottery lots F 18:83, 87–89. These layers produced two inventoried finds as well: a 5th-century saltcellar fragment (P 1663) and a lead ingot (IL 823). 217  Indeed, as seen above, n. 213, the relationship between the cut of dark fill and the white layer exposed in Section G 18 appears to confirm this, and the associated pottery dates to the late 4th or early 3rd century. A little more excavation could remove any doubt.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

close to 800 square meters. Its south wall is oriented nearly east-west and measures 36.65 m. in length. The west wall, which is perpendicular to the south wall, runs northward for 4.50 m., but then changes to a more northeasterly direction for another 25.40 m. At the end of this distance it forms a right angle with the north wall, which extends in an east-southeasterly direction for 30.10 m. This meets the east wall at an angle of somewhat more than 90 degrees; the latter wall extends southward for 22.35 m. to meet the south wall at a right angle.218 This irregular layout appears to have been dictated by the shape of the underlying mound, to which it largely conforms.219 For most of the extent of the new peribolos, only the foundation survives. On the east side, however, roughly two-thirds of the length of the wall has vanished, washed away by the Nemea River in the Early Christian period (Figs. 49, 53, 108). Where preserved, the foundation generally consists of but a single course of orthogonal blocks. The northeast corner of the shrine is an exception; here the foundation was constructed in two courses (Figs. 109–111). The lower course survives in four or five blocks that underlie the single preserved block of the east foundation and the two easternmost blocks of the north. The lower blocks project southward from under the north course by about 0.40 m. On top of them is a very decomposed mass of poros that perhaps represents an additional block laid in the upper foundation course. The purpose of all this extra construction may have been to compensate for the preexisting downward slope of the embankment in this area. Even with the additional course, however, the northeast corner of the enclosure has a noticeable sag (Fig. 110).220 As I have argued above, pp. 21– 22, the poros blocks at the southwest corner of the Heroön likely represent another section where the foundation was made more substantial. Here too Hesperia 1981, 61. In laying the north wall of the enclosure, the builders included somewhat more area than the original plateau-like area of the Archaic Heroön. In particular, the change in elevation at the northeast corner of the new enclosure clearly had an effect on its construction, as will be observed shortly. 220  Contrast the elevations of the top of the best preserved foundation block, in F/20–18/13, and the top of the east foundation course at the northeast corner: 333.231 vs. 332.633, a difference of 0.60 m.! Note also the different elevations of the west and east foundations in cross-section A-A’ (Fig. 26*).

65

FIG. 108. Southeast corner and east side of the Early Hellenistic Heroön under excavation, from the south.

218  219 

FIG. 109. Northeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, after excavation into deeper levels, from the south.

66

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 110. Detail of the northeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön, from the south.

FIG. 111. Detail of the two courses of foundation blocks at the northeast corner.

the reinforcement seems to mitigate a drop in the underlying elevation at the edge of the Archaic mound. Spaced along the inner face of the foundation course is a series of individual projecting blocks. The blocks have been interpreted as internal buttresses,221 but their true function is uncertain. Four blocks project from each of the north, west, and south walls at intervals ranging from 6 to 7 m. There is no trace of these abutting blocks along the preserved parts of the east wall. If, however, we assume a similar spacing of the blocks, another two more may have been installed along the section that is now lost. The material used in the foundation of the Heroön is the same soft, yellow limestone that was used elsewhere at Nemea. Its use generally was restricted to foundations because of the stone’s extreme susceptibility to decomposition when exposed to the elements. In addition, its softness makes it very vulnerable to damage, as is evidenced by the numerous gouges in the foundation on the north, west, and east sides, the result of the many farming trenches of the Early Christian period (Fig. 112; see also Figs. 7, 9, 18, 27, 29, 34, 60, 111). Because of the natural slope of the silt accumulating on the valley f loor, fortunately, the foundation course on the south side escaped such damage (e.g. Figs. 15, 36–39, 42, 44, 45). Its better preserved blocks demonstrate some variation in their dimensions, but the average measures 1.25 m. long by 0.65 m. wide by 0.37 m. high. To lay the foundation of the new enclosure, a trench was dug into the existing mound surface. This measured 1.15–1.45 m. wide—correspondingly wider where the abutting blocks were to be placed—enough to leave a margin of 0.15–0.45 m. around the foundation (Figs. 113, 114).222 The backfilling of the foundation trench was easy to recognize in excavation, for the earth was loosely packed and filled with poros working chips. In contrast to the numerous deposits made during construction of the Archaic mound, only one certain deposit can be associated with the Hesperia 1980, 194; Hesperia 1981, 61; Guide2, 126. Excavation of the foundation trench is represented by pottery lots F 19:25, 34, 35, 48, 51, 62, 87, 90; G 19:52, 56, 58, 59, 79; and G 18:6, 53, 57. The heavy Early Christian disturbance around the northern half of the foundation accounts for the few associated pottery lots in Section G 18 and the absence of lots in Section F 18. 221  222 

FIG. 112. North wall of the Early Hellenistic Heroön foundation course, gouged at regular intervals by Early Christian farming trenches, from the north.

FIG. 113. Foundation trench along the south side of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the west.

FIG. 114. Foundation trench along the west side of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the south.

68

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

FIG. 115. Krater (Cat. 250) with covering stone slab (Cat. 251) in the foundation trench of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the north.

FIG. 116. Krater (Cat. 250), after removal of its contents, in the foundation trench of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the north.

Early Hellenistic structure. Next to the easternmost projecting block along the north wall, in G/12–18/17, the builders placed a bell krater (Cat. 250) with a stone slab (Cat. 251) as a cover (Figs. 53, 115, 116).223 The krater was filled with a greasy, dark, reddish-brown earth and two nondescript sherds. The trench supervisor, C. Simon, associated the find with a rite, attested in a few ancient sources, of depositing pots filled with beans or other vegetables at the inauguration of a new shrine.224 The sources, however, specify the use of chytrai rather than kraters as the requisite containers. Additionally, microscopic inspection of the earth from within the krater yielded no evidence of beans or other vegetable matter. Hence the ritual involved with this deposit may have had more to do with libation, as was clearly indicated in the Archaic foundation deposits around the Heroön.225

The only other candidates for foundation deposits belonging to the Early Hellenistic enclosure are a few coins recovered from the construction trench for the south wall in F/8,13–19/19. Five bronze coins in all were found, one each from Chalkis, Phlious, Argos, Troizen, and Tegea.226 While it is possible that they were deposited intentionally in the trench, it may also be the case that their presence, like that of the miscellaneous sherds throughout the construction fill, is serendipitous. The surrounding fill along the south side of the enclosure was particularly rich in coins, so that the digging of the foundation trench could easily have churned up several of them. On the other hand, putting coins in foundation deposits is an attested Greek practice.227 The only trace of the superstructure of the new peribolos is found at the south end of the east wall. Here, in G/17,18–19/13,17, five blocks and a frag-

These were actually discovered in the course of excavating the overlying fill of Early Christian date (pottery lot G 18:1). The great depth to which this fill penetrated the Heroön foundation led to the accidental discovery of the stone lid and the krater underneath. That these belonged to the foundation trench is without question; for the surrounding fill consisted of the distinctive crumbly earth and poros bits found wherever the foundation trench was more correctly excavated. 224  Hesperia 1981, 63 and n. 45; Guide2, 36 and n. 37, 126. The ancient sources are Aristophanes, Peace 923 and Plutus 1198, with scholia. 225  In addition, Hunt, 10–11, argues that the attested practice does not describe foundation deposits but rather a ritual of consecration performed after the construction of a shrine, cult 223 

image, etc., to mark its entry into operation (we might compare modern day ribbon-cutting ceremonies or christenings with champagne). For the use of a stone slab as a cover, Hunt, 82, cites deposits at Gortyn and Naxos as parallels, but there is a slight difference. In the other instances the slabs cover the entire deposit, not an individual vase. 226  Nemea III, Cat. 263, 1103, 1694, 1897, and 1963. 227  Nemea III, 22 and n. 76. Hunt notes that coins are very common in the East Greek type of foundation deposit, but are not characteristic of the ceramics/sacrifice type, of which the Nemea deposits are examples: Hunt, 6, 21, 61, 65, 107. She does, however, report a few instances of coins among the latter (see e.g. 98–99).

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

ment of a sixth remain in situ above the foundation course (Figs. 6*, 49–52). Usually referred to as orthostates, they are made from a reddish sandy limestone and have an average length of 0.92 m, thickness of 0.48 m, and height of 0.47 m.228 The thickness of the extant blocks tallies well with a robbing trench discovered over the south wall (Fig. 117); the minimum width of the robbing trench suggests a maximum width for the robbed blocks of around 0.45 m.229 Thus it appears that the second course of blocks on the east side once continued around to the south side, and presumably around the entire enclosure as well.230 Little more can be said with certainty about the superstructure. The walls may have continued higher in stone, but it has also been suggested that they were built of mud brick and perhaps capped by a stone coping.231 Traces of red clay found in the uppermost layers had been taken as evidence for the existence of mud brick walls;232 but we can now also explain them as the churned up remnants of the Archaic mound lining. In favor of a stone superstructure is the testimony of Pausanias (2.15 = T 61), who calls the enclosing wall a θριγκὸς λίθων, a fence of stones. While the original height of the enclosure wall is unknown, it is certain for several reasons that the Heroön had no roof. First, no evidence of interior supports was found, as would have been necessary for a roof to span a structure of the enclosure’s size.233 Moreover, the irregular shape of the enHesperia 1981, 61; Hesperia 1984, 173; Guide2, 126. For more on the robbing trench, see below, p. 75. 230  For another possible orthostate block, see below. Mention should also be made of another fragmentary block, A 481, that was found in disturbed fill of Early Christian date (pottery lot F 18:76) in F/12–18/8, just over 2 m. from the north wall of the Heroön. It is very worn but seems to preserve traces of anathyrosis. The type of stone seems the same as the orthostate blocks, and its proximity to the Heroön foundation makes it tempting to associate it with the superstructure, but this is far from certain. 231  Stone walls: Guide2, 126. Mud brick with coping stones: Hesperia 1984, 174. 232  E.g. NB, F19, I, 45. 233  In the first season, before the area and plan of the enclosure had been fully exposed, Miller found two architectural terracottas—a pan tile and a sima tile—which led to an initial supposition that the enclosure was roofed. He also suggested that the two rectangular blocks found near the west wall (discussed above as possible altars) originally may have been bases for interior supports: Hesperia 1980, 194–95. In the subsequent excavation report, Miller dismissed the evidence of 228  229 

69

FIG. 117. Robbing trench over the southeast corner of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the east.

closure precludes a conventional roofing system. Finally, unless we posit an abrupt change in ritual in conjunction with the new structure, the evidence for sacrificial fires within the Heroön confirms that it was open to the sky. Most probably the new walls resembled a low fence, as suggested by Pausanias’ term θριγκός.234 The entrance into the enclosure has been difficult to locate with certainty. One feature the terracottas and affirmed that the enclosure was unroofed: Hesperia 1981, 61. 234  Pausanias uses the phrase θριγκὸς λίθων to describe several different monuments in his Periegesis. In addition to the Nemea Heroön, there are the shrine of Ino-Leukothea at Megara (1.42.7); a series of 3 enclosures behind the Temple of Chthonia at Hermione (2.35.10); the Pelopion at Olympia (5.13.1); the precinct of Aphrodite Pandemos at Elis (6.25.1); and a sacred grove of Despoina above her sanctuary at Lykosoura (8.37.10). He uses the term θριγκός alone in two more instances, for the enclosure of Hippodameia at Olympia (6.20.7) and a small enclosed grove in the sanctuary of the Great Goddesses at Megalopolis (8.31.5). Finally he describes a θριγκὸς λίθου, surmounted by statues, in the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesos (10.38.6). Of these monuments only the Pelopion has been identified with certainty. In its last phase it featured a stone enclosure wall of several courses, but its original height is uncertain: Mallwitz 1972, 133–138. It seems likely that Pausanias is referring to an open-air enclosure in every instance. He mentions trees in the Pelopion, which archaeology confirms was open to the sky. He likewise mentions trees in connection with the shrine of Ino and describes groves at Megalopolis and Lykosoura. The precinct of Aphrodite Pandemos he explicitly describes as hypaethral (ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ). Finally, one of the enclosures at Hermione is called the Acherousian Lake, which sounds like an open-air enclosure as well.

70

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

associated with a possible entrance is an area of decomposed limestone blocks just outside the north wall, in G/14,17–18/15,17. The suggestion has been made that the blocks were the remains of a porch or propylon approximately 4.55 m. by 1.50 m. in size.235 A reexamination of the stratigraphy and subsequent investigation refute this possibility, however. The fill in which the decomposed blocks rest must be dated no earlier than the late 3rd century B.C., based on a bronze coin of Ambrakia.236 Moreover, the largest decomposed block, despite its worn upper surface and fractured state, could clearly be seen to overlap the worn edge of the north foundation course, a position it could not occupy while the enclosure wall was still in place. In fact, with preserved dimensions of 0.44 × 0.91 × 0.22 m., the block very likely represents one of the original orthostates of the Early Hellenistic Heroön. Regardless of this identification, however, it remains clear that the stone fragments should not be considered the foundations of a porch, nor taken as evidence of an entrance to the shrine, for they came to rest in their positions well after the shrine fell out of use. Another possible indication of an entrance has been detected on the south side of the Heroön. One of the foundation blocks of the enclosure, in F/14–19/19, bears what seems to be a transverse setting line on its upper surface and two rough cuttings, perhaps for dowels, the eastern one of which interrupts the setting line (Fig. 118); these may indicate a gap in the superstructure and hence a point of entry roughly 0.95 m wide.237 Certainly, given the presence of a road along the south side of the shrine, a means of access from this direction would have been convenient; but further excavation is needed to verify the existence of a southern entrance. Purely based on the known contour of the land around the shrine, a logical means of approach would have been from the north, along the embankment, as was the case in Archaic and Classical times.238 235  Hesperia 1981, 61; Guide, 107. Compare also the restorations in Guide, figs. 34, 35. The model shown in Guide2, fig. 91, has a simple doorway at the northeast corner. 236  Nemea III, Cat. 133. The pottery from the layer, lot G 18:36, also includes sherds of 3rd-century date. Also found was a blue glass bead, Cat. 252, which may suggest that the layer’s true date is even later. 237  Hesperia 1981, 61. 238  In this connection mention should be made of a stone fragment (ST 436) found during excavation along the in-

FIG. 118. Foundation block with traces of dowel holes(?) in the south course of the Early Hellenistic Heroön enclosure, from the south.

To determine the date of construction of the Early Hellenistic enclosure, three considerations are necessary. First, there is the evidence of the foundation trench, whose contents could provide a definitive terminus post quem. Unfortunately, the most substantial find, the krater deposited as a foundation offering (Cat. 250), cannot be given a precise date.239 Of the coins from the foundation trench, the latest, from Chalkis, was minted beginning in 337 B.C., at the very beginning of the Early Hellenistic period.240 The loose pottery from the trench, however, pushes the date of construction down to the end of the 4th century or beginning of the 3rd.241 Another relevant consideration is the relationship of the layers of sacrificial debris inside the Heroön to the new enclosure’s construction.242 These layers included pottery not just from the first period of use of the Heroön, in the 6th and 5th centuries, but also some examples of vases from the late 4th century and early 3rd (see e.g. side of the northwest corner of Early Hellenistic foundation (pottery lot F 18:4; exact findspot unknown). One side of it preserves a smoothed surface with part of a worn, round depression 0.035 m. deep and 0.115 m. in diameter. Although the original excavator thought that the fragment might be part of a mortar, the depression may constitute instead the socket of a pivoting door post, but this fragment cannot be assigned to the architecture of the shrine with any certainty. 239  See Catalogue, ad loc. 240  C 1735 (Nemea III, Cat. 263). 241  Pottery lot F 19:25. 242  On the two broad areas of pottery and sacrificial debris, Deposits F 18, F 19:1 and G 19:1, see above, p. 38.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

Cat. 77, 80, 99, 111). Similarly, the terracotta figurine of a young woman (Cat. 166) exhibits the hairstyle and drapery of contemporary fashion. The coins recovered from these layers support the same chronological conclusion. Among the latest are two bronze coins of Corinth minted from 303 to 287 B.C.243 The ceramic and numismatic material thus amply attests to the revival of the Heroön along with the rest of the Sanctuary after the hiatus of the first half of the 4th century. The question before us, however, is the relationship of the deposited material to the construction of the Early Hellenistic Heroön. The stratigraphy disappoints us in this regard because there is no evidence that these deposits were sealed when the new enclosure was built: the shrine did not receive a new surface to go along with its new peribolos. Accordingly, even if the two extensive deposits over the shrine’s surface represent the cleaning or leveling of accumulated debris in preparation for the remodel, they remained open deposits, and there is no stratigraphic distinction between material deposited before and after the new construction.244 C 2939 and C 2940 (Nemea III, Cat. 631 and 656). Another coin, C 2938 (Nemea III, Cat. 2162), is of Constantius II (A.D. 351–361) and is clearly intrusive, no doubt originating from the Early Christian farming trenches above the layer it was found in. The bulk of the coins demonstrate that the Heroön was functioning in the last third of the 4th century, even before the construction of the Early Hellenistic stadium: Nemea III, 59. From the overlying layers of Early Christian and later date come another 16 legible coins of Classical and Early Hellenistic date, many of which may have originally been deposited in the Heroön. See further below, p. 73. 244  While most of the material is no later than the early 3rd century, Deposit F 18, F 19:1 did contain a double rolled amphora handle, comparable in shape to Rhodian examples from the second half of the 3rd century (pottery lot F 19:20), and other layers over the shrine's surface produced some later material as well (see below). The curse tablets, too, are probably later additions to the deposits, as will be discussed in Appendix B. Since the deposits were never sealed, however, the later material gives no cause for lowering the construction date of the Early Hellenistic Heroön. This understanding of the stratigraphy corrects earlier statements made in the preliminary publications. It was supposed, for instance, that a floor or surface did originally exist, but that later disturbance removed all traces of it: Hesperia 1980, 195. Yet even along the southern part of the Heroön, where the Early Christian farming activity did not reach as deep, there was no evidence of any resurfacing. More problematic is the claim that the surface of the Early Hellenistic Heroön was so much higher that even the southeast orthostate 243 

71

A more fruitful consideration is the fill immediately outside the enclosure, into which the foundation trenches were cut. Ceramic and numismatic blocks lay largely or even completely below it: Hesperia 1984, 173. This claim is based upon excavation around the orthostates and requires some discussion. The excavator reported finding a construction trench on both sides of the orthostates and so inferred that they, like the foundation course below them, had been set below the existing ground level. The fill of this trench produced a little pottery (pottery lots G 19:52, 58), seemingly Archaic and Classical, and one bronze coin of Phlious of 4th-century date, C 2953 (Nemea III, Cat. 1089). The trench cut through a sandy red earth containing varying degrees of sand and gravel. The pottery from this fill was meager but again seemed no later than Classical in date (pottery lots G 19:53–55, 57). The stratigraphy around the orthostates thus appears to support the excavator’s interpretation. On the other hand, there are some problems. First, the excavator strangely offers no description of the fill of the construction trench, as to its consistency or how it differs from the surrounding fill. When, however, he exposes the underlying construction trench for the foundation course, he comments that it is a different soil from that around the orthostates; it is a dark red soil dense with working chips, just the same as was encountered wherever else the construction trench for the Heroön foundation was excavated (NB, G 19, I, 139, 145). This apparent difference in fills is puzzling, for one would expect the trench for the orthostates and the foundation blocks to be one and the same, and to have the same fill. The report of a construction trench on the outside (i.e. east side) of the orthostates is especially problematic since subsequent excavation in 1998 revealed Early Christian river fill on the east side as deep as the Heroön foundation course (pottery lot G 19:72). The evidence for the ground level outside the Early Hellenistic Heroön is clearer at its southwest corner, and it indicates that the ground level reached about the top of the foundation course, ca. 333.16–333.20. Over this layer as well as the construction trench for the foundation was a brown-red earth containing pottery of Roman date (lot F 19:24) and a coin of the 4th century after Christ, C 1731 (Nemea III, Cat. 2181). A final piece of evidence is the pattern of wear on the soft poros foundation blocks. In many places the wear along the edges of the upper surface is pronounced (see e.g. Figs. 42, 44). This suggests that while the center part of the upper surface was protected by the orthostates above, the edges were exposed, not embedded in earth. These various considerations lead to the conclusion that the earlier interpretation about the ground level inside the Heroön is wrong. The layers of red silt fill that the excavator found rising around the orthostates we would rather interpret as soil that accumulated over time after the abandonment of the Sanctuary, especially once the course of the Nemea River shifted to the east side of the Heroön. The absence of pottery or other finds later than the 4th century B.C. can be attributed to chance, but the odds are not bad given that there was so little human activity in the area during the intervening centuries. As for the trench observed around the orthostates, Stephen Miller has suggested to me that it may represent an aborted robbing trench (in contrast to the successful robbing of the south wall, as described below).

72

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

evidence from these various layers point to the first half of the 3rd century B.C. for the enclosure’s construction. The layers along the south side, for instance, contained pottery not necessarily later than the early 3rd century.245 Among the coins from these layers are a bronze coin of Argos, of a type that began to be minted in 300 B.C., and a bronze coin of Pyrrhos from the years 287–282 B.C.246 The picture on the west side of the enclosure is similar. The ceramic date of the layers generally range in date from the late 4th down into the early 3rd century B.C.247 The numismatic evidence is even more plentiful here, and several coins corroborate the evidence of the pottery. These include 3 bronze coins of Corinth, one minted from 306 to 303 B.C., and the other two from 303 to 287; two bronze issues of Demetrios Poliorketes dated 294–283; a bronze coin of Kos minted beginning in 300 B.C.; and a bronze coin of Arkadia dated 280–234 B.C.248 In summary, the preponderance of evidence from the construction trench and the surrounding 245  Pottery lots F 19:26–30. The statement at Hesperia 1981, 62, that the probable construction date falls in the third quarter of the century is to be rejected. It is based on too restrictive a dating of a blisterware sherd, decorated with fingernail impressions and impressed ivy leaves, in pottery lot F 19:26. This scheme of decoration actually begins much earlier, in the last quarter of the 4th century, and indeed is so dated in one other instance at Nemea: Hesperia 1982, 33. Hence the date of the lot need not be lowered beyond the late 4th century. The late dating of the Heroön is repeated at Hesperia 1984, 173, n. 11. This may be responsible for the greater confusion in Nemea III, 15, where Knapp speaks not only of a rebuilding of the Heroön in the late 4th century but also of its “latest phase” in the 3rd century. There is only one new architectural phase of the Heroön in the Early Hellenistic period, not two. 246  C 1747 (Argos, Nemea III, Cat. 1785) and C 1800 (Pyrrhos, Nemea III, Cat. 140). 247  Pottery lots F 19:36–47, 80–83; F 18:34. 248  Corinth: C 2903, C 1795, and C 2909 (Nemea III, Cat. 606, Cat. 683, and Cat. 707, respectively); Demetrios Poliorketes: C 1754 and C 1764 (Nemea III, Cat. 92 and Cat. 93); Kos: C 1760 (Nemea III, Cat. 1989); Arkadia: C 1776 (Nemea III, Cat. 1938). One other coin bears an even later date: a bronze coin of the Euboian League, dated to the period of 253/2–245 B.C.: C 1777 (Nemea III, Cat. 236). There is some debate about the date of this issue, however (see ad loc.). If the date is valid, it is possible that the coin is intrusive, for it was found in a layer breached by the ubiquitous Early Christian farming trenches. Otherwise we are left with a tenuous argument for dating the new enclosure to later in the 3rd century, to a time after the Games left Nemea for Argos, as will be discussed shortly.

layers indicates that the Early Hellenistic Heroön was built late in the first quarter of the 3rd century B.C. The remodeling thus appears to have been one of the last stages in the building program initiated upon the revival of the Sanctuary of Zeus in the late 4th century. As the evidence within the area of the new enclosure documents, worship in the old Heroön resumed pari passu with the rest of the Sanctuary; several decades must have passed before the Heroön received its new peribolos. Like the child hero himself, however, the second architectural phase of the Heroön was doomed to a short life.

AFTERMATH OF THE HEROÖN AND ITS ENVIRONS From ancient testimony we know that the Nemean Games were shifted once more to Argos in the 3rd century B.C.249 Archaeological evidence from the Sanctuary of Zeus suggests that this happened by the end of the 270s; by that time, several of the buildings show signs of damage and/or abandonment.250 There is evidence for human activity in the central part of the Sanctuary later in the century, and again sporadically until Early Christian times, but the scale is greatly diminished.251 This is made clear in Plutarch’s account of the actions of Aratos of Sikyon (Aratos 28.3–4): in 235 B.C. he blockaded the Nemean Games, which were by then being held at Argos, and held a rival festival in the name of restoring it to its traditional home. Plutarch locates Aratos’s Games ἐν Κλεωναῖς, presumably referring to Nemea, but see now Miller’s cautious assessment of the archaeological evidence for these Games at Nemea II, 97–99. Victory epigrams, however, do continue to exercise poetic license in describing events “at Nemea” even after the Games have moved to Argos, as will be discussed in Chapter 3. 250  Hesperia 1982, 32–35 (Houses); Hesperia 1988, 9 (Road), 12–16, 18–19 (Houses); Nemea I, 177–182 (Xenon), 237 (Bath); Nemea II, 93–97 (Early Hellenistic Stadium) and n. 213, where Miller proposes dating the transfer to the year 271 B.C., seeing it as a security measure in the wake of military assaults against Argos in the previous year. See also Nemea II, 8 n. 13; Amandry, 246–247; Piérart and Touchais, 66–67; Perlman, 133–134; Marchand, 192–194; Nemea III, 15. 251  Hesperia 1976, 190–191; Hesperia 1979, 77–81; Hesperia 1982, 24–32; Hesperia 1988, 8, 16–19; Nemea I, 26, 33, 53, 57, 152–153, 182–184, 239–243; Nemea II, 93–122; Nemea III, 15–16, 22. The later-3rd-century activity may pertain to the Aratos episode (but cf. n. 249 above). Afterward, there is no certain evidence for festival activity at Nemea. The possibility of a revival of the Games under Lucius Mummius 249 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

The picture is the same in the Heroön: there is very little material within it that can be dated to the period between the 270s B.C. and the 4th century after Christ. From the layers of surface deposits undisturbed by later farming come an amphora handle that may be dated to the second half of the 3rd century, the fragmentary foot of a glass vessel (Cat. 253), and one of the inscribed curse tablets (CT 2).252 Even when one takes into account the overlying layers dated to the Early Christian period or later, which certainly included some material churned up from the Heroön deposits, there is relatively little; some fragments of Hellenistic and Roman period pottery were recorded from these layers.253 Other finds of Hellenistic date include three more of the curse tablets (CT 1, 3, 4) as well as two stamped amphora handles (Cat. 254, 255). In addition, three fragmentary lamps (Cat. 57, 59, 60) appear to date to the 2nd and 3rd centuries after Christ. Of the coins, there are but two, both of the 3rd century B.C.: a bronze coin of the Euboian League (253/2–ca. 245 B.C.) and a bronze coin of Antigonos Gonatas (277–239 B.C.).254 It emerges, then, that with the move of the Games in the 2nd century B.C., proposed by Bradeen, 326–329, on the basis of a fragmentary inscription from Nemea, has most recently been contested by Miller: Nemea II, 99–100. Moreover, the festival of the “winter Nemean Games” mentioned by Pausanias (2.15.3 = T 61) probably took place at Argos: Nemea II, 119–122. Quite apart from festival activity, however, there is evidence for viticulture taking place in the central part of the Sanctuary in the 1st century B.C.: Pikoulas, esp. 398–399; Hesperia 2015, 300. Remains of Roman imperial date are particularly few, but a deposit of lamps found in the fill of the reservoir to the northwest of the Heroön is worth noting; see Hesperia 2015, 298–300. 252  See above, n. 244. 253  Pottery lots F 18:1, 2; F 19:1, 2, 4–8; G 18:1–3, 31–33; G 19:1, 2, 12–14, 18, 22. The pottery consisted of fragments of various moldmade relief bowls, including some long-petalled examples; fragments of Hellenistic (2) and Roman (1) amphorai; a fusiform unguentarium; and Roman ribbed ware and red ware sherds. An inventoried fragment of a moldmade bowl (P 1617) came to light just beyond the northeast corner of the shrine in fill disturbed by the later course of the Nemea River. 254  C 1723 (Nemea III, Cat. 235) and C 1535 (Nemea III, Cat. 1080, respectively. Also of later date and found near, but from outside the limits of, the Heroön, are C 1626 (Nemea III, Cat. 1543), a bronze coin of Sikyon of the 1st century B.C., and C 1482 (Nemea III, Cat. 1040), a coin of Corinth minted under Caracalla. See Knapp’s comments on the paucity of coins from the area of the Heroön during this period: Nemea III, 22, 30–31.

73

back to Argos in the second quarter of the century, the f low of cultic activity within the Heroön was shut off; perhaps in some of the later remains we may see a few last drops of ritual devotion. Evidence for abandonment is plentiful along the embankment as well. In the 3rd century B.C. its east slope became a dumping ground, as evidenced by a thick layer of gray-brown, clay-like earth encountered in Sections H 14, G 16, and G  18.255 Reaching a maximum thickness of ca. 1.00 m. in Section H 14 (0.50–0.60 m. elsewhere), it blankets the white clay resurfacing of the late 4th century. In addition to containing pottery and coins, the layer was full of destruction debris: many broken bits of worked stone, including several with traces of painted, stuccoed surfaces and indications of exposure to fire; countless tile fragments; and striking quantities of iron, bronze, and above all, lead.256 Most of the ceramic material found in it dates to the Classical and Early Hellenistic periods, concurrent, that is to say, with the two main periods of activity in the Sanctuary, although some of the pottery lowers the date of the debris layer well into the 3rd century B.C.257 The numismatic evidence is 255  Pottery lots H 14:4, 9, 10; G 16:14; G 18:37, 39 (see Fig. 22*). In Section G 17, some minor excavation work probed what is likely to be more of the same dump layer (pottery lot G 17:1). 256  The inventoried finds from the layer are representative of the debris: a worked stone fragment (Cat. 256); a fragment of a crown molding with traces of stucco and red paint (Cat. 257); a lead clamp cover (Cat. 258) and other fragments of lead construction material (Cat. 259–261, IL 312, 666–668, 680, 862, 917); pieces of bronze objects such as strips and flakes of bronze sheet (Cat. 262, BR 694–696, 698, 1411, 1426), a pin (Cat. 263), a bead (Cat. 264), a small hoop (BR 697), a vessel attachment (BR 692), nail or tack fragments (BR 700, 701, 1613); and pieces of iron implements (Cat. 265, 266) and nails (IL 926). Material found in Section G 17 (see previous note) included lead filler (IL 651, 652) and a lead ingot (IL 653), as well as the fragments of a lekane (Cat. 267). Similar material came to light in the later fills overlying the area in Sections G 16 and G 18 and may represent material turned up from the dump layer: worked stone (Cat. 268), a bronze stylus (BR 1557), a piece of bronze wire or bent pin (BR 796), an iron javelin point (IL 395), an iron bar (Cat. 269), iron nail fragments (IL 893, 920), lead ingots (IL 673, 846, 847), and other fragments of lead construction material (IL 364, 365, 647, 854, 858, 902). 257  From this debris layer also come a lamp fragment (L 303), two bowls (P 435, P 439), and a Koan stamped amphora handle (Cat. 270), of which the last certainly belongs to the 3rd

74

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

in accord with the pottery. Among the 42 coins found in the layer were bronze coins of Corinth dated 303–287 B.C.; a bronze coin of Demetrios Poliorketes dated 294–283 B.C.; and a bronze coin of Antigonos Gonatas, from the years 277–239.258 But the latest coin by far is another bronze issue of Corinth, minted 223–196 B.C.259 Consequently, if we are to interpret the debris layer as a single act of cleaning or disposal, then it must have occurred, at the earliest, in the last quarter of the 3rd century, after the putative Games of Aratos at Nemea. Perhaps the movement of so vast a quantity of debris at one time may have been a consequence of that episode.260 On the other hand, the dumping may have been an ongoing process that began soon after the Early Stadium became obsolete, by the beginning of the 3rd century; in this way we can attribute the bulk of the activity to the years when Nemea was still thriving, and its building program still in progress, with supplemental dumping taking place in later times. We lack the clear stratification to confirm this alternative, however. The evidence is less abundant, but destruction debris also appears to have been dumped in some places on the west side of the embankment. In Section F 16, for example, debris was found dumped in a strip along the upper slope in F/11,18–16/1,13.261 Its consistency was very similar to the debris over the east slope: a clay earth, dense with broken and burnt worked stone, pottery, tiles, and bronze and lead fragments. There were also two substantial orthogonal blocks from century. Pottery lot H 14:4 was assigned an even later date, in the 1st century after Christ, by the original excavator, but the reason is not apparent. If indeed there is some Roman material in the lot, it may be contamination from a channel-like pit, with black fill and pottery of securely Roman date, that was dug into the area (Pottery lot H 14:5). 258  Corinth: C 1697, C 1701, and C 1698 (Nemea III, Cat. 646, Cat. 647, and Cat. 680); Antigonos Gonatas: C 1472 (Nemea III, Cat. 102). The Demetrios Poliorketes coin is unpublished, C 4989, but is comparable to Nemea III, Cat. 89–98. 259  C 1691 (Nemea III, Cat. 981). 260  Stephen Miller reminds me that the contents of well K 14:4, near the southwest corner of the Temple of Zeus, also attest to the destruction and dumping of material in the second half of the 3rd century B.C., which may be connected with the same affair: Guide, 55–57. We know that by 225 B.C. the Nemean Games were back in Argos: Plut., Kleomenes 17.4–5. 261  Pottery lots F 16:3, 5, 16. Hesperia 1983, 75–77.

unidentified structures.262 The depth of the layer ranged from 0.10 to 0.40 m., and rested at an elevation of 332.03–332.43, or near the crest of the embankment and about 1.6–2.0 m. above the level of the starting line blocks in F/7,9– 16/12,13. The difference in elevation between the latter feature and the debris illustrates that a great amount of fill accumulated along the west slope, and hints at the passage of some time between the creation of the practice track and the dumping of the debris. While the datable material from the debris includes nothing later than the end of the 4th century B.C., coins from the accumulated fill against the slope suggest that the dumping probably took place in the 3rd century at the earliest.263 Smaller pockets of debris came to light in Section G 14 as well, similarly dispersed lengthwise along the west side of the embankment. The clay earth was given a whitish cast from the many broken bits of worked stone, and pottery, tiles, and bits of lead formed part of the debris. The pottery once again supports a date in the 3rd century B.C. for this activity.264 Despite the derelict state of the western part of the Sanctuary of Zeus, it seems the Heroön continued to stand largely intact; for when Pausanias visited Nemea he was able to see the shrine’s enclosure wall and its principal feature, the Tomb of Opheltes, as well as some altars (2.15 = T 61). 262  One of these is inventoried as A 192. Also from this layer is A 187, a fragment of worked stone with a molding, and fragment of bronze (BR 1038). 263  The debris layer furnished only one bronze coin, C 2274 (Nemea III, Cat. 1230, Sikyon, late 5th c. to 330 B.C.), whereas the coins from the intervening layers along the slope include issues of Corinth from 306–303 B.C., C 2290 (Nemea III, Cat. 610), and from 303–287 B.C., C 2289 (Nemea III, Cat. 686), and of Erythrai from 306–303 B.C., C 2291 (Nemea III, Cat. 1984). That the debris layer may have extended south into Section F 17 is suggested by the finding of various fragmentary metal objects in layers of Early Hellenistic to Early Christian date there as well: lead filler (IL 880), iron spikes (IL 756, 879), the point of an iron tool (IL 882; perhaps from something like Cat. 241), and a piece of bronze sheet with punched square holes (BR 1579). 264  Pottery lots G 14:3, 6, 7. The debris lay scattered over the same general area where lie the several reused blocks described above. Only further excavation will clarify the relationship between the debris and the blocks. Later fill overlying the debris layer produced a fragment of bronze sheet (BR 1589) and a bronze implement, perhaps a stylus (BR 1046), that may have been turned up from the debris layer.

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

75

FIG. 119. Early Christian farming trenches excavated in Section G 19, from the south.

FIG. 120. Early Christian farming trenches excavated in Section F 19, from the west.

To judge by surviving literature and art, the cultural memory of the myth of Opheltes persisted into the 4th century after Christ;265 perhaps this was enough to sustain respect for the baby hero’s shrine, even though abandoned. Eventually, however, that respect ebbed, and a need for building material precipitated the dilapidation of the Early Hellenistic enclosure. A robbing trench for the orthostates of the south wall was clear in the archaeological record (Fig. 117). The few finds in its fill suggest a terminus post quem of the 1st century B.C. or early in the next century.266 The true date of the wall’s plundering, however, is suggested by the fill through which the trench was cut; it contained a bronze coin that lowers the date to the beginning of the Early Christian period.267 It is not surprising that this new community at Nemea would draw upon the Heroön for building material; even the Temple of Zeus was dismantled in large part to furnish stone for the Basilica.268

The Early Christian community consisted primarily of farmers, and except for those areas reserved for buildings and burials, they farmed everywhere in the Sanctuary.269 As we have observed many times already, their oblong trenches littered the area of the Heroön, confounding the earlier stratigraphy and wreaking havoc on its very foundations (Figs. 112, 119, 120). But the Heroön is not alone in showing the scars of the farming trenches; parts of the Altar of Zeus show damage, as well as many of the Oikoi, among other structures.270 Adding to the destruction of the Heroön was the action of the Nemea River, which in this period f lowed along its east side.271 It swept away whatever was left standing of most of the Early Hellenistic enclosure’s east wall, and obliterated the east side of the Archaic mound (Figs. 2, 49, 53, 108). Several centuries later, a small Middle Byzantine community inhabited Nemea; a small amount of pottery, coins, and other artifacts from the layers over the Heroön ref lect this period of habitation.272 Thereafter, the archaeological record of the area falls mute, until the modern era.

See Chapters 3 and 4. Pottery lots F 19:21, 24; G 19:11, 19. Hesperia 1981, 62. 267  C 1731 (Nemea III, Cat. 2181, Constantius II, A.D. 335–361), associated with pottery lot F 19:24. The dislocated blocks found on the north side of the Heroön (above, p. 70) may likewise represent activity of this period. At first glance the presence at Nemea of coins of the 4th century after Christ seems to contradict the statement that the Early Christian community established itself in the early 5th century. As J. D. Mac Isaac explains, however, the earlier coins are “residual issues” that probably circulated until the mid-5th century: Nemea III, 184–185. 268  Miller 1986, 262; Guide2, 96–102. Robbing activity in the Early Hellenistic Stadium and Apodyterion may likewise 265  266 

be attributed to the Early Christians: Nemea II, 123–124, 131–132, 177. 269  For a summary of the evidence about this community see Guide2, 94–110; Hesperia 2015, 288–298. 270  Guide2, 106, 178, 180–181; Nemea I, 5, 19–22, 53, 70; Nemea II, 124–131. 271  For a description of the Nemea River in this period and the evidence for the manmade modifications that affected its course, see Hesperia 2015, 279–286. 272  Pottery lot F 19:8 dates to this period. A terracotta bread stamp, TC 100, was found just north of the shrine in Section

76

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

IDENTIFICATION OF THE HEROÖN Throughout this chapter, the identification of the Heroön of Opheltes has been taken for granted. It is now both possible and necessary to address as a whole the arguments for this claim. To begin with, there can be little doubt about the sacred character of the area. It clearly was a locus of ritual activity, as indicated by the abundant remains of burnt bone and ash, the plethora of pottery preserved in whole or in substantial parts, and the numerous dedications such as the miniatures and terracotta figurines. Moreover, though the argument is more subjective, the shrine appears to have been an important one. It is not just the quantity of its finds that gives this impression, but also the sizable effort that went into its construction. Even without the addition of monumental stone masonry, it required much labor to reshape the contours of the landscape, move earth, haul rubble, and apply the clay to give the Archaic shrine its form. The multiple foundation deposits scattered around its perimeter further aggrandize this architectural statement.273 Who, then, was worshipped in this shrine? Absent inscribed dedications that specifically name their recipient, it can be difficult to identify the cult from the character of the remains alone. Nevertheless, two aspects of the Nemean finds are suggestive. First, there are a few notable objects that may carry funerary or chthonic connotations. The iron kerykeion (Cat. 171) is one, and so too are the curse tablets (Appendix B, CT 1–4). The latter are particularly significant, for as we shall explore in Appendix B, there is good reason to associate their findspot with the grave of someone who has died a premature or violent death, as did Opheltes. A chthonic connotation G 18. Other material turned up in the modern surface layers over the Heroön; for instance, 3 coins of Manuel I (A.D. 1143–1180) were found: C 1660, C 1627, and C 1664 (Nemea III, Cat. 2590, Cat. 2807, andCat. 2808, respectively). On the Middle Byzantine habitation in general, see Guide2, 76, 110; Hesperia 2015, 286–288. For discussion of the numismatic evidence, see Nemea III, 186–189. 273  The very practice of making foundation deposits makes it probable, but not certain, that we are dealing with a sacred structure: Guide2, 35–36; cf. Hunt, 5, 107–108. One could argue that the particular ritual disposition of some of the finds, such as the oinochoe pouring into the cup, foreshadows the cultic activity to come.

also has been argued for the terracotta figurine (Cat. 160), but the validity of the argument is questionable.274 This same figurine also refers us to the other significant element among the shrine’s contents: possible representations of the baby hero Opheltes. The terracotta figurine is crude in manufacture but clearly portrays a male figure, and the squatting position recalls a bronze figurine (Cat. 271), also a candidate for the baby Opheltes, found in another part of the Sanctuary. A second example from within the shrine is the fragmentary stone figurine of a female carrying a child (Cat. 159), which may represent Hypsipyle with Opheltes. In truth, while the identification of these figurines has some merit simply because they are at Nemea, it really gains strength from the identification of the Heroön where they were found. To avoid the circularity of this reasoning, we should rely on other evidence for the shrine’s identification. An independent and more compelling argument does avail itself, thanks to the testimony of Pausanias. His words about the shrine of Opheltes are clear and concise, describing a tomb, a stone enclosure, and altars (2.15.3 = T 61 in Appendix C). The archaeological remains match Pausanias’ description reasonably well; not only do we have a stone enclosure, but also a good candidate for Opheltes’ tomb in the prominent rectangular structure of upright stones. As for the altars, while some of the stone blocks within the shrine may be the vestiges of what Pausanias saw, it may also be the case that his altars simply have not survived in the archaeological record. In addition, the shape and construction of the Early Hellenistic Heroön have rightly been compared to the Pelopion at Olympia.275 As noted before, Pausanias uses the same phrase θριγκὸς λίθων to describe both shrines; and so the physical similarity to the Hesperia 1981, 65; Guide2, 37; Miller 2002, 241. There does exist a class of terracotta masks and protomes, from various places around Greece, that have funerary or chthonic meaning. These represent a female divinity with diadem and veil, and while the type may refer to different goddesses in different places, almost all seem to have a chthonic aspect to their cult: see Smith, 353–360. Note, however, that the chthonic meaning comes not from the mask form per se but from the figure represented in the mask. The Nemea figurine is completely unrelated, and we propose a different interpretation of it in Chapter 4 and the Catalogue. 275  Hesperia 1981, 65; Guide, 109–110; Guide2, 125–126; Miller 2002, 241. 274 

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

Pelopion reinforces the correspondence between the Nemean shrine and Pausanias’ account. A final consideration is the association of the shrine with the Early Stadium. Excavation has shown that the mound and the embankment are two parts of one vast construction, employing the same range of construction techniques. Together they formed one side of the Early Stadium, with the embankment providing ample space for spectators, and the shrine sitting above one end of the track, just beyond one of its two starting lines. As will be shown in Chapter 4, from its earliest appearance in Greek literature, the myth of the baby hero Opheltes served as the aition for the athletic festival. After the baby’s startling death, the seer Amphiaraos renamed him Archemoros, “The Beginning of Doom,” and counseled two actions to propitiate the gods: bury him and honor him with games. The physical incorporation of the shrine into the complex for the celebration of the Nemean Games finds easy explanation if we identify it as the shrine containing the baby hero’s grave. This topographical argument therefore combines with the testimony of Pausanias and the nature of the remains to anchor our identification of the shrine as the Heroön of Opheltes.276

CONCLUSION The sacrificial fire in the Heroön burned brief ly, but it burned bright. Established by the middle of the 6th century B.C., this new shrine, devoted to the hero Opheltes, resembled a broad, earthen mound that rose 1.5 to 2.0 meters above the surrounding topography of the Sanctuary of Zeus. Lined with red clay and studded with rubble along its slopes, it offered a fairly level upper surface that encompassed an area of about 600 square meters. Here the dominant feature was a rectangular constuction of large upright stones, originally measuring about 2 × 4 meters on the exterior, and surrounded by more rubble. The concentration 276  The name Ophelteion has also been coined on the analogy of other ancient shrines like the Pelopion: Miller, “Excavations,” 143; Miller 2002, 241. Given the significance of the renaming of the hero in conjunction with the establishment of his cult, the name Archemoreion would also be appropriate. We can compare the cult of the similar child hero Melikertes, renamed Palaimon, at Isthmia; the term Palaimonion is attested for his shrine in the Roman period: IG IV 203.

77

of pottery and other signs of ritual activity in its vicinity suggest that it served as the marker for the Tomb of Opheltes, a feature that Pausanias reports seeing several centuries later. Whether the feature also functioned as an altar is unclear, but four isolated blocks elsewhere on the surface of the mound may constitute the remains of other altars, and indeed Pausanias mentions seeing more than one altar there in his day. The mound also featured a tree near in its southwestern edge, in close proximity to a curving rubble wall that marked the upper edge of the mound’s slope in that quarter. In comparison with the Early Temple of Zeus, the Heroön of Opheltes was a far cruder construction, but nonetheless it possessed its own sense of monumentality: Great effort was expended on modifying the existing landscape and sculpting the broad mound through a combination of excavation, the addition of rubble retaining walls, and the dumping of new earth fill. The builders further underscored the importance of their work by deliberately burying artifacts as foundation deposits throughout the construction layers around the perimeter of the mound. It is the foundation deposits that permit us to date the construction of the Archaic Heroön to the second quarter of the 6th century B.C., a period that notably includes the traditional date of 573 B.C. for the foundation of the Nemean Games. Extensive excavation within the Archaic mound, furthermore, yielded no evidence for an earlier cult in this location. The inauguration of the Heroön of Opheltes and the institution of the Nemean Games thus can be seen as closely related in time, if not contemporaneous, and confirmation of this relationship comes from the the fact that the shrine itself was constructed in conjunction with a long earthen embankment. This feature, extending to the north-northeast from the Heroön for at least 100 meters, possessed a gentle eastern slope that in turn formed one side of the Early Stadium at Nemea, and from its crest spectators could also look out to the west and north toward the Hippodrome. Thus the Heroön not only dates to the period traditionally associated with the founding of the Nemean Games but also is built as part of the same project that served the festival’s venues—indeed is physically juxtaposed with them. One unresolved question about the embankment is whether it was considered part of the sa-

78

T H E P H Y S I CA L R E MA I N S

cred area of the shrine. The existence of a rubble wall built across the embankment at the northern limit of the excavated area may mark a boundary between sacred and profane, but other interpretations of the feature are possible. So too the ritual nature of the contents of the North Pit Deposit, buried near the rubble wall, may be an indication of the sacred character of the embankment. On the other hand, the preponderance of evidence for ritual activity is clearly concentrated on the mound at the south end of the embankment, and it was this area that received a formal enclosure wall in the Early Hellenistic period. The Heroön thrived as a center of cultic activity for the entire time that the Sanctuary of Zeus served as the location of the Nemean Games. Ample remains document that until the festival moved away in the second quarter of the 3rd century B.C., the shrine served as a focal point for burnt offerings, drinking, libations, and the dedication of modest votives by pious worshippers. During this period of about three centuries, the embankment underwent occasional modification and refurbishment in response to the vicissitudes of the Sanctuary of Zeus and its festival, the latest change being the installation of a terracotta water channel in a trench cut through the embankment to feed a reservoir to the west. As for the Heroön itself, in the first quarter of the 3rd century it received a new stone enclosure to delimit its sacred space. A foundation of soft

poros limestone blocks was laid in the shape of a lopsided pentagon, dictated in part by the contours of the underlying mound, which also may account for the need to lay an additional course of blocks at the enclosure’s northeast and southwest corners. As was the case in its Archaic predecessor, the Early Hellenistic Heroön received a foundation deposit, albeit of a more modest nature: a krater covered by a stone slab was set along the inside of the north wall of the enclosure. The superstructure of the enclosure wall comprised at least one course of harder limestone blocks, as evidenced by the remains at the southeast side of the Heroön, but since most of the wall is now missing, we cannot be more certain of its original appearance, including the location of its entrance. The Early Hellenistic Heroön did not remain in use for long, however, for by 271 B.C. the Nemean Games moved to Argos. The recovery of some material of later date within the Heroön suggests possible sproradic visits to the shrine thereafter and individual acts of devotion. Pausanias certainly visited the Heroön in the second century after Christ; he saw the Early Hellenistic enclosure wall, describing it as a θριγκὸς λίθων, and within it he saw the Tomb of Opheltes and altars. In the centuries that followed his visit, however, most of the superstructure of the enclosure wall was robbed away, and the former sacred precinct of Opheltes became instead the worked field of humble farmers.

C H A P T E R T WO

The Faunal Remains from the Hero Shrine MICHAEL MACKINNON

INTRODUCTION

Archaic and Classical Greece, aspects that are not otherwise recorded in the current available corpus of textual, epigraphic, or iconographical data. Although ancient sources provide some details about the myth of Opheltes (see below, Chapter 3), little is known about his actual worship in a hero cult. The analysis of materials collected within the Heroön at Nemea, therefore, provides an ideal opportunity to reconstruct such details and to determine how ritual and sacrifice in the cult of Opheltes paralleled or contrasted with other cult practices. The faunal materials make a significant contribution to that reconstruction.

Although animal sacrifice is a popular component of cult worship in Archaic and Classical Greece, it is also an aspect that is showing increasing complexity and diversity with the analysis of each new sacrificial deposit. Animals were offered to a variety of ancient Greek deities and heroes, but the specific details related to each are not always clear. Through a combination of literary, epigraphic, iconographical, and archaeological evidence we are able to draft accounts pertaining to various deities and heroes. For example, pigs seem to be the chief animal sacrificed in the cult of Demeter; goats are important to Aphrodite, while cattle often figure in sacrifices to Zeus. Typically, animals were burnt on the altar or in a special pit, with portions of their carcasses offered to the gods or heroes. Those portions were burnt entirely, and the bones therefore show clear signs of burning. The remaining parts, if any, were cooked for human consumption, and their discovery at the altar or pit is not to be expected among the sacrificial charred/calcined materials, unless any of these leftover parts were also subsequently burnt or discarded therein. The site of ancient Nemea, and especially the shrine of Opheltes, provides an excellent opportunity to reconstruct aspects of cult worship in

Recovery of Faunal Material The small collection of faunal materials retrieved from surface and near-surface excavation levels often showed evidence of exposure to the natural elements, such as wind, water, and the sun; however, few of these pieces were charred or calcined. It may be assumed, as the stratigraphy would suggest, that these particular bones are from more current temporal periods. Those materials from deeper levels do not show the same degree of surface weathering, which supports the hypothesis that they were buried, or at least covered over deliberately or somehow protected from the elements after their disposal. The bulk of these

79

80

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

materials are also charred and/or calcined, which presumably relates to sacrificial burning. The absence of carnivore and rodent gnawing on the bones, regardless of level, adds to the assertion that the Heroön area was fairly protected from such rummaging of destructive animal agents, and that the materials retrieved (most especially the burnt remains) provide a key link to ancient cultural activities. While bones were collected from nearly all areas and excavation levels within the Heroön, in no case were they found in isolation from other materials, such as ceramics or other artifacts. Deposits can best be described as mixed. It is unknown if bones were originally interred or discarded in a separate region, away from other goods, such as ceramics and votives, and subsequent mixing through the leveling activities of the 3rd century B.C. caused the jumble of finds, or if they were originally mixed with other cultural materials through indiscriminate discard. Ceramic finds were not charred, however, so they were not burnt in the sacrificial rites alongside the meat and bones of the animal victims. Excavation in and around the Heroön revealed a number of activity contexts, which allow chronological and spatial separation of materials. Six such phases are recognized here for the purposes of this faunal report, with the third phase subdivided topographically: 1. Pre-shrine levels (pre-Archaic)1 2. Construction of the shrine2 3. Mid-Archaic to Early Hellenistic a. Period of use levels inside the shrine3 b. Pit deposits within the shrine4 c. Pit deposits outside the shrine to the west and north5 d. Levels south and west outside the shrine6

Phase 1 bones were found in pottery lots F 18:54, 55, 57, and 59. 2  Phase 2 bones were found in pottery lots F 19:94, 101, 119, and 131 3  Phase 3a bones were found in pottery lots F 18:45, 47, and 113; G 18:19; G 18,19:82, 92, 100, G 19:3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21, and 23. 4  Phase 3b bones were found in pottery lots F 18:49 and 50. 5  Phase 3c bones were found in pottery lots F 18:92, 93, 94, and 97; G 14:33. 6  Phase 3d bones were found in pottery lots F 20:26, 33, and 39. 1 

4. Mid-Hellenistic to Roman (postabandonment)7 5. Early Christian to Byzantine (post-abandonment)8 6. Modern surface9

The chief rationale for these distinctions is to analyze temporal and spatial variation in animal use and bone discard at the site. In particular, the period of use deposits (Phase 3) provide a key contrast to the other phases and contexts noted. Although screens were not employed in the retrieval of faunal materials from the modern levels over the Heroön, they were used in the lower levels. The size of the mesh was 5 mm, and this has resulted in the collection of thousands of bone fragments, the vast majority less than 1 cm 2 in size. This indicates that the sample is not hampered by recovery biases. One can be fairly certain that the vast majority of preserved and recoverable bone material from the Heroön has indeed been retrieved. After recovery, all bones were gently washed, allowed to dry in a shaded area, and bagged and labeled for storage.

Methodology Faunal materials from the Heroön excavations at Nemea were examined in June 2003 at the Wiener Laboratory, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. All identifiable pieces that could be recorded to element and species/taxonomic level were catalogued. Quantification of these followed several lines. First, NISP (= Number of Identified Specimens, a standard count in zooarchaeological quantification) counts were taken. Such figures took into account individual teeth within mandibles and maxillae. Thus, a mandible fragment with 3 teeth yields an NISP count of 4 (i.e. 3 teeth, plus the mandible piece itself, equals a total of 4). Second, ribs, vertebrae, and miscellaneous long-bone and cranial fragments that could not be identified securely to species were grouped according to general size categories (e.g. large = cattle size; medium = ovicaprid10 and pig size) and Phase 4 bones were found in pottery lots G 18:35 and 36. Phase 5 bones were found in pottery lots F 18:2(3); F 19:7; G 19:2 and 13. 9  Phase 6 bones were found in pottery lot G 18,19:76. 10  The term ovicaprid encompasses both sheep and goats and is used interchangeably with sheep/goat in this report. The two 7  8 

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

81

FIG. 121. Frequency of burnt and unburnt NISP bones from contexts in the area of the Heroön at Nemea.

their numbers tallied for analysis. Finally, MNI (= Minimum Number of Individuals) counts factored in age groups of fetal, juvenile, subadult, and adult in assessing figures. Bone weights were also determined for all categories investigated. Epiphyseal fusion parameters follow Silver;11 dental wear stages correspond to the schemes devised by Grant12 and Payne.13 Measurements follow the guidelines of von den Driesch.14

General Condition of the Bone Material The first distinction made among the various Heroön contexts concerns bone taphonomy. Figure 121 compares the frequency of burnt and unburnt bones from the various contexts noted above. The number of samples is small from all but the period of use phase, so caution is required in drawing conclusions. Still, the data support the hypothesis that sacrificial animals were normally burnt in cult activities, given that the period of use contexts record the highest amount of burnt bone. Inside the Heroön, this burnt material was deposited in pits but also seems to have been a component of more general levels that accumulated taxa are often grouped together in zooarchaeological analyses because of their similar osteology. 11  Silver, 283–302. 12  Grant, 91–108. 13  Payne, 609–614. 14  Driesch.

there. Not all of the charred materials, however, were disposed of inside the Heroön. Some, it appears, were buried in pits outside the shrine. On the basis of available data, pits seem to be the favored means for such deposition outside the shrine; far less charred bone was retrieved from any other type of context outside the Heroön dating from its operation as a ritual center. Burnt bones were also less commonly represented within those excavation contexts that pre- or post-dated phases of ritual activity in the Heroön. Exceptions are noted, probably due to small sample sizes; however, on average such pre- and post-dated deposits show a higher degree of leached, eroded bone material. The impression is that this ref lects the incorporation of locally discarded trash in the area: rubbish not affiliated with ritual activities. Presumably, the incorporation of any burnt bones among such contexts—notably the pre-shrine, construction of shrine, and post-abandonment levels—is a factor of depositional mixing, specifically the settling, uplift, or shifting of materials that likely originally formed components of the period of use contexts. Table 2 provides a detailed summary of the general state of the bones collected from Heroön period of use contexts. This includes materials from the pits and more general levels from within the shrine but excludes contemporary contexts outside the shrine. The tallies provided in Table 2 refer specifically to the NISP portion of the Heroön sample. Over 90% of the NISP sample collected from inside the Heroön is burnt, and of this, nearly

82

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 2 Taphonomy of faunal materials from the Heroön period of use deposits. TAPHONOMIC CONDITION Calcined Charred/calcined Charred/blue colored Charred* Eroded/leached Exposed/bleached Unaffected/Modern discard *

NUMBER OF CASES 65 32 17 18 10 1 1

% OF TOTAL 48.1 23.7 12.6 6.7 7.4 0.7 0.7

Total burnt (charred to calcined) = 91.1%

half is calcined. Clearly this collection represents remnant bone from a ritual sacrifice, material burnt at an altar or similar structure. Much of this burnt material (indeed more than two-thirds by count and weight) derives from two important contexts.15 These date from the 6th to the 4th century B.C., coincident with the founding and initial development of the Nemean Games at the site. It may be assumed they are connected to sacrifice for the baby hero Opheltes. The remaining uncharred bone pieces might arise from two circumstances. First, these could be waste parts of sacrificial animals that were initially butchered, unconsumed, and disposed of within the Heroön, but ultimately not burnt at the altar, or if such material was originally placed on the altar to be burnt, then these bits somehow escaped the f lames, perhaps by falling off the altar or being pushed to the sides. Alternatively, these might also represent waste products from activities outside the Heroön, which were later dumped inside the enclosure and consequently have no relation to ritual activity at the site. Clearly, the presence of sun-bleached or weather-worn and eroded bone fragments, in conjunction with pieces that show more modern preservation conditions, indicates that the Heroön did not remain garbage free over the ages. No context, it seems, was totally devoid of some depositional and retrieval mixing. Even materials that were buried and apparently better protected from post-depositional agents at 15  Layers 2 and 2a in Section G 19; Pottery lots G 19:3 and 4, respectively.

the surface did not escape taphonomic destruction. The predominantly alkaline soil conditions at the site would encourage somewhat better overall preservation of bone materials than might highly acidic soils, for example; however, cycles of wet and dry conditions in these generally clay-loam soils at Nemea were active in structurally and compositionally weakening the bones, thereby rendering much of the sample brittle and friable—even bits that had been charred originally. Many pieces display cracks and breaks resultant from post-depositional weathering. The charred and burnt pieces were especially susceptible to such conditions. Indeed, the important groups mentioned above (Lots G19:3 and 4) were extremely fragmentary, with most pieces less than 1 cm in size. In an attempt to deduce the duration, heat, or type of burning that occurred, the entire collection of material (i.e. both NISP and the less specific “general size and skeletal category” components) from the two largest burnt contexts from the Heroön (i.e. G19/lot 3/layer 2, and G19/lot 4/ layer 2a) was sorted by color. Bone passes through a continuum of appearance as it is burnt—from initial cream-colored (the normal coloring) unburnt elements, to nonincinerated or smoked bone, which is blackened on the edges, to incompletely incinerated bone that is blackened over most of the surface, followed by a gradual complete incineration that progresses through stages of grayish-blue and finally white (or calcined) appearance.16 While color alone is not the best indicator to deduce specific fire temperatures, since ranges overlap in many cases, it can be used to determine larger brackets of probable temperatures. In turn, these provide an indication of the necessary fuel source and time intervals required to produce such conditions on the bone. Tables 3 and 4 list the number and frequency (by count and weight) of several general bone categories from layer 2 and layer 2a in Section G 19. Long bone and skull fragments have been separated for large- and medium-size classes of mammals. Ribs and vertebrae were practically absent from these contexts (and indeed from the entire sample analyzed; see below) and are not included in this analysis. There is a strong similarity between the two 16 

Shipman et al., 307–325.

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 3 State of burning among long-bone fragments from a Heroön period of use context (layer 2 = pottery lot G19:3).1 COUNTS % MED LB LRG LB MED LB COLOR/CONDITION MED LB WT (G) LRG LB WT (G) MED LB WT LRG LB Cream/uncharred 13 11.6 1 6.3 0.6 0.7 2.5 Black/charred 3 3.1 — — 0.1 0.2 — Black/gray/part calcined 45 60.0 3 19.4 2.1 3.7 7.5 Gray/blue/calcined 71 57.7 2 7.5 3.3 3.6 5.0 Gray-blue/white/calcined 703 334.8 29 110.6 32.9 20.8 72.5 White/fully calcined 1,303 1,145.5 5 27.4 60.9 71.0 12.5 TOTAL 2,138 1,612.7 40 171.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

83

LRG LB WT 3.7 — 11.3 4.4 64.6 16.0 100.0

1 Med = medium-size mammal; lrg = large-size mammal; lb = long-bone; wt = weight. Note that 52 cranial fragments with a total weight of 27.6 g. from a medium-size mammalian skull were also retrieved in this context but not recorded in the tally above. All of these fragments were calcined to a full white color.

TABLE 4 State of burning among long-bone fragments from a Heroön period of use context (layer 2a = pottery lot G19:4).1 COUNTS % MED LB LRG LB MED LB LRG LB COLOR/CONDITION MED LB WT LRG LB WT MED LB WT LRG LB WT Cream/uncharred 2 1.7 1 6.8 0.1 0.1 1.5 3.5 Black/charred 11 5.7 — — 0.5 0.3 — — Black/gray/part calcined 52 53.8 5 4.3 2.1 3.1 7.5 2.2 Gray/blue/calcined 86 87.5 11 35.4 3.5 5.1 16.4 18.0 Gray-blue/white/calcined 712 459.7 30 93.6 29.3 26.5 44.8 47.6 White/fully calcined 1,563 1,123.1 20 56.5 64.4 64.9 29.9 28.7 TOTAL 2,426 1,731.5 67 196.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Med = medium-sized mammal; lrg = large-sized mammal; lb = long-bone; wt = weight. Note that 55 cranial fragments with a total weight of 35.6 g. from a medium-size mammalian skull were also retrieved in this context but not recorded in the tally above. Two of these fragments, with a total weight of 1.5 g., were in the gray/blue calcined category; the other 53 (or 95.8% by weight) were calcined to a full white color.

1

samples, especially in terms of medium-size mammals. Over 90% of the long-bone fragments in this category, by both count and weight, are calcined. It appears that these were subjected to the full extent of the fire for a period of time long enough to calcine them. Temperatures would probably have exceeded at least 400˚C to produce this effect, and may have climbed (but only for a short duration) to a maximum of 700–800˚C judging by the presence of a number of warped and noticeably shrunken bones and the vitrified or glassy appearance of several pieces. An outdoor wood fire generally burns at 400–600˚C but requires

constant addition of fuel to maintain this temperature. Wood usually burns at around 350˚C.17 It is unlikely that any type of accelerant, such as olive oil, was used in any great degree in this fire, but the f lames could have been doused with this fuel periodically to raise the temperature. More likely, however, olive wood was chosen as the source of fuel, since it has oil in it naturally, which makes it burn longer and hotter than other woods.18 The

17  18 

Tylecote, 25. Platt, 10.

84

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

fracture patterns on the bones themselves add clues about their condition when burnt. It seems unlikely these were burnt from a dry, naked state. Rather, the presence of small transverse heat fractures on numerous long-bone fragments indicates that many of these bones were placed in the fire while relatively fresh, likely with some type of coating or covering. The exact nature of such a covering cannot be determined. This could be either the original meat and fat associated with the bone cut, as might result from a chunk of meat with bone inside and intact. Alternatively, the materials might have been stripped of meat and subsequently wrapped in fat or another substance, perhaps the fatty omentum, or stomach lining, as suggested by Van Straten19 and recently demonstrated in experimental work by Morton.20 Animal fat, in particular, could act as an accelerant, causing the fire to burn at a higher temperature and aiding in a quicker cremation of remains. The degree of calcination would also depend on the thickness of the bone, and indeed the data from Tables 3 and 4 support this observation. The thinnest bones, such as those from the cranium, show the highest frequency of complete calcination. Long-bone fragments show a greater range of incomplete and complete calcination, with the relatively thinner examples from medium-size mammals being more completely burnt, in contrast to those from larger mammals, which more rarely achieved this state. From these observations, I would estimate that the sacrificial fire was a wood fire (quite possibly olive wood), stoked periodically to maintain a constant temperature of about 400˚C, and further fueled through the sacrifice of bones that were surrounded by fatty and fresh cuts of meat, as opposed to dry or def leshed bones. Fresh bone itself is somewhat greasy and its addition could help accelerate the fire, but larger portions of fatty tissue would burn more readily and raise the fire temperature more effectively. Additionally, they would create bursts of f lame— an impressive spectacle. The prevalence of transverse fracture lines, cracking, checking, and irregular longitudinal splitting on the bones confirms that the bones were fresh and covered, be this in their original meaty state or artificially wrapped in fat/omentum by humans. In terms of a time 19  20 

Van Straten, 131. Morton, 66–75.

frame for the fire, I would suggest that much of this occurred within the space of an hour or so. Fires maintained for much longer than this (and at the high temperatures required) would have resulted in a greater frequency of calcination among the bones of larger mammals especially. This does not, however, exclude the possibility that some carcass parts may have been placed within the heart of the fire, while others (perhaps the larger mammalian long bones) sat on the perimeter and were not charred to the same degree. I assume that a deliberate placement as such did not occur. In all cases, however, it seems that these were controlled, smaller fires, which is what one would suspect in a ritual event.

SPECIES AND SKELETAL ELEMENT PATTERNS Table 5 provides a summary of the proportion of mammalian species recovered from the Heroön deposits during the period of its use. Presumably these contexts correspond best to sacrificial rites. Remaining contexts (i.e. construction of shrine, pre-shrine, outside shrine, pits, destruction and disturbance levels, and modern layers) are not considered here since their relationship to ritual practices is insecure or ambiguous. Bones are quantified by NISP count (Number of Identified Specimens), MNI (Minimum Number of Individual Animals), and bone weight. No other mammalian bones were identified in these samples, which were also devoid of avian and other animal bone. Several snail shell fragments from Helix sp., Pomatias elegans, and Rumina decollata were also retrieved, but none of these showed signs of burning. They are likely intrusive. These species commonly inhabit the region today, thriving in dry, warm conditions. It is assumed that current environmental conditions at Nemea were not markedly different than those during Archaic and Classical times.21 Sheep/goats predominate the sample from these Heroön period of use levels, regardless of quantifier; however, their relative importance f luctuates in each case, from about two-thirds in terms of bone weights, to approximately 85% when NISP or MNI values are considered. The heaviness of 21  See Nemea II, 119–121 for evidence of a similarity of weather from antiquity to the modern day.

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

85

TABLE 5 Frequency of taxa from Heroön period of use deposits, by NISP (= Number of Identified Specimens), MNI (= Minimum Number of Individual Animals), and bone weight. COUNTS % TAXON NISP MNI WEIGHT (G) NISP MNI WEIGHT (G) Cattle 10 1 76.2 8.0 7.1 26.0 Sheep/goat 103 12 194.3 83.1 85.8 66.5 Pig 11 1 21.9 8.9 7.1 7.5 TOTAL 159 16 479.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

cattle bone and its increased durability during burning (as argued above) elevate its relative frequency by weight calculations. Presumably, this also ref lects a larger (at least by volume) amount of meat sacrificed from cattle than would be inferred from either NISP or MNI counts for this taxon. A balance between NISP and MNI values may best indicate the actual proportion of animal taxa sacrificed, in which case sheep/goat was the preferred victim, representing about 80% of the number of animals sacrificed. While practically all of the identified bone materials from the Heroön period of use levels had been burnt, suggesting that parts of animals from at least all three taxa (i.e. sheep/goat, cattle, pig) were offered in sacrifice, the proportions are not equally distributed. Table 6 lists the number of bones from the species present in these contexts according to anatomical element and side. Figures 122 and 123 depict the trends for these three taxa. Several interesting patterns arise from the distribution. First, there is a division between sheep/ goat and the other taxa. Cattle and pig are represented nearly exclusively by cranial and dental elements, whereas a more complete suite of the sheep/goat skeleton is denoted. More parts of, and possibly even whole, sheep and/or goats were sacrificed, compared to the other taxa. The skeletons of sheep and goats are similar morphologically (and generally subsumed under the category “ovicaprid” or “caprine”), but some elements can be separated. In terms of the Heroön period of use deposits, part of a horn core, two radius fragments, and a mandibular third molar (all charred) derive from sheep. An astragalus, calcaneum, and tibia from the same contexts could also be identified as sheep, but the fact that these elements were not charred renders their association with ritual

deposits unclear. They may be intrusive. In other contexts at Nemea, however, sheep predominate over goats (8 elements identified as sheep, no goats reported), so if this trend continues throughout the Heroön, then it appears that sheep were the preferred, if not exclusive, sacrificial ovicaprid victim. Such a preference is not surprising given that sheep, or more specifically rams, were sacrificed to a number of heroes.22 Goats seem not to have been sacrificed to heroes in general, and there are suggestions that they were not a preferred victim. For example, we hear that Herakles, in founding the cult of Hera Aigophagos at Sparta, was forced to sacrifice a goat because no other kind of animal was available to him, and that the Spartans were the only Greeks to sacrifice goats to Hera.23 Again, although goats were sacrificed to Asklepios at Balagrai in Cyrenaica, they were not allowed at Epidauros; indeed, goat was the only animal prohibited from the sacrifices to Asklepios at Tithoria.24 Hence, it would seem a virtual certainty that sheep, perhaps rams, were the victims offered to Opheltes.25 On the other hand, two bits of evidence encourage caution in reaching such a conclusion. E.g., and most significantly, a black ram was sacrified to Pelops at Olympia (Pausanias 5.13.2). Rams are also specified for Amphiaraos at Oropos (Pausanias 1.34.5), Trophonios at Lebadeia (Pausanias 9.39.6), and Kalchas on Mount Drion in Italy (Strabo 6.3.9). Bulls, however, are also attested as, for example, in the cult of the hero Aristomenes at Messene (Pausanias 4.32.3). 23  Pausanias 3.15.9. 24  Pausanias 2.26.9. 25  This might also seem implicit in the literary references to flocks of sheep in, for example, Euripides’ Hypsipyle. See T 10 (Appendix C), discussed in Chapter 3. 22 

86

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 6 Species and elemental distribution (by side) for Heroön period of use deposits. SPECIES ANATOMICAL ELEMENT LEFT RIGHT UNKNOWN Sheep/goat Horn core 1 — 4 Cranium — — 2 Maxillary molar 1 — 2 Mandible 9 5 1 Mandibular incisor 1 — 1 Mandibular molar 1 — — Humerus proximal — — 3 Humerus medial 1 1 — Radius proximal 7 2 — Radius medial 1 — 1 Ulna proximal 1 — — Pelvis 14 1 — Femur proximal 2 — — Tibia proximal 6 — — Tibia medial 3 1 2 Tibia distal 12 — — Astragalus 12 — — Calcaneum 2 1 — Metapodial — — 3 Phalanx 1 — — 2 Cattle Maxillary premolar — — 2 Maxillary molar — — 2 Mandible 1 — — Mandibular incisor 1 — 1 Mandibular molar — — 3 Metatarsal — — 1 Pig Cranium — 1 — Maxillary molar — 1 — Maxillary canine — — 1 Mandible 1 1 1 Mandibular incisor — — 3 Mandibular deciduous premolar 1 — — Metapodial — — 1

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

87

FIG. 122. Summary percentages of species by left and right elements for Heroön period of use deposits at Nemea.

FIG. 123. Summary percentages of left and right skeletal elements by skeletal category for Heroön period of use deposits at Nemea (all taxa combined).

First, there was in the agora of Phlious in the valley immediately west of Nemea a gilt bronze statue of a she-goat that was thought to have the power to avert grapevine-damaging frost in early spring.26 Second, the people of Kleonai in the val26 

Pausanias 2.13.6; cf. Nemea II, 123–124, n. 293.

ley immediately east of Nemea were able to end a plague in the second half of the 5th century B.C. by sacrificing a he-goat to the sun at daybreak, and as a consequence dedicated a bronze he-goat to Apollo at Delphi.27 Given these considerations, 27 

Pausanias 10.11.5.

88

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

and despite the absence of identifiable remains of goats among the bones of the Heroön, it seems prudent to think of the sacrificial victim of choice for Opheltes as the sheep/goat. A second point from the analysis of data in Table 6 and Figures 122 and 123 is that a marked preference for elements from the left side exists, most noticeably among sheep/goat postcranial remains. The data for the other taxa are ambiguous in this respect and appear to show no preferential selection for left or right sides; however, they are dominated by cranial and dental elements. Separating out the left half would be a difficult feat in the case of the cranium in particular, since it would require more effort to split the skull into two halves than it might take to butcher and dismember right and left limbs exclusively. As shown in Table 7, the predominance of left-sided elements does not occur among the remaining contexts at Nemea, where generally a more random and balanced distribution of sides is recorded among the various phases. A final comment from analysis of the element distribution from the Heroön period of use levels, as recorded in Table 6, is that the bones with the highest frequencies—or, more specifically, the portions of these elements represented (e.g. distal tibia, pelvis acetabulum region, etc.)—tend to be the densest, more durable parts of the skeleton. As such, many of these osteological sections are predisposed to withstand stresses (including burning) and preserve some of their initial features, rendering them easier to identify to a species level. This makes it difficult to judge what the assemblage initially comprised, as opposed to what had been destroyed due to human and taphonomic agents and what ultimately constituted the reduced and sampled component recovered during archaeological excavation. Thus, while the humerus and ulna categories are underrepresented in Table 6, I suspect that this is partially due to their increased susceptibility both to more complete combustion and to augmented postdepositional decomposition. Sheep/goat MNI values, calculated on the basis of individual skeletal elements, provide the following tallies (for Heroön period of use levels): Cranium, mandible, and dentition: 3 Humerus: 2 Radius/Ulna: 4 Pelvis: 7

Femur: 2 Tibia: 12 Astragalus: 7 Calcaneum: 3 Metapodials/Phalanges: 1

One might estimate that the underrepresentation of cranial, humerus, and femur pieces may be a factor of their reduced density and concomitant poorer preservation among faunal assemblages. However, even if one were to correct for this deficit, there is still a predominance of hind leg elements, such as the tibia and astragalus (but not the neighboring calcaneum). Even more puzzling is the lack of metapodials and phalanges. These are among the densest and more durable elements of the skeleton and are widely prevalent among many zooarchaeological assemblages where it is argued that whole animals were interred. It is possible that these elements were burnt completely. They are surrounded by little meat and fat, compared to other parts of the skeleton, so they would have been exposed first to the f lames. Nevertheless, it is more likely that the lower parts of the sheep/ goat leg were not sacrificed and burnt on the altar as often as the upper parts of the hind leg (such as the tibia, femur, and pelvis). There is an economic reason for this. I suspect that sheep/goats were shorn (or otherwise trimmed of wool or hair) and had their hides removed before sacrifice.28 In this manner, the sheep’s wool or goat’s hair and leather could have been used for ceremonial purposes, the wool or hair perhaps spun into sacrificial robes or blankets for future worshippers, and the leather tanned or otherwise processed for similar ritual garments. When removing the hide, one generally either initially or ultimately cuts at the lower ends of the limbs, often in the region of the metapodials. From this juncture, one can peel back the hide, cutting and lifting the layer between the hide and the underlying muscle and fat as one progresses over the entire skeleton. As it is difficult to separate the hide in the area around the metapodials and phalanges, workers are known to retain these bones initially within the hide and have the tanners and hide processors extract them later. In For the sale of hides of sacrificial victims, see IG II2 1496; for hides as a normal part of the priest’s compensation for performing the sacrifice, see Sokolowski, 28.

28 

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

fact, leather workers might have kept them in the hide until the later stages of tanning, since the weight of the bone can help stretch and stabilize the hide. Little meat surrounds the metapodials, so there is no great demand for reserving this bone for the butcher. The head may also be retained in the hide, which could help explain why sheep/goat cranial fragments (and especially teeth, the most durable of all skeletal elements, and frequently the most numerous identified component of zooarchaeological samples) are not as prevalent in the Heroön material as expected, if, along with the metapodials and phalanges, these were removed from the shrine and delivered to the tanner still within the hide. If, as the data suggest, more sheep/goats were sacrificed than other animals in the Heroön at Nemea, to what degree were these whole animals, or parts of them? Were skulls and left front and hind limbs selectively sacrificed and burnt on the altar? What became of the other parts of the animal skeleton? What about the central cavity, such as the vertebrae and ribs? And what about the tail, which is often shown being burnt to the gods in Greek vase painting and votive reliefs?29 The parts placed on the altar and burnt were intended as the sacrificial portion for the gods or heroes, and were not destined for human consumption in a ritual feast. Reconstructing that portion, therefore, is essential to recognizing divine and mortal components. One concern of zooarchaeologists is the difficulty of identifying ribs, vertebrae, cranial  bits, and long bone shaft fragments to species. Consequently these are often grouped by general size categories as small-, medium-, or large-size mammals. It is important to consider this component alongside the analysis of the NISP portion so one gets a better idea of what parts of the carcass were there initially and which parts had been removed or destroyed by human and taphonomic agents. Table 8 lists the counts and frequencies for these grossly identified categories for the Heroön period of use deposits. Figure 124 summarizes and depicts these totals for the principal skeletal-part categories. The data in Table 8 and Figure 124 confirm the primary importance of medium-size mammals 29 

Van Straten, 8, 128.

89

(most probably sheep/goat) as sacrificial victims in the shrine of Opheltes. Moreover, they indicate that limb elements seem to be the item of choice. Limb elements from large mammals (likely cattle) also are represented to a certain degree, especially if one factors in their contribution by weight. Some cranial fragments are also noted. Practically missing from these contexts, however, are ribs and vertebrae from both size categories of mammals. Is there some natural or taphonomic explanation for this, or were these sections deliberately reserved and not charred in the sacrifice? Considering the near dearth of ribs and vertebrae in these Heroön samples, in contrast to their predominance anatomically (these are the most plentiful bones in the skeleton and often constitute large parts of faunal assemblages), I would argue that this is a cultural phenomenon, and that these parts were consciously removed in preparing the animal for sacrifice. True, both ribs and vertebrae are among the less durable elements of the skeleton and could be reduced to unrecognizable fragments and ash more readily than other bones, but even so, more of them would be expected if indeed whole animals were regularly burnt on the altar, especially cattle ribs and vertebrae, which are larger and presumably more resistant to taphonomic decay than their sheep/goat equivalents. No, the data from Table 8, coupled with those from Table 6, suggest that sheep/goat limbs (and left hind ones at that) were the principal animal part sacrificed in the Heroön at Nemea, followed by sheep/goat jaws and heads, cattle limbs, and cattle and pig jaws and heads. The remaining parts, notably the meatier portions of the ribs and vertebrae, were not sacrificed to the gods but removed elsewhere. Whether these formed parts of the ritual feast and were consumed by the congregation participating in the sacrifice is difficult to determine. If so, then their waste was not discarded within the Heroön, and a deliberate attempt was made to dissociate the mortal and divine products. An argument that ribs and vertebrae were boiled (such as in a stew), which in turn rendered them more susceptible to taphonomic destruction and absence from the sample, does not appear likely. In fact, ribs and vertebrae are practically absent from all contexts within the Heroön, even those that do not exhibit charring. All available zooarchaeological evidence points to the fact that the central parts of the sacrificed animals were removed from the Heroön and

90

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 7 Species and elemental distribution (by side) for various contexts.1

SPECIES Sheep/goat

Cattle

Pig

Other Avian2 Cardium sp. Murex sp.

ELEMENT Horn core Maxillary molar Mandible Mandibular molar Scapula Humerus medial Radius proximal Radius medial Radius distal Ulna medial Pelvis Tibia medial Tibia distal Astragalus Calcaneum Metacarpal Metatarsal Phalanx 2 Maxillary premolar Maxillary molar Mandible Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Tibia Metacarpal Metatarsal Calcaneum Maxillary molar Mandible Mandibular incisor Mandibular di Mandibular premolar Mandibular molar

L

CONSTRUCTION R UN

PERIOD OF USE— PITS IN SHRINE L R UN 2

1 1 1 1

1

2 1 1

1

4

2

2 1

1 1 1 1 1

Shells Shells

di = deciduous incisor; L=left; R=right; UN=side unknown. Excludes contexts with very small sample sizes, specifically: Phase 1 (Pre-shrine; n=3): cattle (2 mandibular molars – R), sheep/goat (1 tibia medial – R); and Phase 6 (Modern; n=2): domestic fowl (1 tibiotarsus – R), pig (1 mandibular incisor – L). 1

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

S AND W OF SHRINE L R UN

N AND W PITS L R UN

2

POST-ABANDONMENT— HELLENISTIC TO ROMAN L R UN 1 1

91

POST-ABANDONMENT— EC TO BYZ L R UN 2 1 1

1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 2 1

1 2 1 2

1 1

1 1 1 3 11

1 1

1 1 1

2

1 1

1

1

2 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 2

2 1 Nine scrappy unburnt avian long-bone elements (2 g.) were retrieved from inside cups in Section G 14 (pottery lot G 14: 33). Although the exact species of bird could not be determined from these fragmentary bone bits, they probably derive from domestic fowl. 2

92

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 8 Counts and frequencies for various skeletal-part categories for medium- and large-size mammals from the Heroön period of use levels. COUNTS % SIZE CATEGORY ELEMENT NUMBER WEIGHT (G.) BY NUMBER BY WEIGHT Medium Rib 12 8.0 1.9 0.2 Long bone 5,976 4,222.0 94.6 85.6 Cranium 119 74.9 1.9 1.5 Vertebrae 3 6.0 0.05 0.1 Other 2 2.8 0.03 0.1 Large Rib 1 4.5 0.02 0.1 Long bone 198 596.7 3.1 12.1 Cranium 2 11.4 0.03 0.2 Other 1 3.7 0.02 0.1 TOTAL 6,314 4,930.0 100.0 100.0

FIG. 124. Summary counts of skeletal parts by animal size category for Heroön period of use deposits at Nemea.

disposed of elsewhere at the site. Faunal samples from other areas of Nemea may hold the key to the location of the “missing” ribs and vertebrae of the Heroön.30 Table 9 lists the frequency (by count) of various skeletal part categories for medium- and large-size mammals from various contexts at Nemea, to con30  Ribs and vertebrae are more plentiful among some contexts outside of the Heroön at Nemea, but no single deposit produced any significant amount. See MacKinnon 2013 for more details.

trast with the data in Table 8 for the Heroön period of use levels. It is most striking that the “missing” ribs and vertebrae from the Heroön period of use levels have no corollary in any of the other levels and contexts within the Heroön. Long-bone fragments from medium-size mammals predominate both in numbers and weight (not shown) among nearly all contexts analyzed here, save for contexts outside the shrine, where long-bone fragments of large mammals are slightly more abundant. As indicated previously, this pattern suggests that remains of larger animals that may have been involved in sacrifice within the Heroön were routinely removed and deposited into pits or other contexts outside of the shrine. The deposit from a pit in Section F 19 located to the west of Heroön is a good example.31 It may represent debris cleared from a single or short-term period of sacrifice in the Heroön, in which case the high incidence of large-mammal long-bone pieces within it suggests a sacrificial episode where cattle were important. The data from outside the shrine may relate to the disposal of larger pieces of rubbish in these areas, and the augmented preservation of such fragments in relation to those from medium-size mammals. By contrast, those pit deposits located inside the shrine are very similar in terms of faunal composition to neighboring period of use levels within the shrine; that is, they share a marked predominance 31 

Pottery lot F 19:44

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

93

TABLE 9 Frequencies (by count) of various skeletal-part categories for medium- and large-size mammals from various phases and contexts associated with the Heroön. POSTSIZE PRE-SHRINE CONSTRUCTION PITS-IN OUTSIDE PITS-OUT ABANDON MODERN CATEGORY ELEMENT (N=5) (N=80) (N=130) (N=158) (N=524) (N=1133) (N=3) Medium Rib — — — — 28.2 0.2 — Long bone 60.0 53.8 92.3 46.2 48.7 93.4 100.0 Cranium — — — — — 0.4 — Vertebrae — — 0.8 — 0.2 — — Other — 2.5 1.5 0.6 1.3 0.2 — Large Rib — — – 1.3 1.5 — — Long bone 40.0 37.5 5.4 48.1 16.8 5.5 — Cranium 6.2 3.2 — — — Vertebrae — — — — 3.2 — — Other — — — 0.6 — 0.2 — TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

of long-bone remains from medium-size mammals. The case of the post-abandonment contexts (here combined as one group) has already been outlined; their resemblance to the Heroön period of use assemblages was caused by postdepositional mixing of materials. Samples from the pre-shrine and modern phases are too small to yield unbiased results. Van Straten devotes considerable attention to distinguishing “curly things” portrayed roasting on sacrificial altars in Greek iconographic works.32 He argues that these probably represent the tail, or tail plus sacrum, of the victim, and are assumed to be the gods’ portion of the sacrifice. Zooarchaeological remains associated with the altar of Aphrodite Ourania in the Athenian Agora (and dating to the 5th century B.C.) help confirm this observation, since burnt caudal vertebrae and thigh bones are particularly numerous in the sample analyzed.33 Further evidence of burnt vertebrae (including caudal ones) is noted among 8th–7th century B.C. ritual deposits at Kommos in southern Crete, and in mid-4th to late 1st century B.C. burnt samples from the sanctuary of Demeter on Mytilene.34 When this practice emerged is,

however, controversial. Ekroth indicates that early Greek sacrificial ritual deposits rarely contain any caudal vertebrae, which suggests that the burning of the tail may have been a later (possibly Classical?) development in thysia ritual.35 Should later dates apply for this practice, then the absence of caudal vertebrae from Archaic-period Nemean Heroön deposits accords with traditional practice at that time. Alternatively, the absence of caudal vertebrae from the Nemean Heroön deposits may indicate that we are not dealing with the typically attested and depicted remnants of the gods’ portion of sacrifice, but another variety of sacrifice where such components were not used. Perhaps these sections were reserved for divine worship, and thus sacrificed and burnt at the Temple of Zeus at Nemea rather than in the Heroön.36 Perhaps rites for hero sacrifice did not call upon these sections. Another possibility is that the tail vertebrae were removed together with the hide, alongside the metapodials and phalanges, as argued above. It is cumbersome to remove the hide around these vertebrae, and the job (if indeed it is attempted) is best left to skilled tanners and hide processors. Although caudal vertebrae are small and prone to

Van Straten, 118–144. 33  Reese 1989, 64–68. 34  Reese 1989, 68.

Ekroth 2009b, 125–151. A very small number of sheep/goat tail vertebrae were noted among burnt faunal samples associated with the Altar of Zeus at Nemea. See MacKinnon 2010. 35 

32 

36 

94

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

postdepositional destruction, it seems unlikely if they did form part of the Heroön sacrifices that none would survive, especially given the relatively large number of caudal vertebrae in sheep and goats.

AGE AND SEX PATTERNS Age at slaughter was examined on the basis of epiphyseal fusion in long bones, as well as dental eruption and wear. Little could be said about the cattle and pig remains other than that they derive from adult individuals. Remains were too fragmentary to refine ages. In the case of sheep or goats, adults largely predominate (most epiphyses were fused); however, examples of an unfused distal tibia and a small poorly developed horn core tip indicate the presence of a juvenile younger than at least two years of age. Zooarchaeological age estimates can sometimes help determine season of death, provided the birthing and culling strategies are known. According to Roman agricultural writers, sheep and goats are preferentially born in the winter months ( January–March/April).37 If a similar scheme was practiced at Nemea, then the presence of the sacrificed juvenile individual (as noted from a fragment of its horn core) would set a time of mid-to-late summer (assuming this individual was around 6–8 months of age). This is only one individual, however. It is unknown how often animals were sacrificed in the cult of Opheltes, or if killings were concentrated during specific times of the year. Given that the region is much too cold, rainy, and sometimes snowy during the winter to support any outdoor athletic competition, it seems certain that the Nemean games were held in the summer months.38 While such a period does not coincide with pastoral birthing schemes from Roman authors (which would facilitate a supply of lambs from transhumant shepherds coming through the area in the summer), I suspect that a steady supply of sacrificial victims of all ages could be easily obtained for the site, even if these

Columella, Rust. 7.3.12; Plin., NH 8.72.187; Varro, Rust. 2.1.19, 2.2.14. 38  Guide2, 16–17. 37 

derived from animals especially herded and bred for such purposes.39 The sex of the sacrificed animals from the two large burnt contexts highlighted in this report (see Tables 3 and 4) could not be determined, owing to a lack of diagnostic dimorphic elements. One sheep/goat pelvis fragment from a construction context within the Heroön was likely from a male, but it could not be distinguished further as either a ram/he-goat or castrate.40 Kadletz notes that male animals were generally offered to male deities in Greek religion, that is, in cases where the sex was clearly distinguished in the ancient literary and epigraphic evidence.41 Female deities often received female animals as sacrificial victims, although in about 25% of the cases, male animals may also have been slaughtered to them. If a similar pattern of connecting the sex of the animal victim with the sex of the honoree existed for hero cults, as it did for some deities, then I suspect male animals were typically offered to Opheltes.

BUTCHERY AND CARCASS DISMEMBERMENT PATTERNS The Heroön faunal material showed very few signs of butchery, although it is assumed that some carcasses were butchered and dismembered (as opposed to being burnt whole in a holocaust-type sacrifice) given the skewed distribution of skeletal parts and predominance of legs. Two separate sheep/goat pelvis bones from one context had been chopped across the acetabulum, presumably in an effort to disarticulate the femur and remove the lower leg.42 One of these had also been hacked through the acetabulum, which would have helped separate the hip joint from the backbone and central section of the animal. Both procedures are often standard in carcass butchery. No knife cuts were noted, which might indicate that meat removal (if it did occur) typically did not progress deeply down to the bone. A skilled 39  It may be noted in this regard that the toponymn Nemea seems to be derived from the ancient word νέμειν, a transitive verb meaning “to graze (one’s animals).” Hence, Nemea is a place of grazing and Nemean Zeus can be characterized as a shepherd’s god. See Guide2, 19. 40  Pottery lot F 19:131. 41  Kadletz, 310. 42  Pottery lot G 19:3.

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

butcher can disarticulate and fully def lesh an animal without leaving any traces on the bone, so this possibility also cannot be discounted. Given the high degree of heat fracturing and cracking on the burnt bones, however, it seems unlikely that all meat was removed from the bones, unless this was initially removed and the bones subsequently wrapped in fat, intestines, or some other tissue, as opposed to being burnt dry and unprotected on the altar.43 How were the animals slaughtered? Available evidence indicates that bloody sacrifices were encouraged.44 The animal’s throat would have probably been slit with the sacrificial knife and the blood poured on the altar. Slitting the carotid artery and jugular vein (both in the neck) is a standard practice in animal slaughter, regardless of whether the animal is destined for sacrifice or consumption. It is important that the animal be bled sufficiently before consumption, since excess blood will taint the meat. Faunal evidence, in the form of cut hyoids and cervical vertebrae, can sometimes be taken as an indication of such slaughtering techniques, but in the Nemean Heroön case, no such examples are recorded, although, to be fair, these elements were practically absent from the sample retrieved. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the sacrificed animals were led to the altar, killed by slitting their throats (some may have been stunned prior with a blow to the head), and bled to douse the altar, before being dismembered and sacrificed.

Gerhard Forstenpointner conducted experiments to this effect, specifically burning bones that had been stripped of flesh and subsequently wrapped in fat and other animal tissue versus those that had retained their meat. The purpose was to test Van Straten’s (128) interpretation of “lumpy pieces” placed on the altar as potentially representing cut-out bones of animals that were bundled in the animal’s omentum. Similar burning effects were noted on the animal bone fragments examined from each process. Consequently, it is difficult to determine which method may have been used solely on the basis of zooarchaeological evidence. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that totally defleshed, dry bones were ever sacrificed in Greek burnt rituals—not that such a method would have been used (the information is not always clear on the basis of ancient sources and iconography exclusively), but at least available zooarchaeological data can rule out this possibility. For further discussion see Forstenpointner, 203–213. 44  Van Straten, 104. 43 

95

DISCUSSION AND COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SITES In reviewing the faunal material from the Heroön at Nemea, sheep or goat appear to have been the chief sacrificial victims, with adult individuals (possibly males) dominating. These animals were likely shorn before sacrifice, killed in the standard ritual manner (i.e. throat cut), and then skinned to extract the hide, which was removed from the Heroön area. These hides appear to have contained the lower parts of the animal’s legs (metapodials and phalanges), as well as the tail and cranium in some cases. These bones were not burnt at the altar during sacrifice but likely detached and discarded during hide processing and tanning, again presumably outside the Heroön. The remaining animal carcasses destined for sacrifice were dismembered and further butchered into segments. Some meat may have been removed from the legs and pelvis region, and in turn these sections, especially the left legs of sheep/ goats were fully burnt on the altar, presumably as an important portion of the animal offered to the hero Opheltes. In some cases, the head may also have been offered and ritually burnt; the occasional holocaust, or full carcass, sacrifice may also have occurred. Nevertheless, it seems that the bulk of the sacrifices to Opheltes were limb sections of sheep/goats. The central portion of the animal, including the ribs and vertebrae, appears not to have been burnt on the altar, or at least was not disposed of with the ashes and charred waste from the sacrificed legs. This central part may have been consumed by the worshippers, or possibly even sold45 or otherwise distributed to the public. Whatever its treatment, the accumulated rib and vertebrae bone waste after consumption was not discarded in the Heroön, or for that matter in pits or contexts just outside of the Heroön, but may lie in midden deposits elsewhere at the site.46 For evidence of commercial activity, perhaps involving sale of sacrificed meat, see above in Chapter 1, pp. 48–49. 46  Zooarchaeological samples from other contexts at Nemea were examined during 2005. Results of those investigations (MacKinnon 2013) reveal some deposition of “missing” ribs and vertebrae among “secular” assemblages (e.g. Dining Room pit, Xenon materials), but apparently not in significant quantities to account for all of these elements. It seems that most of these “missing” parts were deposited in areas at the site not yet excavated, or perhaps were removed off-site. 45 

96

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

Cattle and pigs appear to have been infrequently sacrificed at Nemea, and if so, available evidence suggests that only the skulls were burnt on the altar. Meat from the remaining portions may have been consumed by worshippers, but the resulting bone waste was not discarded within the Heroön. Two levels of comparison can be drawn in assessing ritual patterns in faunal remains from the Heroön at Nemea. First, how do the Heroön zooarchaeological samples compare to other ritual assemblages at Nemea? Second, how does animal sacrifice in the Heroön at Nemea compare to that among other hero cults in Greece? Although investigation continues on faunal deposits collected from previous and current excavations at Nemea, some preliminary results are available. A small sample of bones associated with another important ritual context at Nemea, specifically the Altar of Zeus, was examined in 2005.47 In terms of comparison, first, relatively higher frequencies of calcined bones are recorded from Altar of Zeus contexts than among the Heroön deposits. This suggests that burning was much more complete at the Altar of Zeus. Perhaps fires here were hotter, longer lasting, and attended more diligently to ensure greater and more complete combustion of materials. Second, although lack of NISP data hampers reconstructions in the case of the Altar of Zeus, the presence of a calcined lamb mandible suggests a holókausta sacrifice, or at least the burning of a head or jaw at a minimum. Nevertheless, thysia and/or moirocaust sacrifices—that is, the offering of parts, especially limbs—appear to be more predominant at the Altar of Zeus.48 By contrast, far fewer lamb/kid bones are found in the Heroön deposits, which are dominated by the limb bones of older, mature sheep/goats, presumably from a thysia or moirocaust sacrifice, with less evidence for holókausta sacrifices in the Heroön. Another important distinction is the presence of burnt tail It must be remembered that the larger part of the altar by far had been excavated in the 1920’s and the bones not saved. This necessarily reduces the statistical significance of the material that has been preserved. See Nemea I, 3–31, where there is presented no image of undisturbed layers of sacrificial debris. 48  This is also suggested by a cult table with a double tray-top from near the altar. On it were placed parts of the animals reserved for “the Epidaurian Gods and the God” (i.e. Apollo and Asklepios, and Nemean Zeus): see Miller 2001. 47 

vertebrae from sheep/goats in the Altar of Zeus context. This implies the sacrifice of at least some tails (or at least complete animals with tails still attached). Either scenario, nevertheless, connects with literary, iconographical, and archaeological data indicating the tail as a principal anatomical piece offered to Greek gods during sacrifice. Vertebrae, let alone those from the tail, were all but absent from the Heroön assemblages. Finally, in both the Heroön and Altar of Zeus ritual assemblages, ovicaprids appear as the principal victims, with cattle figuring periodically. As mentioned above, the word Nemea derives from the verb for grazing. While f locks of sheep or goats may initially come to mind in this context, cattle are also grazing animals and could equally fit this association, even if shepherding was more prevalent in antiquity and absolute numbers of sheep and goats far exceed those for herds of cattle in most areas of ancient (and modern) Greece. There is one important difference in species choice between the two ritual contexts at the site, however: the inclusion of pigs in some sacrifices to Opheltes, but only in a relatively minor role it would seem, given their low frequency values by NISP, MNI, and bone weight. The lack of identified pig bones in the Altar of Zeus contexts may further support the “grazing” nature of Nemean Zeus. Assuming that none of the recognized medium-size mammalian long-bone fragments from the Altar of Zeus are from pig, then it appears that Nemean Zeus received exclusively sheep/ goats and cattle in his cult of sacrifice at the site. Although the ancient texts record cases where pigs were sacrificed to Zeus, the vast majority concern sheep and cattle.49 Zooarchaeological data add support to an argument that these two species were key sacrificial victims for Nemean Zeus. How does animal sacrifice at Nemea compare to that among other hero cults in Greece? Unfortunately, few other examples exist. These are summarized in Table 10. Full data concerning taphonomic contexts, animal age, anatomical elements represented, butchKadletz, 307–309, based on ancient written sources, lists the following number of examples in his list of animal references for Zeus: boves: 21; goats: 3; sheep: 24; pigs: 8. While technically the terms boves can encompass both cattle and ovicaprids, in the majority of instances quoted by Kadletz it implies cattle. In any case, pigs only represent about 15% of the cases of sacrifice to Zeus, as extracted from the ancient texts. 49 

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

HERO Herakles

Anios MelikertesPalaimon

Opheltes

TABLE 10 Comparative zooarchaeological data for hero-cult sacrifice in Greek antiquity. SITE DATE NISP SACRIFICE th Thasos 4 c. B.C. 297 ca. 75% sheep/goat, ca. 25% cattle - predominantly burnt materials - all parts of skeleton represented; mix of juveniles and adults Delos Hellenistic 157 89% sheep/goat, 3% cattle, 8% pig st rd 28,300 98% cattle, 2% sheep/goat Isthmia 1 to 3 c. A.D. - burnt - all parts represented; separate deposits for cattle and sheep/goat remains th th 159 85% sheep/goat, 8% cattle, 6% pig Nemea 6 to 4 c. B.C. - burnt - preference for left hind limbs (pelves, tibiae) - near absence of ribs, vertebrae, and distal leg elements

ery, and so forth were not always available for each report, which renders comparisons more difficult. Moreover, the dates of these sites span a considerable period, from the 6th century B.C. until the 3rd century A.D., and it is uncertain how Hellenistic and Roman inf luences affected Archaic-established sacrificial procedures in these hero cults. The Nemean material parallels that from Thasos and Delos in the preference for sheep/ goat, but differs from the Herakles cult at Thasos in its reliance on sacrificing only parts of the animal to the hero, in this case mainly the left hind leg. Herakles is associated with holókausta, or the ritual burning of the whole animal,50 which is supported by the presence of all parts of the sheep/goat skeleton in his charred portion. Holókausta may also have been the norm in the cult of MelikertesPalaimon; however, in this case cattle appear to be the victim of choice. Holókausta do not seem to be part of the Opheltes cult. To what degree this relates to the economic pressures of apparently wasting a full carcass is unknown (albeit much of the meat was probably removed and consumed during a holókausta anyway, as attested by the frequency of knife cuts on the faunal material from the Herakleion at Thasos). The hero Melikertes50 

Van Straten, 158

97

REFERENCE Des Courtils, et al.; Bergquist

Prost Gebhard and Reese

Chapter 2

Palaimon shares similarities with Opheltes in that the death of each as a baby spurred the foundation of athletic games. Each event even used the same type of wreaths at some times and presumably ran similar sporting events.51 In addition, the morphology of the Altar of Poseidon at Isthmia and of Zeus at Nemea is similar, and a lead figurine of a kouros made from the same mold has been found at each of the two sites.52 With many similarities, it may have been felt necessary to maintain a difference in sacrificial rituals between the two cults, so that each could be distinguished readily among worshippers. Consequently, cattle and holókausta seem to be the ritual of choice at Isthmia, while sheep/goat left hind legs formed the hero’s feast portion at Nemea. Ritual dining is connected to hero worship,53 so it is not surprising that only parts of sacrificial animals appear to have been burnt to Opheltes on the altar at Nemea. In fact, in terms of alimentary sacrifice many heroes did not differ markedly from

51  Gebhard and Dickie, 163. For differences between the program of the games at Isthmia and at Nemea, see Miller 2004, 103 and 105. 52  Guide, 178 and 41, respectively. 53  Ekroth 1999a, 146–156.

98

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 11 Comparative zooarchaeological data for animal sacrifices to Olympian deities in the Greek world (including Hellenistic Italy).1 GOD SITE DATE NISP SACRIFICE REFERENCE rd na 90% cattle, 3% s/g, 3% pig, 4% horse Leguilloux Zeus Paestum 3 c. B.C. - chiefly adult cattle; all parts represented th na 65% cattle, 25% s/g, 10% pig Boessneck and Hera Samos 7 c. B.C. Driesch - sheep predominate Poseidon

Tenos Isthmia

Athena

Tegea

Apollo

Kourion

Halieis

Artemis

Ephesos

Olympia

Kalapodi

Apollo/ Artemis

Eretria

Aphrodite

Athens (Agora) Miletos

3rd to 2nd c. B.C.

278

63% cattle, 24% pig, 13% s/g - burnt Iron Age and 9,770 c. 52% cattle, c. 48% s/g Archaic - burnt; predominance of upper hind limb bones Geometric 2,316 68% s/g, 22% cattle, 10% pig - burnt; predominance of upper hind limb elements of younger sheep/goat 97% s/g, 2% cattle, trace pig, donkey Late 8th to 6th 588 c. B.C. and fox - burnt; predominance of hind limb elements: tibiae, astragali, calcanei; right side bias th na 41 goat horn cores (adults), infantile 5 c. B.C. s/g (tibiae, metatarsals, pelves— primarily right side), tibiae of young pigs th th 755 56% s/g, 30% cattle, 10% pig 7 to 4 c. B.C. - goats predominate; wild animals also noted but ritual connection to them is uncertain Late Archaic 856 81% s/g, 15% cattle, 3% pig, 1% other - complete absence of femora and patellae and lack of caudal vertebrae— possible that these elements removed and burnt elsewhere th rd 3,430 57% s/g, 16% cattle, 15% pig, 6 to 3 c. B.C. 7% wild, 5% other - burnt Geometric 316 96% s/g, 2% pig, 1% cattle, 1% other - burnt; predominance of upper hind limb and femora th th approx. 99.7% s/g, 0.3% pig 5 to 4 c. B.C. 3,200 - burnt; vertebrae, femora, ribs, patellae, horn core th th 5,538 90% s/g, 9% cattle, 1% other 7 to 5 c. B.C. - mostly burnt; sheep predominate; chiefly sacra, caudal vertebrae, patellae

Leguilloux Gebhard and Reese

Vila 2000; 2014

Davis 1996

Jameson

Bammer, et al.; Bammer; Forstenpointner Benecke

Stanzel

Studer and ChenalVelarde; Huber and Méniel Foster; Reese 1989; Hägg Peters and Driesch; Peters

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

GOD

Demeter/ Persephone

SITE Tamassos Amathous

DATE Archaic Archaic

NISP 305 1,152

Gravisca

Hellenistic

781

Paestum

5th c. B.C.

Mytilene

First part of 4th c. B.C.

Corinth Knossos

164 147

Syracuse

4th c. B.C. 3rd to 2nd c. B.C. 2nd c. B.C.

Gravisca

Hellenistic

98

Kyrene, Libya

7th c. B.C.

772

SACRIFICE 56% s/g, 19% cattle, 13% pig 80% s/g, 20% cattle

46% s/g, 28% pig, 18% cattle, 8% others 70% birds, 30% s/g - chiefly doves among bird sacrifices >5,000 87% sheep/goat, 13% others bones - predominantly young s/g and pigs

419

99

REFERENCE Nobis Columeau 1996; 2000 Sorrentino Tocco Sciarelli et al.

Reese 1989; Ruscillo 1993; 1996; 2013 56% pig, 29% fish, 7% s/g, 9% others Bookidis et al. 95% pig, 2.5% cattle, 2.5% s/g Jarman 47% pig, 38% s/g, 10% cattle, 5% others - materials derive from bothros deposit 54% pig, 21% s/g, 18% cattle, 6% others 78% pig, 17% s/g, 3% cattle; all ages represented but younger pigs predominate

Villari

Sorrentino Crabtree and Monger

1 Materials derive from various types of deposits within sanctuary and ritual areas associated at site listed, and include burnt altar debris (specifically marked “burnt” in table entries) and unburnt remains presumably associated with sacrificial feasting (all other cases in table).

gods in terms of what animals and what portions of them were offered.54 How does sacrifice in the cult of Opheltes compare with that from divine cults? There is much more evidence across the Mediterranean for the nature of sacrifices to the Greek Olympian gods than to heroes. Again, the time frames span considerable periods, but at least the available pool of data is augmented compared to worship in hero cults. Findings are summarized in Table 11. In some cases the deity is not known. These are listed in Table 12. Certain deities reserve certain animals as sacrificial victims. Thus, cattle (presumably bulls) are sacrificed to Zeus, cows chief ly to Hera, and pigs principally to Demeter and Persephone. Sheep/goats are most plentiful in the cults of Apollo, Artemis, and Aphrodite. Much of this corresponds to a survey of the ancient texts.55 54  55 

Ekroth 1999b; Ekroth 2002. Kadletz, passim.

More important for the comparison to the cult of Opheltes is the distribution of skeletal parts and the chosen side. In those cases where an elemental breakdown was provided, and where there is evidence for burnt thysia sacrifice (as opposed to contexts that include remains of sacrificial debris and remains of meals) the data seem to fall into two categories. First, there are those examples (Athens [Aphrodite Ourania], Miletos, Olympia, and Asea, Agios Elias) where the sacrificed portion burnt on the altar consists of the sacrum, tail, and upper hind limb. This segment corresponds nicely to what Van Straten characterized as the “curly bits” depicted on altars in a number of Greek vase paintings.56 The second, and larger, group consists of segments from the leg, predominantly the hind leg and normally from the pelvis down to the tibia, astragalus, and calcaneum (e.g. Isthmia, Kourion, Haleis, Pylos, Kommos). 56 

Van Straten, 118–144

100

T H E F AU NA L R E MA I N S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

TABLE 12 Comparative zooarchaeological data for animal sacrifices to unknown deities in the Greek world. PLACE SITE DATE NISP SACRIFICE REFERENCE Palace of Pylos Mycenaean 198 - predominantly cattle (burnt) Isaakidou Nestor et al. - chiefly mandibles, humeri, and femora - knife marks (filleted before burning) Temple area Asea, Agios Archaic n/a - burnt fragments of sheep/goat femora, patel- Vila 2000 Elias lae, caudal vertebrae, and sacra - chiefly adults, but some infants or neonates - small portion of cattle (patellae) Kabeirion Thebes Classical to n/a - sheep and goats predominate, ca. 20% cattle Boessneck Roman Sanctuary of Karystos Geometric 1,576 - mix of burnt and unburnt materials Groot Plakari to Archaic - 80% sheep/goat; 11% cattle, 9% pig; but with overrepresentation of femur and tailbone fragments from burnt materials - possible sacrifice to female deity Palace Kommos, 700 B.C. to n/a - sheep (burnt and unburnt—principally hind- Reese complex A.D. 150 quarters), pig (unburnt), cattle (complete) 1984 Crete

Metapodials and phalanges—that is, the end parts of the leg—are infrequently represented in these portions. The Nemean Heroön material corresponds closely to this pattern, and in so doing, may not be atypical of standard sacrificial procedures. What is different about the Nemean material is the preference for hind leg elements from the left side. This contrasts with cases at Kourion and Haleis where right-sided hind legs were chosen (Apollo as the deity in both of these examples). Side preference is not noted among the other cases, and it might not have been a major concern in some cults. It does, however, seem deliberate for Apollo and Opheltes. One suggestion is that if deities were to receive limbs from the right side, heroes had to be distinguished somehow, so why not choose the left side as the standard sacrificial section? Clearly more examples are needed to test this hypothesis fully.57 For a comparison of side choice among various ritual faunal assemblages, see MacKinnon 2010.

There is still much we do not know about hero cult worship in antiquity. Gods may have had specific requests when it came to sacrificial animals, and this in turn may have helped worshippers easily distinguish cults. “Whom are we honoring today? Oh, I see that it’s a pig, so probably Demeter.” Hero cults likely did not have such universal standards, and thus worshippers may have aimed to make these different from the rest, but still within practical limits. Sheep (and goats) were plentiful and relatively inexpensive in Greece, and largely predominated among references in ancient sacrificial calendars;58 thus, choosing them as the necessary victim for Opheltes may not have been an option for the worshippers. Picking the left side of the animal to burn as the hero’s portion was under the worshippers’ control and, based on available zooarchaeological evidence, sets them apart from other sacrificial practices.

57 

58 

Van Straten, 172–186

CHAPTER THREE

The Myth of Opheltes and the Origin of the Nemean Games

Angelo Brelich once observed that in the myths of heroes, the circumstances of their deaths loom large. Death for them rarely results from old age, but rather is a consequence of extraordinary and often violent acts.1 Included among such heroes is the baby Opheltes of Nemea, a helpless child who falls prey to a deadly snake. In fact the substance of his myth is entirely centered on the occasion of his death and his subsequent transformation into a cult hero honored in the Nemean Games. While many of the great scholars of Greek hero cult have made note of the Nemean hero, their consideration has been necessarily very summary in light of the great scope of their work. In his monumental Der Reliquienkult im Altertum, for example, Friedrich Pfister describes the myth of Opheltes as an “alte Lokaltradition von Nemea” and cites the cult as an example of several different phenomena: child hero cult, hero cult within a sanctuary, and hero cult associated with competitions. He offers little more than passing reference to the relevant ancient sources, however.2 Erwin Rohde, in his chapter on heroes in Psyche, brief ly comments on the ancient representation of the great Panhellenic festivals as funeral games

1  2 

for heroes in origin.3 Brelich similarly focuses on the hero’s association with the foundation of the Nemean Games.4 L. R. Farnell, on the other hand, subsumes a short treatment of Opheltes into that of Melikertes-Palaimon, the child hero of Isthmia; he regards them both as heroic figures derived from ancient vegetation gods or daimones, whose myths are but sacred tales that allude to the yearly cycle of vegetation.5 Focused studies of the hero Opheltes have been few: H. Herter’s article on Opheltes in the RealEncyclopädie assembles a more complete list of ancient sources and known representations, with some discussion of the former. In addition, several scholars, beginning with Erika Simon, have treated at some length the various artistic representations of the myth, which we will discuss in the next chapter. Most recently, Corinne Pache has devoted a chapter to the Nemean hero in her study of Greek child hero cults.6 Among her contributions, she elucidates an important psychological dimension Rohde, 117 and n. 22. Brelich, 89, 95–97. 5  Farnell, 41–42. 6  Pache, 95–134. Her careful discussion of both the literary and the artistic testimonia has advanced our understanding in a number of ways, and the present study, as will become apparent, benefits greatly from it. 3  4 

Brelich, 87–88. Pfister, 162 (quote); also 316 n. 1032, 406, 450, 495–496.

101

102

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

in the myth of Opheltes that is shared with other child hero myths: the expression of parental anxiety, fear, and guilt about the endangerment and loss of children. In these preoccupations she observes a striking closeness between the mythic narrative of the child hero and the genre of Greek lullaby.7 Pache also underscores how the awareness of the child’s cult and the Nemean Games permeates the ancient tradition: Opheltes’ death in the mythic “past” explains the ritual “present.”8 It is precisely because of this interconnection between myth and ritual that it is worthwhile now, in the context of a study of his shrine in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea, to undertake a fresh assessment of the ancient testimony about Opheltes. In addition to offering some new insights and interpretations of the individual texts and images, the present study is especially attuned to how those sources may assist in the interpretation of the archaeological remains presented in the previous chapter and, conversely, how the remains may illuminate the ancient sources. A principal consideration is to examine how the myth of the hero is tied to the topography of the Sanctuary of Zeus and the Nemea Valley, as well as to observe the strong aetiological function of the hero’s myth in regard to both the celebration of the Nemean Games and the practice of cult in his shrine. Another interest is to observe the degree of variability in the different accounts of the Opheltes legend. As will become clear, certain aspects are fixed, while others are not. In addition, some details appear only in later sources, which raises the question of their pertinence to the myth from the beginning. Possible explanations for the variability of the myth point in two directions.9 On the one hand, variations may result as each of the accounts responds to its own set of factors external to the myth itself, such as the constraints of genre, authorial aims, cultural context, and intended audience.10 On the other hand, the exPache, 7–8; 96; 107–111. In the particular collocation of children and snakes, Ogden notes the existence of a variety of myths, but as he writes, “If there is a common origin for such myths, or a common meaning or anxiety underlying them, these lie deeply buried”: Ogden, 146–147 (quote at 147). Pache’s analysis seems to offer one way of explaining that commonality. 8  See e.g. Pache, 98–99. 9  Cf. the remarks of Doffey, 192. 10  Bremmer, 43, concludes: “ . . . [W]hereas ritual is relatively fixed over longer periods of time, myth is much more fluid. 7 

istence of variants may point to the lack of consistency within the myth itself. In that case, the distinction between fixed and variable elements provides a method of discerning what constraints may have been imposed on the myth by the cult at Nemea. We are interested to know, to the extent possible, how the ritual and athletic activities at Nemea shaped the myth of Opheltes, and what visitors to the Sanctuary would have understood about the hero worshipped in his shrine. In its broadest outline, the story of Opheltes is the story of a small child who is killed by a snake under ominous circumstances, resulting in his heroization. It begins, without variation, with a visit from the Seven against Thebes, who have just set out from Argos on their way to war. Upon their arrival in the Nemea Valley, they encounter the nurse Hypsipyle, who is charged with carrying the child. They ask her for water, and in her haste to draw water for them from a spring, she sets Opheltes on the ground. It is in this moment of vulnerability that disaster strikes, as a monstrous snake appears and kills the child. Hypsipyle reacts in horror, and the Seven, who cannot react in time to save Opheltes, quickly dispatch the snake. At this point in the narrative we encounter another essential element of the myth: the Argive seer Amphiaraos bestows a new name on the child, Archemoros, patently a compound of the nouns ἀρχή and μόρος meaning the “Beginning of Doom,” because he interprets the child’s death as an omen of their own forthcoming disaster at Thebes. The seer also instructs the Seven to bury the child with due rites and conduct funeral games in his honor, in which the Seven compete as a form of atonement so as to avert the omen. These two activities, the burial and the funeral games, constitute the mythic counterpart to, and the explanation for, the ongoing celebration of cult at his tomb and the biennial celebration of the Nemean Games. The renaming of Opheltes as Archemoros, which comes only after the hero’s death and before his funeral rites, thus constitutes a pivotal point in the story, signaling the transition from myth to cult. From a perspective within the myth, Even if the plot remains relatively unchanged, every new performance can introduce new accents and innovations to a much larger degree than in ritual: narrativity has of course much more possibilities for variety than reality.”

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

it introduces the hero as a recipient of future cult, and conversely from the perpsective of his later cult, its very etymology recalls for worshippers the narrative context of the myth that explains the reason for their activities. Although briefer references to the hero in the ancient sources may call him by either name, because the change of Opheltes’ name to Archemoros so neatly bridges myth and cult, it is an unwavering element in all the more extended ancient narratives.11 Another unvarying element of the myth is its setting within the larger narrative of the expedition of the Seven against Thebes. The association with that tale, itself the subject of Panhellenic epic tradition already by the Archaic period,12 elevates the status of the Nemean myth, in tandem with the organization of the Nemean Games as a Panhellenic festival. It also functions as an aition for Argive involvement in the Nemean sanctuary: the cult of Opheltes is seen as an institution created by Argive heroes.13 It thereby inserts the Nemean festival and the cult of Opheltes into a network of cult sites that express Argive identity. One of these, we know, is a temenos for the Seven that was established in the Agora of Argos; for stone fence posts have been found bearing inscriptions in the Archaic Argive epichoric alphabet that document the existence of their cult in the 6th century B.C.14 Another indication of the importance of the Seven to Argive identity comes from epigraphic evidence, which shows that Argive aristocrats of the Archaic period were named after Adrastos and the other heroes.15 The earliest surviving sources for the story of Opheltes date to the early 5th century B.C., almost Herter, col. 639, regards Opheltes as the original, older name of the hero, while Archemoros is a later poetic invention that is preferred in literature because of its more evocative meaning; Gantz, 512, entertains a similar possibility. This view misses the ritual significance of the new name, however. Moreover the renaming has a close parallel in the myth of Melikertes-Palaimon, the hero of the Isthmian Games. For a comprehensive discussion of the latter hero see Pache, 135–180. 12  Both Homer and Hesiod are already familiar with the tradition of the Theban War: Gantz, 502, 510; Davies and Finglass, 358–359. On the epic poem Thebaid, see below. 13  Doffey, 193; Marchand, 178–179. 14  Pariente, 195–229. Pausanias records several other monuments related to the Seven at Argos: see e.g. 2.19.8, 2.20.4–5, 2.21.2, 2.23.2; on which see Hall, 608–609. 15  Piérart and Touchais, 38–39, cited by Marchand, 178 n. 87. 11 

103

a hundred years, that is to say, after the traditional founding of the Nemean Games in 573 B.C., and about as long after the construction of the Heroön.16 As a result, the origin of the myth itself remains shrouded in darkness. Herter favored the theory that the hero cult derived from a tomb cult practiced for a real person of the Bronze Age, whereas the myth in all its details was a later poetic invention grafted onto the cult, presumably by the time of the foundation of the Nemean Games.17 As documented in Chapter 1, however, the results of excavation below the surface of the Archaic hero shrine argue against a continuous cult extending back into prehistoric times. Instead, we must consider the reverse possibility: that the myth in some form antedates the cult. Most scholars treating the Opheltes myth assert that the story formed an integral part of the epic Thebaid, which would suggest that the myth existed already in the 8th century B.C.18 To support their view they point to the uniformity of the early sources, which to them suggests a unitary composition. As we shall examine below, however, this alleged uniformity is very circumscribed, and in any case, the paucity of early sources seriously undermines the force of this argument. Moreover, the conclusion that any later uniformity in the sources must be indebted to the authority of an early poetic tradition ignores the possibility that the cult at Nemea provided that authority.

For the construction date of the Heroön, see Chapter 1. Herter, col. 638. Shelton, 346, most recently revives the suggestion that the cult is older and that the name Opheltes was only later attached to a hero worshipped here. 18  Herter, col. 636; Maehler 1982, 144; Pülhorn, 473; Fuhrer 1992, 80 n. 299. On the epic poem itself and its date, see now West, 4–9, as well as 42–54 for the testimonia and fragments. Note that West, 7, makes the opposite argument for the relationship between the date of the poem and the Opheltes myth: “If the [Opheltes] episode occurred in the Thebaid, the poem must date from after 573, when the Nemean Games in fact begin.” In that case there still must have been an earlier oral tradition about the Theban War since both Homer and Hesiod know of it. Vermeule, 131, among others, makes this point, but her general argument that the Thebaid tradition, including the Opheltes episode, may have originated in the Bronze Age is highly speculative. An extant fragment of a poem by Stesichoros (fl. late 7th to middle 6th c. B.C.) is clearly based on the Thebaid tradition (F 97 Davies and Finglass), but there is no evidence whether the poem treated the episode at Nemea: Davies and Finglass, 363–367. 16  17 

104

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

If instead the story was not an original part of epic tradition, then perhaps it can be explained as an old local legend later added to it. This model of the Panhellenic epic tradition gradually growing over time with the accretion of various local myths is a long-standing one, and Pfister’s description of the Opheltes myth as “alte Lokaltradition” ref lects it.19 There is an alternative, however, that should be considered, which is that both the myth and the cult arise at the same time in the 6th century B.C. There are plenty of examples of the institution of new cults predicated upon the “rediscovery” of an old, long-forgotten, or otherwise unknown tradition, often sanctioned by an oracle: the discovery of the farmer-hero Echetlos, who appeared for the first time at the Battle of Marathon, for instance. In such cases, the rediscovery is a fiction that lends authority to the new cult. 20 In the case of Opheltes, such a model for the origin of the myth may offer another way of explaining the lack of consistency in many of its details. So let us now turn our attention to the myth as the ancient sources report it.

ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL SOURCES Athenaios preserves what amounts to our earliest known reference to the story (Simonides fr. 48 PMG = T 1). In the course of discussing the adjective γαλαθηνός, he cites two lines, which he says Simonides wrote about the hero Archemoros: ἰοστεφάνου γλυκεῖαν ἐδάκρυσαν ψυχὰν ἀποπνέοντα γαλαθηνὸν τέκος. For the suckling child of violet-crowned . . . they wept, As he breathed out his sweet life.

and the adjective ἰοστεφάνου seems to refer to his mother, who must have been described or even named in the lines preceding. The manner of his death is unclear, as is the identity of the people who weep for him.21 Later accounts, we shall see, disagree as to whether the snake killed Opheltes by strangulation or poisonous bite. In this passage Pache notes that the choice of the verb ἀποπνέοντα may allude to the former; as a parallel, she cites Pindar’s account of the baby Herakles and the two snakes, in which the poet uses the same verb to describe the reverse outcome, the strangling of the snakes by the hero.22 While we must be cautious in our assessment of Simonides’ version of the Nemean myth, we are on firmer ground with the testimony of his nephew, Bakchylides. In his epinician ode for Automedon of Phlious, who won the pentathlon in the Nemean Games sometime in the mid-5th century, we have the first certain reference to the myth of Opheltes in conjunction with the Games’ foundation. The first stanza introduces the myths of Nemea as a prelude to the poet’s praise of the victor (Bakchylides, Ep. 9.1–24 = T 2). Herakles’ struggle with the Nemean lion is the first myth to be mentioned (ll. 6–9), followed by the myth of Opheltes (ll. 10–14): κε[ῖθι φοι]νικάσπιδες ἡμίθεοι πρ[ώτιστ]ον Ἀργείων κριτοὶ ἄθλησαν ‹ἐ›π’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ, τὸν ξανθοδερκής πέφν’ ἀωτεύοντα δράκων ὑπέροπλος, σᾶμα μέλλοντος φόνου.

10

There the crimson-shielded heroes, The chosen men of the Argives, first Competed in honor of Archemoros, whom the yellow-eyed Monstrous snake did slay as he plucked flowers, A marker of slaughter to come.

From this brief excerpt we garner very little information. Archemoros is described as “a suckling child” who is dying while others mourn him,

The stanza concludes by linking those first games with the glory of the present Nemean victor

Marchand, 179, and Shelton, 347, most recently invoke this model for the Opheltes myth, the latter even suggesting that the myth refers back to the Bronze Age and that Opheltes’ parents “should be imagined living on Tsoungiza,” the nearby hill with evidence of prehistoric settlement. 20  Paus. 1.15.3; 1.32.5. Bremmer, 27, writes, “ . . .[H]istory and anthropology have gradually realised that many traditions are often not old but recent inventions. Myth has to look old rather than to be old.”

21  Gantz, 510, assumes that “they” are the Seven, which is plausible but not actually in evidence. 22  Pache, 96, with reference to Pi., N. 1.46–47. Such a parallelism between the two heroic ordeals would not be fortuitous. In her n. 4, Pache comments on how the two myths represent mirror inverses of one another, and we will have occasion to refer to this relationship again, particularly in light of the iconography of Opheltes.

19 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

Automedon, whose success in the pentathlon is praised in the stanza that follows. Herwig Maehler discusses how Bakchylides has shaped the stanza as a triad of Nemean episodes with alternating outcomes: Herakles’ triumph over the Nemean lion stands in contrast to the snake’s killing of Archemoros, which in turn stands in contrast to Automedon’s victory over his own rivals. A series of verbal resonances reinforce this structure; thus, for example, πρ[ώτιστ]ον . . . ἄθλησαν (ll. 11–12) is a deliberate echo of ἀέθλων/ πρῶτον (ll. 8–9), referring to the Nemean lion.23 Despite their varying outcomes, one effect is to create a sense of parity among the three episodes; all three, after all, give the poet cause to praise “Nemean Zeus’ well-nurtured ground” (ll. 4–6). Nevertheless, the latter two events are set apart from the first in that they are causally related; it is not Herakles’ first labor but rather the funeral games for Archemoros that establish the festival in which Automedon has achieved his victory. This distinction is an important one, and we will return to it later in the chapter when considering the rival tradition attributing the foundation of the Games to Herakles. In addition to tracing the Nemean Games back to the death of Opheltes, the ode firmly sets the episode in the context of the expedition of the Seven against Thebes. Bakchylides calls these heroes the Ἀργείων κριτοί (l. 11), placing emphasis on the Argive origin of the first celebrants, and he clarifies their identity with subsequent references to Amphiaraos (l. 16), Adrastos (l. 19), and Polyneikes (l. 20). Another element that appears in the ode is the bridge between the dead child and his subsequent cult. Above all this emerges from Bakchylides’ treatment of the hero’s name, Archemoros. In fact, Bakchylides makes no mention of the child’s original name, Opheltes. This accords with the logic of the distinction between the two names: since Bakchylides only refers to the hero after his death, as the recipient of funeral honors, he calls him by his new cult name. Moreover, the poet describes him as a σᾶμα μέλλοντος φόνου (l. 14). His phrase is well chosen, for on one level it encapsulates a narrative element that finds fuller expression in other sources, namely that Amphiaraos reads Opheltes’ death as a sign of the disaster that awaits 23 

Maehler 1982, 147; Pache, 97.

105

them at Thebes, and for this reason he calls for his burial and funeral games in his honor. Moreover, Bakchylides also alludes to the act of renaming Opheltes, for like Amphiaraos, he crafts a poetic periphrasis with a similar signifcation to the hero’s new name: “A marker of slaughter to come.”24 The ode also establishes the foundation of the Nemean Games as funeral games for the dead hero, signaled by the phrase ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ.25 This special use of ἐπί with the dative in the context of funeral honors finds parallel not only in epic (e.g. Il. 23.274; Od. 24.91), but also in funerary epigrams, as well as on a series of Archaic and Early Classical bronze vessels, found in graves and sanctuaries, that have accordingly been interpreted as actual prizes in historical funeral games.26 Its use in this passage heralds only the beginning of a number of instances in the ancient sources. Finally, the word σᾶμα itself points to another dimension of the cult of Archemoros, for the word can also mean “grave mound.”27 As excavation has shown, this is precisely the form that the Heroön of Opheltes took at Nemea. As has long been observed, a hero’s grave is one of the principal sites of hero cult; it is the place where the hero physically resides, and where he is especially efficacious.28 By using this word, therefore, Bakchylides makes a secondary reference to Archemoros’ actual cult place at Nemea.29 Bakchylides is also the first preserved source to specify that a snake killed the baby hero, though he does not indicate the precise means. What Archemoros was doing when the snake killed him also remains a crux: the participle ἀωτεύοντα (l. 13) is an emendation of R. A. Neil’s for a meaningless series of letters in the text. While the emendation Maehler 1982, 153; Pache, 98. Nagy 1990, 120–121; Pache, 98. 26  Roller 1981a, 2–3; cf. also inscribed prizes from the agon epitaphios in Athens: Roller 1981a, 8. 27  Pache, 98; cf. Nagy 1990, 209–210. For examples of its use as a term for the grave mound and its connection to hero cult, see Pfister, 402. 28  Rohde, 121. 29  The use of the word ἡμίθεοι to describe the Seven may also serve as a bridge between the worlds of myth and cult. If Nagy is right, the term denotes recipients of hero cult: Pache, 98, citing Nagy 1979, 159–161. His view is not universally accepted, however, and there is a long tradition of scholars who argue instead that the term simply designates the heroes of epic: e.g. Rohde, 141 n. 23; Maehler 1982, 152. See also Bravo 2009, 14–15. 24  25 

106

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

has gained universal acceptance, its exact meaning has been a subject of debate. Some scholars, taking their cue from a gloss in Hesychios, understand the verb to mean “pluck f lowers,” while others associate it with the verb ἀωτέω, which means “sleep.”30 Both details find parallels in later accounts of the myth, and either meaning would suggest the child’s vulnerable state at the time of the attack. Pache makes the important observation that, whichever meaning is correct, both picking f lowers and sleeping are images that are firmly rooted in childhood and danger.31 Bakchylides’ account, while limited to a few lines, reveals several of the core elements of the Opheltes legend: the hero’s fatal encounter with the snake, the aetiological connection of his death to the Nemean Games, the association with the Seven, his burial in a grave mound, and the transformation of the hero into a figure of cult. We might have expected Bakchylides’ rival composer of epinician, Pindar, to address the myth in some detail in his surviving Nemean odes, but alas we find instead only two passing allusions. Instead of referring directly to Opheltes, the poet only refers to the myth’s broader context of the Seven against Thebes. For instance, in his ode for Theaios of Argos, a victor in wrestling, he praises the athlete’s career of victories, which included three each at Isthmia and Nemea (N. 10.27–28 = T 6): τρὶς μὲν ἐν πόντοιο πύλαισι λαχών, τρὶς δὲ καὶ σεμνοῖς δαπέδοις ἐν Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ. Thrice having the winning lot at the sea’s gates, And thrice in the holy plains in what Adrastos ordained.

The reference to the Nemean festival as an institution of Adrastos suggests that Pindar is thinking of the role of the Seven in the founding of the Games, and this is how the scholiast explains the passage (Schol. Pi. N. 10.49b = T 32), who further comments that the reference to the Argive hero Adrastos is also meant to f latter the victor’s home state.32 See Cairns for a review of earlier views and discussion of the relevant evidence. His conclusion, 72–73, is that Bakchylides more likely means gathering flowers. Note that plucking flowers features also in the accounts of Euripides and Statius, discussed below (see T 11 and T 45). 31  Pache, 99; see also Cairns, 59. 32  Doffey, 191, also notes in Pindar’s diction an allusion to the 30 

So too at the conclusion of his ode celebrating the victory of Deinias of Aigina in the diaulos race at Nemea, Pindar strongly affirms (N. 8.50–51 = T 5): . . . ἦν γε μὰν ἐπικώμιος ὕμνος / δὴ πάλαι καὶ πρὶν γενέσθαι τὰν Ἀδράστου τάν τε Καδμείων ἔριν, “ . . . there was, to be sure, song of praise

/ Even long before there came to pass the quarrel of Adrastos and the Kadmeians.” Once more the poet alludes to the foundation of the games, placing it in the context of the expedition of the Seven, and once more the scholiast offers confirmation of Pindar’s meaning (Schol. Pi. N. 8.85 = T 31). Another version of the story may have once appeared in the work of Antimachos of Kolophon, a near contemporary of Plato who wrote his own epic Thebaid based on the older epic poem. Unfortunately his work survives only in fragments excerpted by other authors. A few of these pertain to the divine horse of Adrastos, Arion, and one fragment in particular describes Adrastos in the lead, driving his chariot drawn by Arion and another horse named Kairos. Scholars have assigned these fragments to an account of the chariot race in the funeral games of Opheltes.33 If correct, this would imply that Antimachos probably treated the entire myth of the child hero in some fashion, but we have no other information.

OPHELTES IN CLASSICAL DRAMA The fullest surviving account of the myth of the baby Opheltes from the Classical period is Euripides’ play Hypsipyle, but even this is fragmentary, most of the text having been found on papyrus fragments from Oxyrrhynchos. With the addition of a handful of supplementary lines preserved by other ancient sources, an estimated one quarter of an original play of over 1700 lines has been reconstituted.34 Lines of the play are parorole of an oikistes establishing order in a new colony. 33  Vessey 1970, 138; Matthews. 34  Boulotis, 646. The principal papyrus is P.Oxy. 852, and the authoritative edition of the fragments and commentary by Bond is now superseded by Kannicht’s edition in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (TrGF V) and by Cropp’s 2004 edition with translation and commentary, both of which incorporate the reordering and other corrections arising from Cockle’s restudy of the papyri. Citations of the text here refer to the edition in TrGF V. In 1997 T. Rhoussos published a mostly plausible, though certainly conjectural, reconstruction of the

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

died in Aristophanes’ Frogs of 405 B.C., and based on this and the comments of a scholiast, scholars assign it a production date in the years 411–407 B.C.35 Euripides sets his play at Nemea, which he conceives as a relatively uninhabited region sacred to Zeus, a less developed version of the Sanctuary of his own day. The natural setting dominates: the landscape consists of meadow (λειμών: F 752h.21 = T 10; see also F 752f.29) and grove (ἄλσος: F 752h.10, 14 = T 9; F 757.940 = T 15), scenery easily drawn from the actual landscape of the Nemea Valley.36 The play is the earliest attestation of several other figures in the Opheltes legend, most prominently Hypsipyle, the former queen of Lemnos, who comes to be a slave in Nemea.37 There she serves as nurse in the household of Opheltes’ father, Lykourgos. Details about him emerge from an exchange between Hypsipyle and Amphiaraos in an early scene (F 752h.24–28 = T 10): (Amph.) τίνος τάδ’ ἀνδρῶν μηλοβοσκὰ δώματ[α Φλειουντίας γῆς, ὦ ξένη, νομίζεται; 25 (Hyps.) [ὄ]λβια Λυκούργου μέλαθρα κλῄζεται τά[δε [ὃ]ς ἐξ ἁπάσ̣ης αἱρεθεὶς Ἀσωπίας κλῃδοῦχός ἐστι τοὐπιχωρίου Διός. (Amph.) To which man of the land of Phlious is this house With flocks of sheep reckoned to belong, O Stranger?

whole play based on the surviving fragments; his version was even performed at Epidauros as part of the summer festival of 2002. 35  Bond, 144; Cropp 2004, 183. Technical aspects such as the metrical structure of the parodos (TrGF V 71 F 752f) also put the play in the last decade of Euripides’ career: Bond, 61–62; see also Cockle, 41, on the resolution of the trimeters. 36  Another fragment, F 754 = T 11, quoted by Plutarch, is preceded by another reference to a meadow, but while earlier scholars took it as part of the quotation, editors now exclude it: Cropp 2004, 241. At Nemea itself there is clear evidence for an artificial grove of cypress trees planted around the Temple of Zeus from the 5th century on, which Pausanias (2.15 = T 61) reports several centuries later: Nemea I, 89–96. This too may have inspired Euripides’ description. Other ancient sources refer to Nemea as a grove as well, e.g. Pi. N. 2.4–5: Νεμεαίου / ἐν πολυϋμνήτῳ Διὸς ἄλσει. 37  Homer mentions Hypsipyle, but he and other authors before Euripides do not connect her with Nemea. See further discussion below.

107

(Hyps.) The prosperous halls of Lykourgos are these called, Who by selection from all Asopia Is priest of the local Zeus.

Lykourgos is a κλῃδοῦχος of Zeus, that is to say, a priest who holds the key to his temple. Although in later accounts he is reckoned a king (e.g. Hyginus, discussed below), there is no evidence that Euripides represents him as such, although modern scholars discussing this play often call him one.38 Moreover, he is said to come from Ἀσωπία, i.e. the territory of Phlious and Sikyon around the river Asopos in the valley to the west of Nemea.39 At the beginning of the play, Lykourgos is absent, leaving his wife, Eurydike, to manage the house.40 She assumes a prominent role in the Rhoussos, 15; Cockle, 39, 141 (priest-king); Trendall and Webster, 91; Doffey, 190. Cf. schol. ad Lyc. 373 (T 91), which identifies him only as priest of Nemean Zeus. So too Cropp 2004, 171. Rhoussos, 20, 45, compounds the error of calling Lykourgos’ house a palace by taking it as having the painted façade described in F 764, when actually the passage refers to the Temple of Zeus. Euripides may in fact have been influenced by the actual appearance of the Temple; evidence for a painted façade has been recovered through excavation: see Hesperia 2015, 301–302. As Andrew Stewart points out (pers. comm.), the term μέλαθρα in l. 26 does imply a house of some size, so that Lykourgos may be of noble rank. 39  On the association of Nemea with Phlious and the Asopos valley in literature, see Bond, 81. This should not be taken to indicate that the Nemea Valley belonged politically to Phlious; the association is rather one of geographical proximity. See also Marchand, 167–171. For evidence of an economic relationship between Nemea and Phlious, see Nemea III, 27 and n. 82. Cropp 2004, 236, writes, “Both Phlius and Cleonae . . . had an interest in the governance of the sanctuary,” but while there is good evidence for the latter’s interest, there is no evidence for the former having it. 40  Certainly Lykourgos does not appear anywhere in the surviving fragments. His absence seems to be the subject of a brief exchange between Hypsipyle and her as yet unrecognized sons at the play’s beginning: F 752e, on which see Bond, 11–12, and Cropp 2004, 229. F 752d.2–3 (T 7) may also allude to his absence, depending on the suggested restoration of the text; see Cropp 2004, 228. A fragmentary hypothesis of the play survives in P.Oxy. 2455 fr. 14 (full text at Bond, 21; TrGF V 71 T iiia; Cropp 2004, 184–185, with commentary at 226), and it too suggests his absence; Hypsipyle’s sons are described as κατα- | λύσαντες παρὰ τῇ τοῦ Λυκούργου γυναικί, “lodging at the house of the wife of Lykourgos” (ll. 22–23). Cockle, 141, argues that Euripides did have him return to confront Hypsipyle at the play’s end, and Rhoussos, 153–155, 174, includes such a scene in his restoration; but there is no internal evidence for his role and Cropp 2004, 174, rejects it. 38 

108

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

drama, along with her son Opheltes, Hypsipyle, and two sets of visitors to Nemea: Hypsipyle’s twin sons by Jason, Euneos and Thoas, who have been separated from their mother since infancy and have come in search of her; and Amphiaraos, one of the Seven heroes from Argos, who stop at Nemea while on their march to Thebes.41 It is a need for water that brings the Seven into the valley; Amphiaraos explains to Hypsipyle that he is seeking a supply of fresh water to make a proper libation since they have reached the limits of Argos and are crossing into foreign territory (F 752h.29–30, 35–36 = T 10). As Bond argues, a real ritual practice underlies Amphiaraos’ request; known as a diabaterion, it is an offering usually made before crossing a border.42 Hypsipyle agrees to guide the Seven to a source of fresh water and in so doing unwittingly occasions the baby Opheltes’ demise. The details appear at two particularly fragmentary points in the play. In the first, someone, probably Hypsipyle herself, delivers an account of the disaster, which surely takes place off stage.43 In Euripides’ version, Hypsipyle must take the child with her to the spring, for the speaker mentions a frightening snake that dwells near it, which is where the attack must take place (F 754a = T 12). A description of the moment immediately before the snake strikes appears in another fragment (F 754 = T 11), which recounts the baby Opheltes playing with f lowers:44 On the assignment of roles in the play see Cropp 2004, 182–183. Opheltes was probably represented by a dummy or doll, as was done in the performance of Rhoussos’ reconstructed play at Epidauros in 2002. A wall painting from Pompeii that may illustrate a performance of this play shows an actor dressed as Hypsipyle holding a small doll the length of his forearm (Fig. 138, discussed in Chapter 4). 42  Bond, 82, with references; see also Cropp 2004, 237. 43  For discussion of the problem of the speaker, see Bond, 97–99, and Cropp 2004, 172, 240, who rejects the possibility of assigning the lines to a messenger. 44  The lines are preserved with slight variations in two vexed passages of Plutarch’s Moralia (93c and 661e). Plutarch does not identify the source of the lines, but he does mention Hypsipyle, making it certain that the lines describe Opheltes. Nauck attributes them to Euripides’ Hypsipyle and all editors accept this. Pache, 101, comments on “the contrast between the inherently peaceful scene of the small child playing with grass and flowers and the sudden attack of the serpent” and, adducing Persephone’s abduction as a parallel, notes how the idyllic setting in literature often foreshadows imminent disaster, especially for the young. 41 

(Hyps.?) ἕτερον ἐφ’ ἑτέρῳ αἰρόμενος ἄγρευμ’ ἀνθέων ἡδομένᾳ ψυχᾷ τὸ νήπιον ἄπληστον ἔχων (Hyps.?) Taking one after another, A cluster of flowers, while with delighted soul He behaved like an insatiable infant.

Later in the play, Amphiaraos gives his own account of what happened. Once again the lines are incompletely preserved, but he seems to mention the darting motion of the snake as it coils around the helpless child (F 757.902–905 = T 14). It is also clear that he and his companions witness the attack. Without question they are unable to save the child, but it is probable that they kill the snake in some manner, as we find depicted elsewhere in literature and art.45 The fragment describing Opheltes plucking flowers represents him as an infant. In fact throughout the play one finds examples of what Pache terms the “vocabulary of childhood.”46 For example, Hypsipyle describes soothing him with toys (F 752d.2–3 = T 7) and singing him to sleep (F 752f.11–14 = T 8). In the latter passage she calls him a παὶς νεαρός, a “young child,” and in her hour of greatest distress, defending herself against Eurydike’s wrath, she pleads her affection for her young charge (F 757.838–843 = T 13): (Hyps.) σιγᾷς, ἀμείβῃ δ’ οὐδέν; ὦ ⌊τάλαιν’ ἐγ⌋[ώ. ὡς τοῦ θανεῖν μὲν οὕνεκ’ ⌊οὐ μέγα σ̣τ̣⌋[έν]ω, εἰ δὲ κτανεῖν τὸ ⌈τέκν⌉ον ⌈οὐκ⌉ ὀρθ̣ῶ̣ς δοκῶ, 840 τοὐμὸν τιθήνημ’, ὃν ἐπ’ ἐμαῖσιν ἀγκάλαις

Recall that the text of Bakchylides, if correctly restored, may also describe Opheltes plucking flowers (T 2, discussed above), and Statius also alludes to the activity (see below on T 45). Stephen Miller (pers. comm.) wonders whether the flowers might be imagined as belonging to the wild celery plant. If so, then we have an early allusion to a connection between the myth and the wild celery crown of the Nemean Games (see the discussion later in the chapter and cf. Fig. 125). There is no proof, however, that the authors have this specific plant in mind, and as Pache shows, the motif appears in other ancient myths as well. 45  Line 108 gives us ἐγὼ δ’ ἐτόξευσ̣[’, which could indicate that Amphiaraos himself shot the snake (so Cropp 2004, 247– 248), but the phrase can also be construed in a metaphorical sense, to describe the seer issuing his prophetic utterance, which indeed seems to be the subject of the subsequent lines: see Séchan, 350 n. 12; Bond, 114. 46  Pache, 100–102 (quote at 100).

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

πλὴν οὐ τεκοῦσα τἄλλα γ’ ὡς ἐμὸν τέκνον στέργουσ’ ἔφερβον, ὠφέλημ’ ἐμοὶ μέγα. (Hyps.) You keep silent, make no reply? O wretched am I! Not for being put to death do I so greatly lament, But rather if I am wrongly thought to have killed the child, My nursling, whom in my arms, I, though not his birth mother, still in all else loved like my own child: I fostered him—O, felt so much joy from him!47

Like the γαλαθηνὸν τέκος of Simonides, then, Euripides’ Opheltes is certainly a baby.48 The death of Opheltes throws Hypsipyle into panic and enrages his mother, Eurydike. Her maternal grief goads her to demand that Hypsipyle forfeit her own life, to which the nurse replies with her speech of defense. Her arguments fail, and as a last resort she calls on Amphiaraos to speak for her. From his speech comes the account of Opheltes’ death described earlier; he continues by explaining the ominous significance of the disaster (F 757.908–919 = T 14) and foretelling the future honors that will be accorded the child (F 757.931–940 = T 15). Again the lines are incomplete, but it is clear that he bestows upon the deceased his new name, Archemoros (l. 909), and at the same time explains its etymology as a reference to the ominous significance his death has for them, the Seven (ll. 908, 911–919). He asks Eurydike to allow them to bury the child (θάψαι δὸς ἡμ[ῖν, l. 929) and describes holding a contest for him (ἀγῶνά τ’ αὐτῷ, l. 934). The contest to which he refers seems to be not just the immediate funeral games to be held for Archemoros, described in the play itself, but the ongoing celebration that will be the Nemean Games; this seems to be the import of ἀλ λ̣ ̣’ ε ̣ἰ ̣ς τὸν αἰε[ὶ (l. 931), and it explains the series of future verbs preserved in the text (ll. 933, 936, 938).49 There is even a reference to crowns (στεφάνους, l. 935), but it is unknown

The literal translation of ὠφέλημ’ ἐμοὶ μέγα is “a great boon to me”; but as Bond, 105, notes, Euripides seems to be playing with the name Opheltes, and I have tried to preserve that in my translation. 48  In addition, the play’s fragmentary hypothesis (above, n. 40) describes him more generally as παίς and τέκνον. 49  Pache, 102–103. 47 

109

whether Euripides here specifies the wild celery crowns of the actual Games.50 The remainder of the play deals with the performance of the rites for Opheltes, including the funeral games in which the sons of Hypsipyle compete. While barely any of the text from this part of the play survives, the play’s hypothesis attests to their participation, and as a consequence, the sons become reunited with their mother.51 Hypsipyle’s fortune thus swings around from impending execution to freedom from her servitude. The play concludes with an epilogue spoken by Dionysos; none of his lines survive, but his name is clearly preserved in the margin of the last preserved column of the papyrus. A critical question for our understanding of the Opheltes myth concerns the role of Hypsipyle. Simply put, does Euripides invent Hypsipyle’s presence at Nemea, weaving together two different strands of myth, one Lemnian, one ArgiveTheban? To be sure, she was already known to Homer, but strictly on Lemnos, as Jason’s lover and mother of Euneos (Il. 7.468–469; 21.41; 23.747).52 Some scholars have deduced from the silence of the earlier sources that Euripides invented the association.53 Arguments from silence are precariRhoussos, 133 and 172, conjectures a reference to wild celery later in the text. The aetiology of the wild celery crown at Nemea will be taken up later in the chapter. 51  See Cropp 2004, 173–175, for a careful consideration of what happens in the second half of the play. The exact mechanism of the recognition scene is unknown, but reasonable scenarios can be deduced from two later accounts of their reunion: Anth. Pal. 3.10 (T 65), which describes one of the 18 stylopinakia in the temple of Queen Apollonis at Kyzikos, has Euneos and Thoas show Hypsipyle a golden vine, a family token signifying their descent from Dionysos. (As Boulotis, 650, notes, the themes chosen for the stylopinakia provided mythic exempla of the kind of affection that Kings Eumenes II and Attalos II felt for their own mother). A late scholion (Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.740–741 = Myth. Vat. 2.141 = T 78) offers an alternative: Hypsipyle’s sons win the stadion race in the funeral games (so also in Hyg., F. 273 = T 40) and their mother recognizes them when their names are called out by the herald. Cropp 2004, 175, suggests that the golden vine was a corroborating token after the initial recgonition brought about by the herald’s proclamation. 52  She also has dealings with the war-weary Greeks at Troy. These passages, among others, imply that some epic version of the journey of the Argonauts was already known to Homer: Boulotis, 646. 53  Maehler 1982, 144, cites the early opinions of C. Robert and Wilamowitz; later scholars who follow suit are Bond, v; Rhoussos, 15; Doffey, 192; Cropp 2003, 132–135. 50 

110

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

ous, however, and other scholars have maintained instead that Hypsipyle could have been a part of the Nemean myth already in the epic tradition of the Thebaid.54 There is a third possibility as well, that a nurse or mother figure was indeed part of the myth in earlier times, but that Euripides first assimilated her to Hypsipyle.55 Iconographic evidence has some bearing on the question; so we shall leave it for now and return to it in the next chapter. Produced in the final years of the 5th century B.C., Euripides’ Hypsipyle is roughly contemporary with the violent disruption of the Sanctuary of Zeus, after which the Games were moved to Argos and the Sanctuary, including the Heroön, fell into disuse.56 Perhaps it was the violence at Nemea that persuaded Euripides to write the play.57 Even if that was not a factor, a more general political motivation can be found in the strong alliance between the democratic poleis Argos and Athens, with Euripides portraying the Seven Argive heroes, particularly Amphiaraos, in a positive light. Deepening the bond between the two cities is the presence of Euneos as a character, for he later becomes the founding hero of the Euneidai, an Athenian genos, who among other responsibilities supply the priest of Dionysos Melpomenos.58

Hence the play unites on stage Argive heroes and a future Athenian one as well.59 At least one other playwright treated the hero Opheltes, but precious little information survives. Aischylos must have written about him in a play since we learn from the Pindaric scholia that he too regarded the origin of the Nemean Games as the funeral games for Archemoros. Unlike Euripides, however, he reckoned the hero to be the son of Nemea (Schol. Pi. N. hyp. (c) = T 28): ἄλλοι δὲ, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Αἰσχύλος, ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τῷ Νεμέας παιδί [sc. τὰ Νέμεά φασιν ἄγεσθαι].60 A logical place, but by no means certain, for Aischylos to have treated the child’s story is in his play Nemea, of which only the title survives in a list of his works, but it is not even clear what the proper accentuation of the title is, whether it takes its name from the place or the eponymous nymph (Νεμέα) or else from the Nemean Games (Νέμεα).61 Needless to say there is no direct evidence for the subject matter of that play, but some have conjectured that it treated the story of Opheltes along the same lines as Euripides’ Hypsipyle.62 Aischylos also wrote a Lemniai and a Hypsipyle. In the latter play, according to some scholia to Apollonios of Rhodes, Aischylos includes details of the encounter between the Argonauts

This is the opinion of Maehler 1982 himself (see previous note); also Séchan, 341; Simon, 36; Pülhorn, 474; Boulotis, 646. 55  Herter, col. 638; Simon, 33; Gantz, 511. Related to this is the purely speculative idea that Hypsipyle was in origin a local Nemean deity whom Euripides, or someone before him, equated with the Lemnian Hypsipyle: Cropp 2003, 135, 140; Cropp 2004, 177, n. 12. 56  See discussion in Chapter 1. 57  So Cockle, 41; Cropp 2003, 141. Like many scholars, Cockle further associates the violence with Argive usurpation of the Sanctuary from Kleonai, and thus sees Euripides as aiming to legitimize the act (since Argos was an ally of Athens) by celebrating the role of Argive heroes in the founding myth of the Games. If, however, Marchand is right that Argos and Kleonai were allies from the time of the Games’ foundation, and that Kleonai in some capacity always aided Argos in the administration of the Sanctuary (above, Chapter 1, n. 158), then some other explanation of the violence—and Euripides’ intent—must be sought. As Stephen Miller notes (pers. comm.), Euripides could have in mind simply justifying the relocation of the Games to Argos, without regard to the violence in the Sanctuary. 58  For discussion of the Euneidai at Athens, see Séchan, 352; Bond, 20; Cropp 2004, 178. Because of this Athenian connection between the Euneidai and Dionysos, these scholars agree with Wilamowitz that the sending of Euneos to Athens

probably constituted part of the god’s lost epilogue, and Rhoussos, 159, restores it so. Note also that at fr. 64.101 Bond, Euneos says that Orpheus trained him in the kithara, another allusion to the Euneidai, who were renowned kitharodes. 59  Doffey, 192. See also Cropp 2003, 137–139, 141–142; and Cropp 2004, 178–179, who detects other possible political motivations in the play, such as bolstering Athens’ claims to hold sway over Lemnos and the contested territory around Oropos, home of the Sanctuary of Amphiaraos. 60  The nymph Nemea, by one tradition, is one of the several daughters of the river Asopos, located in the valley of Phlious to the west of Nemea: Maehler 1982, 145–146; cf. T 35 (Euphorion) and T 61 (Pausanias). The Pindaric scholia, however, record another tradition that makes her the daughter of Zeus and Selene, and they also offer alternate explanations of the place name Nemea, derived either from the Argive cattle that grazed there (τῶν βοῶν τῶν . . . νεμομένων), or from the sons of Danaos who parceled out the land (κατενείμαντο). See further Fuhrer 1992, 64. 61  TrGF III, 261–262. Cropp 2003, 135, with n. 40, thinks it most likely that the name refers to the nymph. 62  Nemea is also attested as the title of at least one comedy, and the Latin poet Ennius penned a tragedy of that name, of which a few phrases are extant. Whether either of these treated the Opheltes myth along the lines of either Aischylos or Euripides is anyone’s guess: TrGF III, 262; Séchan, 342 n. 5; Bond, 95; Cropp 2004, 183.

54 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

and the women of Lemnos. From this information alone, some scholars have maintained that the play treated only the story of Hypsipyle on Lemnos and not her subsequent role in the death of Opheltes at Nemea.63 The details of Euripides’ Hypsipyle should counsel caution, however; for although that play unfolds at Nemea, there are scattered throughout it indisputable references to earlier events on Lemnos. The same may be the case in Aischylos’ play of the same name. Of the Lemniai, we have only a single word preserved for us in a late philological treatise. Some scholars have argued that this play, the Hypsipyle, and the Nemea formed a trilogy organized chronologically around Hypsipyle’s life, and accordingly surmise that the subject of the Lemniai was the earlier episode of the Lemnian women’s neglect of Aphrodite and their drastic slaughter of the men of Lemnos, before the arrival of the Argonauts.64 All of these arguments about Aischylos’ plays are highly speculative, however.

111

ἀγών is ὁ ἐν Νεμέᾳ, ὃν ἔθηκαν οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας ἐπὶ Ἀρχεμόρῳ. Once more the Nemean Games are

Beginning in the 4th century B.C., a number of ancient sources offer more scholarly commentary on the myth of Opheltes and the origin of the Nemean Games. We may start with a fragment of Aristotle (fr. 637 Rose = T 16), which preserves a chronological list of the foundations of several athletic contests, beginning with the Eleusinia. Sixth and seventh in the list are the Isthmian Games and the Olympics, respectively, and the eighth

described as funeral games for Archemoros (as the use of ἐπί with the dative signals) and associated with the Seven against Thebes. The foundation of the Nemean Games also figures in the chronology of the Parian Marble (FGrH 239 A.22 = T 17), a document dated to 264/263 B.C. The text is highly lacunose, but it appears to date the expedition of the Seven against Thebes, along with the foundation of the Nemean contest, to the reign of Theseus at Athens, in what corresponds to the year 1251/1250 B.C. While the reference to the Argives with Adrastos is fairly secure, as is the reference to a contest, the campaign against Thebes and the reference to Nemea are far less so. The mention of Archemoros, though plausible, is of course conjectural, falling entirely within a lacuna. That the “contest” mentioned in the text refers to the athletic festival is supported by the chronicle’s evident interest in the foundation of festivals, having a separate entry for the Isthmian Games and the Panathenaia, and another for the Pythian Games; the foundation of the Olympics seems to have been omitted, however.65 More certain references to the myth of Opheltes come a few decades later, in the work of Kallimachos. Sometime in the 240’s B.C., Queen Berenike II, the wife of Ptolemy III Euergetes, won a victory in the chariot race at the Nemean Games; in celebration of her achievement Kallimachos wrote an epinician ode, perhaps performed independently, which he later placed at the beginning of the third book of his Aitia. Once again we are largely dependent on papyrus finds for the fragments of the poem that survive.66 Also

TrGF III, 352; Séchan, 342; Rhoussos, 11. TrGF III, 233; Séchan 342; cf. Cropp 2004, 177–178. The association of the three plays presumes of course that Hypsipyle was associated with Nemea before Euripides. Pache, 99, mentions the hypothesis of the Italian scholar Q. Punzi, that Aischylos followed a purely Lemnian version of the myth, in which Hypsipyle and her sons are reunited at Nemea in the context of the death of Opheltes, but in which the Seven do not figure at all; see also Séchan, 341 n. 4. Herter, col. 638, rejects the hypothesis outright, and rightly so: the association with the Seven is one of the most consistent elements of the myth; the Argive association with the Sanctuary of Zeus provides a reasonable pretext for this element, whereas a purely Lemnian version lacks one; finally, a Lemnian version would leave unexplained the name Archemoros—the Beginning of Doom for whom?

See Jakoby’s commentary at FGrH 239. On the composition and structure of the whole of the Aitia, see now the commentary of Harder, esp. I, 1–23. On the identification of the Victoria Berenices and its placement in the Aitia, see Parsons, 44–50; Harder, II, 391–392. See Kampakoglou, 134–139, for speculation about the possible context in which the victory ode could have been performed. The evidence for the dating of Berenike’s victory and the poem itself is piecemeal. Berenike II married Ptolemy III Euergetes shortly before his ascent to the throne in 246 B.C. In the poem she is addressed as a bride, though Kallimachos may have been using this term loosely and not necessarily as an indication that the marriage just took place. Kallimachos died sometime just after 240 B.C. The poem therefore must have been composed and incorporated into the Aitia in the second half of the 240’s and likely celebrates a victory in a

ANCIENT SCHOLARSHIP ON OPHELTES AND THE NEMEAN GAMES

63  64 

65  66 

112

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

found on papyrus is an interesting supplement to the poem. Several fragments in Lille come from a copy of the poem written at the end of the 3rd century B.C.—not long, that is, after Kallimachos wrote it—to which the copyist has added commentary interspersed among the poem’s lines.67 In the opening lines of the ode, Kallimachos describes how a golden word has come to Egypt, “that alongside the grave mound of the son of Euphetes, Opheltes,” Εὐφητηϊάδ[αο παρ’] ἠρίον οὕ[νεκ’] Ὀφέλτου (fr. 54.7 Harder = T 18), Berenike’s chariot has outstripped all others. In these few words there is much of interest. First, Kallimachos refers not to the myth of Opheltes itself, but to the physical manifestation of his cult, the grave mound. In describing Berenike’s horses as rushing past the hero’s grave, Kallimachos appears to confirm evidence recovered from excavation at the Sanctuary itself, namely that the Hippodrome was located in close proximity to the Heroön and embankment.68 A close parallel to Kallimachos’ image is found in an epigram from a statue base commemorating the synoris victory of Kleonymos of Rhodes at the end of the 3rd century B.C. (IvLindos II 698 = T 24). Its first two couplets read: [Ἄ]ργος καὶ θεῖον Νεμ[έων | ἕ]δος, ἔνθα Πελάσγοις | Ἥρης ἀρχαῖον κτίσμα | Φορωνιάδος· | ἱ̣ερὸν ἦμαρ ἔλαμψεν, | ὅτε ζυγὰ κοῦφα συνωρί̣[ς] | ἐξέφερ’ εὐκτερέος | σῆμα παρ’ Ἀρ[χ]ε̣μόρου· | O Argos and divine seat of the Nemean Games, where the Pelasgoi

Nemead of those years: see Parsons, 8; Asper, 26; Harder, II, 390, 397. Berenike’s equestrian feats were celebrated: Hyg. Astr. 2.24: hanc Berenicen nonnulli cum Callimacho dixerunt equos alere et ad Olympia mittere consuetam fuisse. Among the nonnulli we can now include Poseidippos, who wrote at least two epigrams about her various victories at Olympia, Nemea, and Isthmia: AB 78 and 79 (which celebrates Berenike’s victories at Nemea in all three chariot events, i.e. tethrippon teleion, tethrippon polikon, and synoris), and perhaps 80–82 and 87 as well; see commentary ad loc.; Bastianini and Gallazzi, 205–211; Clayman, 148–155. For a discussion of the possible dates of these victories see Clayman, 156. 67  Parsons, 4. The fragment itself is published as fr. 60d Harder (= SH 255). 68  For the evidence, see above, Chapter 1, pp. 55–56; Miller 2002, 247–48; Hesperia 2015, 344–348. The odes of Pindar offer some parallels for describing the setting of competitions near tombs, so that Kallimachos may be consciously invoking an older epinician motif: see Harder, II, 404.

Have the ancient foundation of Hera Phoronias: A holy day has shone, when the nimble pair, the two horses, Shot ahead alongside the tomb of Archemoros well honored with rites . . .

Here as well the composer of the epigram has localized the chariot race beside the hero’s grave, suggesting its physical proximity in the Sanctuary.69 Kallimachos and the victory epigram raise a chronological difficulty, however. Their description of horse races taking place alongside the Heroön suggests that the Games were still being held at Nemea in the second half of the 3rd century, but, as discussed in Chapter 1, the archaeological evidence from the site argues instead that by this time the Games had been removed once again to Argos. Ebert, aware of this problem, argues that the hippic contests were still being held at Nemea, while the other events took place in the city of Argos; but this seems implausible, if only because of the logistical difficulty of staging different events of the festival more than 30 kilometers apart. 70 Therese Fuhrer, in her study of Kallimachos’ epinician odes, has advanced another solution; she dismisses the descriptions as utter fiction. Instead, she argues that the images are more symbolic than real, prompted by a desire to acknowledge the traditional mythic aition for the Games.71 To support her view, she observes that both the ode for Berenike and the Rhodian epigram contain references to Argos, which she claims as proof that the Games were actually held in that city, not at Nemea. In the ode, for instance, Kallimachos writes that the golden word of Berenike’s victory comes Δαναοῦ γῆς ἀπὸ βουγενέος, “from the land of cow-born Danaos,” a mythical periphrasis for Argos (fr. 54.4 Harder = T 18). Likewise, the first two lines of the Rhodian epigram refer explicitly to Argos (see above). The problem with Fuhrer’s argumentation is that it relies on understanding the references to Argos in a strict sense, as the asty of Argos. The authors could, however, intend a more general refEbert, 206, draws this very conclusion in his commentary. Ebert, 205. As further proof that at least some events were still staged at Nemea, he cites Polybios 10.26.1, but the meaning of the passage is ambiguous. Harder, II, 395, follows Ebert’s view. 71  Fuhrer 1992, 65, 102–103; Fuhrer 1993, 84, 92. 69  70 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

erence to its chora, which included Nemea at one extremity;72 or they could be indicating Argos in its role as administrator of the Games, without any implication of a particular location. Nevertheless, I agree with Fuhrer that the authors invoke the topographical arrangement of the Sanctuary of Zeus not because the Games were still being celebrated there, but in deference to the aetiology of the original, mythic funeral games for Opheltes.73 Support for this can be seen in the diction employed by both poets. Kallimachos, for one, resorts to an archaism in describing Opheltes’ grave mound: the word he uses, ἠρίον, is primarily found in epic and Archaic literature.74 Similarly, in regard to the Rhodian epigram, although σῆμα continues as a common word for the grave mound or tomb, and so lacks the archaic sound of ἠρίον, still the adjective εὐκτερέος that modifies Archemoros is exceptional. It is a hapax, but its meaning must surely be related to the verb κτερεΐζω, meaning “to bury with due funeral rites.” Homer uses this verb on several occasions, most notably in relation to the funeral games Achilles holds for Patroklos: ἀλλ’ ἴθι καὶ σὸν ἑταῖρον ἀέθλοισι κτερέϊζε, “But go on now, and honor your companion’s burial with competitions,” as Nestor bids Achilles (Il. 23.646).75 Both authors, then, through archaic diction transcend the mere reporting of events and evoke the very circumstances of the origins of the Nemean Games, and so representing the present Games as taking place at Nemea, even when in fact they were far removed, further ties them to their mythic past.76 So Harder, II, 395. One could perhaps argue from these passages that there was another shrine set up for Opheltes next to the racecourse at Argos, but there is no evidence for such an analogous arrangement. As Harder, II, 395, points out, Kallimachos’ interest in the original location of the Games is also clear from the rest of the poem, with its narrative about Herakles, Molorkos of Kleonai, and the Nemean lion (see below). 74  For discussion of the word see Pfister, 402–404; Roller 1981a, 4 and n. 28, where she comments that the word is “used, evidently as an affectation of archaism, in many funerary epigrams of the Hellenistic and Roman eras. . . .” It appears once in Homer, not insignificantly to designate the great tomb Achilles plans for Patroklos and himself (Il. 23.126). 75  Ebert, 206. 76  Among the recently published epigrams of Poseidippos are ones that celebrate Nemean victories, some of which contain language that, like the passage of Polybios cited by Ebert (see note above), may also be construed as evidence that the 72  73 

113

Returning our focus to Kallimachos’ ode and his reference to Opheltes, we find yet another discrepancy in Opheltes’ parentage, this time on his father’s side. The patronymic “son of Euphetes” begs elucidation. As we shall see, a few later sources also give his father’s name as Euphetes, but whether these are following Kallimachos or a common source is uncertain. It seems unlikely that Kallimachos would ignore the name Lykourgos given by Euripides and fabricate a new name; so we should rather suppose that the poet is drawing upon a source he finds more authoritative, whether that be the epic Thebaid, local tradition at Nemea, Simonides, Aischylos, Antimachos, or some other unknown source.77 Adding to the mystery is the fact that apart from the known sources identifying him as Opheltes’ father, there is only one other Euphetes in all Greek literature, in Homer. In the Iliad the poet describes the breastplate of the Greek warrior Meges, son of Phyleus, which his father Games were still in Nemea in the second half of the 3rd century B.C. AB 76, for example, celebrates the various victories of Etearchos won with his horse Araps in the Ptolemaia, the Isthmian Games, and “twice at Nemea” (Νεμέαι δίς, l. 3). This Etearchos may be identical to the nomarch in Egypt attested in documents dated to 251/250 and 230/229 B.C.: see Pros. Ptol. I 883 + add.; IV 10080, 12361; but the name is attested elsewhere in the Hellenistic world as well: Bastianini and Gallazzi, 203. AB 79, the epigram for Berenike’s victories at Nemea, states that she carried off the crowns Ζεῦ παρὰ σοὶ Νεμεᾶτα, “in your company, Nemean Zeus” (l. 3). AB 80, a very fragmentary epigram, perhaps composed for Berenike, preserves a similar address, ὦ Νέμεε Ζεῦ (l. 3). Finally, AB 86 celebrates the victories of a certain Eubotas with his horse Aithon, including four times ἐν Νεμέαι (l. 2). These references should be understood figuratively as a poetic formulation (perhaps also influenced by metrical constraints) for the cult or festival of Nemean Zeus, wherever held. As proof, consider the victory epigram of Titos Domitios Prometheus of Athens (Ebert no. 81), who proclaims a victory ἐν Νεμέῃ in the middle of the 3rd century after Christ, a time when there is little evidence for activity in the Sanctuary of Zeus: see now Hesperia 2015, 298–300. As Stephen Miller points out (pers. comm.), the same formulation appears in Argive inscriptions. 77  Harder, II, 404, comments that the hyperbaton in this line is Kallimachos’ signal that he is consciously deviating from the more common tradition of Lykourgos as father. It is also possible that Kallimachos here refers to a grandfather, and only later sources confuse him with Opheltes’ father, but this still represents a variation in lineage, as will be shown later. Among Kallimachos’ prose scholarship is a περὶ ἀγώνων; in this or elsewhere he is likely to have delved deeper into the origins of the great games, so that we should not be quick to dismiss Kallimachos’ information as poetic invention: see Fuhrer 1992, 84 n. 314.

114

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

passed on to him after receiving it as a gift of hospitality from “lord of men Euphetes” in Ephyra, on the river Selleëis (Il. 15.529–532). The Homeric scholiasts were stumped: ζήτει περὶ τούτου, τίς ἐστιν is the gloss on Euphetes. Whether Kallimachos and/or his source has in mind this Homeric figure is unknown, but it seems doubtful. The opening lines of the victory ode for Berenike break off soon after, and the remaining fragments of the poem concern another subject, the legend of Herakles and his fight with the Nemean lion. Rather than dwell on the combat itself, the poet expands on Herakles’ arrival in the area of Nemea and the xenia offered him by an old peasant of Kleonai, Molorkos.78 Although the latter figure appears here for the first time in Greek literature, leading some scholars to suspect that Kallimachos invented him, Marchand assembles evidence that the tradition existed earlier in Kleonai.79 We will consider this story in greater detail later when we question the role of Herakles and the lion as a founding myth for the Nemean Games and the crown of wild celery; here it is to be noted only that it remains unclear whether Kallimachos addressed the myth of Opheltes further, either as a continuation of the preserved opening lines or elsewhere in the poem.80 The commentary on the poem preserved in the Lille fragments does have a two-line entry after the reference to Opheltes’ grave mound (P. Lille 82.14– 15 = T 19). Although fragmentary, it clearly mentions Opheltes’ other name, Archemoros, implying that the poet did not supply this information himself.81 Kallimachos revisits the aetiology of the Nemean Games in another fragmentary epinician, this time composed to celebrate the victory of Sosibios, a prominent official in the court of the A description of the combat itself is lacking in the preserved fragments, and Fuhrer 1993, 85–86, entertains the possibility that it was not part of the poem; see also Harder, II, 384–388 (on the general organization of the poem and its aetiological concerns) and 471–472 (on omitting the combat). On the spelling of his name, which sometimes appears with a chi instead of kappa in Greek and often with a ch in Latin instead of c, see Harder, II, 493–494. 79  Pache, 104; contra, Marchand, 106–116. 80  Parsons, for instance, 41–42, suggests that the poet returned to this theme at the end of poem, thus bracketing the Herakles tale at the poem’s core. 81  Pache, 103, mistakenly includes the commentary as another line of the poem, which it is not. 78 

Ptolemies. Praising his twin victories at Isthmia and Nemea, he signals the two child heroes connected with these festivals in highly allusive terms (fr. 384.25–26 Pfeiffer = T 23). Sosibios won his crowns, the poet says, ἀμφοτέρῳ παρὰ παιδί, κασιγνήτῳ τε Λεάρχου καὶ τὸ Μυριναῖον τῷ γάλα θησαμένῳ,

25

In the company of a child both times: the brother of Learchos, And the one placed under the milk of Myrina . . . .

The brother of Learchos is Melikertes, the child hero renamed Palaimon and worshipped at Isthmia; as the Nemean Games were for Opheltes, so the Isthmian were reckoned funeral games for Melikertes.82 Kallimachos calls Opheltes “the one placed under the milk of Myrina,” an allusion both to Hypsipyle’s role as a wet nurse and to her place of origin, Myrina being a city of Lemnos.83 Given that Kallimachos contradicts Euripides regarding the name of Opheltes’ father in the ode for Berenike, it is noteworthy that here he does allude to Hypsipyle; this may lend credence to the idea that her role in the myth was not Euripides’ invention and has some older authority. The ode continues with the conceit that even the Nile would boast about Sosibios’ achievements (ll. 27– 30). Here Kallimachos explicitly refers to the aetiology of the Isthmian and Nemean Games by calling them “these funerary festivals” ( ].ταφίων τῶνδε πανηγυρίων, l. 30). One last fragment of Kallimachos merits brief notice. Fragment 223 Pfeiffer comes from one of his Iamboi, perhaps his eighth, which is another fragmentary epinician ode.84 It reads, κοὐκ ὧδ’ Ἀρίων τὠπέσαντι πὰρ Διί/ ἔθυσεν Ἀρκὰς ἵππος, “not even so did the Arkadian horse Arion rush by Zeus of Apesas.” Apesas, of course, is the principal mountain on the east side of the Nemea Valley, and its summit hosted an altar to Zeus of Apesas, said to have been founded by Perseus.85 The image of the divine horse of Adrastos racing in these environs, then, surely must allude to the

Cf. Schol. Pi. I. hyp. (a) = T 33. So Pfeiffer, ad loc. 84  Fuhrer 80 n. 298. 85  For a description of the ancient remains on the summit of Mount Apesas, including the ash altar of Zeus, see Marchand, 212–216. 82  83 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

legendary games held for Opheltes.86 It is impossible to know, however, whether Kallimachos supplemented the reference with any other details of the myth in this poem. By far the richest source of information about the myth of Opheltes and its relation to the Nemean Games is the commentary provided by the scholia to Pindar’s odes. At the beginning of the Nemean odes they preserve four different entries for the hypothesis of the Nemean Games.87 These entries show agreement on many points of the Opheltes legend while attesting to uncertainty and discrepancy on others, in addition to preserving alternative versions of the origin of the Nemean Games unrelated to the child hero. All four entries, for instance, record a version of the death of Opheltes set in the context of the journey of the Seven against Thebes. Hypothesis (a) furnishes only a cursory summary of the myth (T 26): . . . ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὀφέλτου μὲν πρότερον, νυνὶ δὲ Ἀρχεμόρου, ἀπὸ τοῦ μαντεύσασθαι τοῖς ἐπὶ Θήβας στρατευσαμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου θανάτου. [ . . . the Nemean contest comes] from Opheltes, as he was formerly called, now Archemoros, from the fact that his own death was read as an omen for those campaigning against Thebes.

Hypothesis (b), in contrast, introduces a more extensive retelling of the story in a very straightforward manner (T 27): οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας πα-

ραβαλόντες τῇ Νεμέᾳ διψήσαντες συνέτυχον Ὑψιπύλῃ . . . , “The Seven against Thebes crossed

over into Nemea because they were thirsty. They chanced upon Hypsipyle. . . .” The scholiast in hypothesis (c) refers to Amphiaraos and οἱ Ἀργεῖοι,

and mentions that the death of Opheltes occurs ὑπὸ τὸν Θηβαϊκὸν πόλεμον, “around the time of the

Theban War” (T 28). Finally, hypothesis (d), which in many respects is similar to (b), introduces the story with a somewhat wordier version (T 29): καθ’ ὃν χρόνον οἱ ἑπτὰ τῶν Ἀργείων λοχαγοὶ ἐπεστράτευσαν Θηβαίοις Πολυνείκει συμμαχοῦντες, “At the time that the seven chieftains of the

See above on the fragments of Antimachos that may describe Arion in the same context. 87  Drachmann breaks them into five, (a)–(e), but in fact (e) is just an abridged version of (d) that appears in lieu of it in one of the manuscripts. Consequently (e) has been omitted from the discussion and from Appendix C. 86 

115

Argives campaigned against Thebes as allies to Polyneikes. . . .” In all versions of the myth preserved in the hypothesis, the original Nemean Games are represented as the funeral games held for the dead hero. Often this is stated explicitly: ὁ δὲ ἀγὼν ἐπιτάφιος, “The contest is funerary” (hyp. (a) = T 26; also ἀγῶνα ἦγον ἐπιτάφιον, hyp. (b) = T 27; ἐπιτάφιον ἀγῶνα θέσθαι τὸν Νεμεαῖον and ὁ γὰρ ἀγὼν ἐπιτάφιος, hyp. (d) = T 29). In hypothesis (c) (T 28), on the other hand, the funerary origin of the Games is expressed several times through the use of ἐπί with the dative: τὰ Νέμεά φασιν ἄγεσθαι ἐπὶ Ὀφέλτῃ . . ., “The Nemean Games are said to be held in honor of Opheltes . . .,” begins this entry. It continues to describe how Amphiaraos renames the child Archemoros, ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα διέθηκαν, “in whose honor they also arranged the contest. Hypothesis (c) also preserves the testimony of Aischylos, who likewise regards the Games as ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ. Finally, in a discussion of the origins of the Nemean crown of wild celery, we read οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τοῦτο τεθῆναι, “Others say that this was established from the beginning in honor of Archemoros.”88 As we observed already in Kallimachos’ ode for Sosibios, the Isthmian Games too had a similar funerary aetiology; hence both festivals are called ἐπιτάφιοι elsewhere in the Pindaric scholia (Schol. Pi. O. 13.45c = T 25). In fact, all four of the great Panhellenic contests—including the Olympics and the Pythian Games—could claim this association, as expressed in hypothesis (a) of Pindar’s Isthmian odes (T 33): Ἐτελοῦντο μὲν οἱ παλαιοὶ πάντες ἀγῶνες ἐπί τισι τετελευτηκόσιν, “All the old games used to be held in honor of someone who had died.” Both of these themes, the funerary origins of the great Panhellenic festivals and the close similarity between the aetiologies of the Isthmian and Nemean Games in particular, reappear in other sources as well. As seen in hypothesis (a) of the Nemean Odes (above), the reference to the Seven is embedded in an explanation of the renaming of Opheltes. Like Bakchylides and Euripides, the scholiast provides an etymology for the new name Archemoros, once again deriving it from Amphiaraos’ pronouncement about the ominous import of the child’s death. In contrast to the rather clumsy wording Cf. also the scholia to Pi. N. 6.71 = T 30 and Pi. N. 8.85 = T 31. 88 

116

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

in (a), hypothesis (c) (T 28) explains the etymology with this tidy statement: . . . Ἀμφιάραος δὲ

τούτοις μαντευόμενος Ἀρχέμορον αὐτὸν ἐκάλεσεν, ὅτι αὐτοῖς ἀρχὴ μόρου ἐγένετο ὁ τοῦ παιδὸς θάνατος,

“. . . Amphiaraos interpreted this omen for them and gave him the name Archemoros, since the boy’s death was a beginning of doom for them.”89 While the several versions of the Opheltes legend are in accord on the preceding details, there is striking disagreement about the names of Opheltes’ parents. Both (b) (T 27) and (d) (T 29) agree with the Euripidean version in identifying his father as Lykourgos, a priest, and (b) also names his mother Eurydike. Hypothesis (c), however, calls Opheltes the son of Euphetes and Kreousa (T 28).90 It would be tempting to dismiss the scholiast’s words as a corruption if it were not for the fact that Kallimachos too mentions Euphetes. The scholiast may be extracting this account either from Kallimachos or from his source(s). Finally, we have already observed that (c) records the opinion of Aischylos, shared by others, that the mother of Opheltes was Nemea. Related to the question of parentage is that of ethnicity, which is addressed only in (d). This states outright that Archemoros is Argive, Ἀργεῖον τὸ γένος, which contradicts Euripides’ representation of Lykourgos as coming from the Asopos River valley. The fuller accounts of (b), (c), and (d) furnish other details that permit us to assess further the degree of variability in the myth of Opheltes.91 As noted above, these versions agree in many respects with Euripides’ Hypsipyle, and indeed it may have been a source for them.92 Yet either the scholiasts The beginning of hypothesis (c) states that the Argives renamed the boy Euphetes, which Drachmann regards as a corruption of the text, most likely arising from confusion with the name of his father a few words earlier. On the parentage of Opheltes, see the following discussion. For yet another restatement of the etymology of Archemoros see Schol. Pi. N. 8.85 = T 31. 90  So also the Byzantine scholia on the Greek Anthology (ll. 14–15 Lolos = T 87), which may be excerpting this Pindaric scholion. Another variation is preserved in the scholia on Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.34 = T 86, where he is called the son of Euphetes and Eurydike. 91  Excerpts of hyp. (b) and hyp. (c), with some changes, reappear in the Byzantine scholia on the Greek Anthology: ll. 40–43 Lolos = T 88; ll. 91–96 Lolos = T 90. 92  Hypothesis (b), by far the lengthiest account, also includes details explaining how Hypsipyle came from Lemnos to Nemea and how she was reunited with her twin sons after 89 

have an imperfect understanding of that play or else they are trying to reconcile it with other sources, because there are points of ambiguity or even outright contradiction in their accounts. All three versions, for example, state that the Seven approach Hypsipyle with a need for water. Two of them attribute this to thirst (διψήσαντες, (a); (c) δίψει συσχεθέντες and ἐπὶ πότιμον ὕδωρ), and none mentions the libation, as Euripides has it. Furthermore, all three describe Hypsipyle leaving the child behind when she leads the Seven to the spring rather than taking him along and setting him down by the spring: ἡ δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀφη-

γήσατο εἴς τινα πηγήν, καταλιποῦσα τὸν παῖδα ἔν τινι λειμῶνι (b); τῆς δὲ ἀπελθούσης ὑδρεύσασθαι (c); ὄφιν δὲ τῆς χειᾶς ἐξελθόντα κατὰ τὴν τῆς Ὑψιπύλης ἀπουσίαν (d).

As to how the snake kills Opheltes, consensus is lacking. Hypothesis (c) merely states that the snake killed him, while (d) is certain that the snake strangled him: περιπλακῆναι τῷ παιδὶ καὶ ταῖς σπείραις ἀποτεταμένον ἀποπνῖξαι τὸ βρέφος. Hypothesis (b) wavers on the issue: ὃν δράκων περιειληθεὶς ἢ ἰὸν ἀφεὶς ἀνεῖλεν. The reaction of the Seven is detailed only in (b) and (d). In both accounts they return to see the snake killing the child, and in retaliation they kill the snake: οἱ δὲ ὑποστρέψαντες καὶ τὸ πάθος θεασάμενοι τόν τε δράκοντα ἀνεῖλον (b); τοὺς δὲ ἐπανελθόντας τοξεῦσαι μὲν τὸν ὄφιν (d). The more specific τοξεῦσαι of (d) is interesting

since we find the same verb in Euripides’ account, but as we shall see, other sources arm the Seven with different weapons. Both versions conclude with the heroes’ establishing the Nemean Games in the child’s honor, and (d) includes a reference to his burial as well (θάψαι τὸν παῖδα). The scholiasts also show a concern for reconciling the legendary funeral games for Opheltes with the organization of the historical Nemean Games. Thus, in (b) and (d) we encounter statements that the Games used to be open just to soldiers and their children, and later became open to the public at large; this alleged development may represent a rationalization of the shift from the original circumstances of the funeral games, in which the principal competitors came from the expeditionary force of the Seven, to the historical circum-

the death of Opheltes and after being threatened with death by Eurydike—all details that could derive from the Hypsipyle.

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

stances of open participation.93 Hypothesis (b) states that the Nemean Games originally consisted of gymnic events and the four-horse chariot race (i.e. no synoris or keles), a detail perhaps deduced from accounts of the events in which the Seven competed.94 In addition, (c) and (d) both make statements about the first presidents of the festival: the latter states that the Kleonaians were the first presidents, followed by the Corinthians, whereas the former says that the Argives, Kleonaians, and Corinthians presided together over the Games. The legendary first presidency of the Argives and the Kleonaians is intelligible as a projection into myth of their historical roles in the administration of the festival; the role of the Corinthians, however, finds no explanation either in historical circumstances or in the myth of Opheltes.95 Perhaps the most important statement about the relationship between the funeral games and the historical festival comes in (d), which relates that the judges wore dark clothing as a token of mourning in remembrance of the original funeral games: οἱ κριταὶ φαιὰς ἐσταλμένοι στολὰς κρίνουσι τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις ὑπόμνημα τοῦ πένθους ταῖς στολαῖς ἐμφανίζοντες. This is our only testimony about the

judges’ practice, which constitutes one more link between the festival and its founding myth. In addition to the myth of Opheltes, the scholia attest to alternative aetiologies of the Nemean festival. Hypothesis (a), for example, records the opinion of some that it was established by Herakles after defeating the Nemean lion whereas (d) only

credits Herakles with a later reorganization of the festival, in Zeus’ honor. In (c), we learn that some believed the Games were founded in honor of the son of Talaos, the brother of Adrastos. This must refer to the Argive king Pronax, whose death is associated with the foundation of the Games in one other source as well.96 We will explore these alternate accounts of foundation in greater detail after completing our study of the literary testimony about Opheltes.

ROMAN PERIOD VARIATIONS Although the cult of Opheltes at Nemea falls into abeyance in the 3rd century B.C., the interest in his myth does not. So in the time of Augustus, for instance, Ovid (Ibis 481–483 = T 37) and Propertius (2.34.37–38 = T 38) both make passing reference to the myth, and Hyginus pens a version of the legend featuring two novel elements (F. 74 = T 39).97 First, we learn of an anonymous oracle that forbade Opheltes to be placed on the ground until he had learned to walk: ne in terra puerum deponeret antequam posset ambulare. While we have no other reference to this oracle, some scholars assume it was an integral part of the Opheltes myth while others dismiss it as a later invention.98 The second novelty in Hyginus’ account is the aetiology of the wild celery crown, which is explicitly tied to The same scholion also records a rather vague and confused account, without parallel in the ancient sources, about a stephanitic contest at Nemea, featuring crowns of olive, founded before the Theban War. It is not at all clear how this variant relates to the myth of Opheltes. The fact that a contest occurs at Nemea before the Theban War does not per se contradict the Opheltes aetiology, since the funeral games in fact take place before the Seven reach Thebes. Moreover, the fact that the founders promise to fund prizes from the spoils upon their return from Thebes implies that the founders in this variant are none other than the Seven. The focus of the account seems to be whether the contest originally awarded crowns or prizes of monetary value, which apparently was a general point of contention among ancient scholars in their study of early athletics: cf. the discussion in hyp. (a) as to whether Homer knows of crowns as prizes. The reference to an early crown of olive at Nemea is unique. On the crown of wild celery and its relation to the Opheltes story, see further below. 97  Pache, 106. 98  Rhoussos, for instance, inserts a reference to the oracle into Dionysos’ epilogue in Euripides’ Hypsipyle: 174. Contra: Herter, cols. 638–639. 96 

93  The mention of the children of the soldiers may refer to an Argive tradition, attested by Pausanias (10.25.7), that the sons of the Seven, the Epigonoi, held the second Nemean Games, in which Melanippos, the son of Theseus, won the footrace. 94  Euripides probably described the various events in which the Seven competed, and Antimachos and Kallimachos may have done so as well. The versions of Hyginus, Statius, and the Bibliotheke do survive, as will be discussed below. As Stephen Miller reminds me (pers. comm.), the scholiast’s omission of the synoris and keles events could also be based on the tradition that these events were not historically part of the original Olympic Games or on the fact that they were not described in the account of the games of Patroklos. 95  There is no evidence from the Sanctuary of Zeus to support a Corinthian presidency. The source of the scholiast’s claim may instead have to do with an obscure episode of Corinthian aggression against Kleonai during the first half of the 5th century B.C.: see Marchand, 184–185 and n. 102. Despite the fact that Kleonai plays a role in the historical Nemean festival, it is largely absent from the myth of Opheltes as we have it, with the exception of Statius’ account (below).

117

118

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

the circumstances of Opheltes’ death: Hypsipyle, in an attempt to heed the oracle’s warning, places the child not directly on the ground but on a patch of wild celery, but this is exactly where the snake kills him. The aetiology of the Nemean celery crown has its own complex tradition in the ancient sources, as we shall examine in greater detail below. Even if this specific aition, which appears only in Hyginus, is a late invention, it is not the only attempt to associate the crown with the Opheltes myth. In other respects Hyginus narrates the myth along lines familiar from other sources but with some confusion. Once more the story is set in the context of the expedition of the Seven, who enter the Nemea Valley in search of water (Hyginus does not specify whether they need it for drinking or for libation). As in Euripides’ version, the encounter with the snake takes place at the spring; Hyginus calls the snake its guardian (draco fontis custos).99 He neglects the role of Amphiaraos in interpreting the meaning of Opheltes’ death, but he does call the hero by both his names (although the text reads Ophiten where we would expect Ophelten). He calls Opheltes’ father Lycus, which probably represents a confusion of the name Lykourgos, and identifies him as a king, not a priest. Moreover it is he, not his wife, who plays the role of enraged parent. Hyginus concludes with the institution of the funeral games and the victory crown of wild celery, but he wrongly calls the festival quadrennial, when in fact the Nemean Games were biennial. In a later fabula Hyginus returns to the myth of Opheltes in a list of the founders of the fifteen earliest athletic festivals down to Aeneas (F. 273 = T 40). He repeats the fact that the Seven established games at Nemea for Archemoros, and although he still gives the name of Archemoros’ father as Lycus, this time he also supplies the name of his mother, Eurydike. He also adds the detail that the victors in the stadion race (cursus) were Hypsipyle’s sons, whom he names as Euneos and Deipylos. With regard to the order of the festivals, the foundation of

the Nemean Games comes ninth in his list, after Herakles’ foundation of the Olympic Games for Pelops and before the foundation of the Isthmian Games for Melikertes. Hence his chronology of festivals is at odds with both Aristotle’s and the Parian Marble’s, in which the Isthmian Games are founded before the Nemean. It is the Latin author Statius who preserves the most elaborate account of the myth of Opheltes: it consumes over two books of the Thebaid, his own epic retelling of the expedition against Thebes. Pache’s view of its contribution to our understanding of the myth is somewhat pessimistic: “Inasmuch as Statius’s account is highly derivative and resembles the earlier ones, not much, and certainly no new, information about the rituals surrounding the death of Opheltes can be gleaned from it.”100 Her own analysis of the story belies this assessment, however. The account abounds in new details not found elsewhere; not only do we find a highly elaborated recounting of the advent of the Seven, their need for water, Hypsipyle’s assistance, and Opheltes’ deadly encounter with the snake, but for the first time we have an extensive description of the child’s funeral, the erection of his shrine, and the consequent staging of funeral games in his honor. The difficulty lies, rather, in discerning which details may be founded on the facts of Opheltes’ cult and the Nemean Games, and which are modeled on earlier literature or contrived by Statius himself. Regardless, throughout the Nemean episode there is evident awareness of the future cult of the child hero and the glory of the Nemean Games to come. For Statius, drought is what sends the Seven on a path toward Hypsipyle and her innocent ward. This is no natural phenomenon but the divine decree of Bacchus, who seeks to delay the inexorable will of Jupiter to drive the Seven to Thebes.101 From this perspective, Opheltes is merely a necessary victim in Bacchus’ stratagem. Pache, 106. On the theme of delay in the epic, see Parkes, xvii–xx. Vessey 1973, 170, regards the drought as a traditional element of the legend, perhaps a feature of the Cyclic Thebaid; it is Statius’ craftsmanship that attributes it to the intervention of Bacchus. Vessey makes no mention of Euripides’ version about the ritual need for water; perhaps he would explain it as an innovation of the dramatist. Scholars debate the extent to which Statius borrowed from Euripides’ play. Vessey himself thinks it doubtful: Vessey 1973, 195 and n.1; but cf. now Parkes, xxx, 285; Soerink. Decades later, Lucian (T 60) attests 100  101 

99  In fragment 754a of Euripides’ Hypsipyle, which preserves one of the two references to the snake in that play, the word φύλακα appears in line 8, but it is unclear whether this describes the snake as a guardian of the spring or instead refers to Hypsipyle as Opheltes’ protector: see Cropp 2004, 242. Hyginus does not specify how the snake kills Opheltes; his contemporary Ovid, however, does briefly allude to a poisonous snakebite (T 37).

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

It is precisely at this point in the narrative, after the drought breaks out and before the events in the myth of Opheltes unfold, that we first find mention of the child hero.102 Statius gives us the name of the one spring in the Nemea Valley that Bacchus permits to f low, the Langia; he then foretells the fame that will be hers, hand in hand with Opheltes’ (4.723–729 = T 43): una tamen tacitas sed iussu numinis undas haec quoque secreta nutrit Langia sub umbra. nondum illi raptus dederat lacrimabile nomen 725 Archemorus, nec fama deae; tamen avia servat et nemus et fluvium; manet ingens gloria nympham, cum tristem Hypsipylen ducibus sudatus Achaeis ludus et atra sacrum recolet trieteris Ophelten. But one spring nonetheless, this too by god’s command, her silent streams Does nurture under the secret shade: Langia. Not yet had the snatched Archemoros given her a sorrowful name, Nor had fame yet come to the goddess; but out of the way she keeps Both grove and stream. Great glory awaits the nymph, When the sweaty contest for the Achaean chiefs Every two years will sorrowfully revisit sad Hypsipyle and holy Opheltes.

It is remarkable that even before Hypsipyle and Opheltes appear in the action, Statius adumbrates the outcome of the story by giving away the name that the dead hero will receive, Archemoros. This he artfully postpones until after the phrase lacrimabile nomen so as to create a double entendre: Grammatically, the phrase refers to the renown the spring will achieve, sorrowful because of its attachment to the story of the death of Opheltes; but the phrase also serves as a comment on Archemorus, which is sorrowful in its etymology and in relation to the fate of the Seven.103 What is more, with the phrase sacrum . . . trieteris, Statius moves even to the performance of a pantomime about Hypsipyle and Archemoros, perhaps derived from Euripides: see Cockle, 42. 102  Pache, 106. 103  Parkes, 301, notes the wordplay as well. In regard to Langia’s fame, she also points out a self-serving quality in Statius’ words, since he has a part in making her name famous. As Newlands 2012, 44, remarks, the reference to Opheltes and the future Games at the very start of the Nemea episode “colours the entire narrative with pathos and foreboding.”

119

beyond the scope of the epic itself to foreshadow the future Nemean Games. Consistent with all other accounts of Opheltes, Statius describes him as a small child. When the Seven meet Hypsipyle, she is carrying him at her breast: ad ubera Opheltes / non suus, Inachii proles infausta Lycurgi, / dependet (4. 746–750 = T 44).104 Statius at once clarifies that the child is not her own, but rather the son of Inachian, i.e. Argive, Lykourgos.105 Later we learn that his mother is Eurydike (e.g. 5.632). Hence Statius follows the tradition we observed in Euripides and elsewhere, but as in the scholia to Pindar, Opheltes is of Argive blood. Lykourgos, we learn, is both a priest of Zeus and a king. In fact it is his priestly role that keeps him from joining the Argive expedition, for he must stay behind to tend Zeus’ altars and shrines (5.643–644). Moreover, Lykourgos is said to be away making sacrifices on Mount Apesas when the Seven find Hypsipyle and Opheltes meets his end (5.640–641). That Lykourgos is also a king is apparent in numerous passages; Amphiaraos, for instance, addresses him as ductor Nemeae (5.733 = T 49; cf. 5.667, 716, 719). He is the ruler of Nemea, which in this epic is a populous city (5.690ff ), a fabrication with no basis in ancient history or archaeology.106 This element of fantasy in the Nemean episode is pronounced. David Vessey, in his study of Statius’ Thebaid, attributes it to the poet’s creative intention: Nemea is crafted as a kind of ancient Brigadoon, a fabulous place into which the fatigued Seven step to find a temporary respite from their journey. As a result, much of Statius’ portrait of the valley is endowed with an “unreal, dreamlike atmosphere.”107 Cf. also Hypsipyle’s words at 5.617–618: sic ecquidem luctus solabar et ubera parvo / iam materna dabam, “Thus indeed would I comfort my sorrows and give the small one my breast, already maternal.” 105  Augoustakis, 39, and Parkes, 307, both comment on how the enjambment of non suus stresses this aspect of Hypsipyle’s role. 106  The small Bronze Age settlement excavated on Tsoungiza Hill to the west of the Sanctuary of Zeus hardly qualifies. Strabo (8.6.19) mentions a small village (κώμη) named Bembina located between Kleonai and Phlious, but it has not been found and in any event would also not match Statius’ description. 107  Vessey 1973, 194 (quote); also 165–167, 187. This is not to say that the episode is somehow disconnected from the 104 

120

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

In Statius’ recounting of the myth, Hypsipyle leaves the baby behind before setting off for the spring, so that she can lead the Seven to water more quickly (ne tarda Pelasgis dux foret, 4.785–786 = T 45). The description of the baby Opheltes that follows (4.793–800 = T 45) is a perceptive account of an infant’s behavior:108 at puer in gremio vernae telluris et alto gramine nunc faciles sternit procursibus herbas in vultum nitens, caram modo lactis egeno 795 nutricem clangore ciens iterumque renidens et teneris meditans verba inluctantia labris miratur nemorum strepitus aut obvia carpit aut patulo trahit ore diem nemorique malorum inscius et uitae multum securus inerrat. 800 But meanwhile the boy in the green earth’s lap and deep Grass tramples with his spurts of crawling the simple blades, And rocks headlong; then with a thirsty cry for milk For his dear nurse he calls, and then once more smiling And pondering words still a struggle for his tender lips, He marvels at the sounds of the woods, or grasps at whatever is at hand, Or with his mouth open passes the day, of the woods’ evils Unaware, and secure in his life he wanders far and wide.

There follows a long digression in which Hypsipyle, at the spring, narrates her Lemnian travails to the refreshed Argives, but then the poet returns to the abandoned infant to describe him falling asleep on the grass (5.502–504 = T 46). In these two passages Pache observes an important nexus of innocent childhood, bucolic setting, sleeping, and f lower gathering, which so frequently in Greek literature intimates a lurking danger. In particular, she finds such imagery expressed in the genre of Greek lullaby, and she argues cogently for the insinuation of elements rest of the epic; as Newlands 2012, 44, observes, “Nemea’s intermediate, ambiguous status makes it a testing ground for civil war.” See also Ganiban. 108  Vessey 1973, 169: “Statius’ lines on the infant must be one of the most effective descriptions of an innocent child in ancient literature.” See also the comments of Parkes, 317.

of that genre into the myth of Opheltes: “The kind of maternal fears expressed in lullabies are similar to the anxieties contained in the story of the death of Opheltes, but in the case of Opheltes, the horror and fear transmutes to become part of a sacred narrative that culminates with the baby’s heroization.”109 The snake that inhabits Statius’ Nemea is a monstrous thing indeed. Its enormity blocks streams and threatens trees, and its horrifying visage drips with toxic poison (5.505–521 = T 46). Compounding its ferocity is the drought, which Statius ingeniously explains has made the beast more agitated and has concentrated its venom (520–521).110 Statius also calls the snake sacred (nemoris sacer horror, 505) and explains that it serves as a guardian for the Thunderer’s sacred territory (511-513). We saw already that Hyginus describes the snake as a guardian of the spring; here Statius has elevated the snake’s protective role to the realm of the sacred, which affects the narrative, as we shall shortly discover. Immediately before the snake kills Opheltes, however, Statius turns aside once more to address the boy (5.533–536 = T 47): quis tibi, parve, deus tam magni pondera fati sorte dedit? tune hoc vix prima ad limina vitae hoste iaces? an ut inde sacer per saecula Grais 535 gentibus et tanto dignus morerere sepulcro? Which god, little one, to you allotted the weight Of so great a destiny? Are you, when barely at life’s first threshold, Laid low by this enemy? Is it so that in this way eternally sacred To the Greek nations you may die, and worthy of so great a tomb?

Emphasizing his tender age, Statius acknowledges that while his death is determined by fate, it will not go unrewarded. As at the beginning of the Nemea episode, the poet gazes into the future and sees not only Opheltes’ sacred status, but also the importance of his tomb.111 Despite the extensive description of the snake’s ferocity, death comes to Opheltes not as the rePache, 106–111 (quote at 111). All this detail Vessey regards as another instance of the fabulous qualities of the Nemea narrative: Vessey 1973, 187. 111  Pache, 112. 109  110 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

sult of a violent confrontation but by accident: as the snake passes by the small child, it unwittingly strikes him dead with the tip of its tail (5.537–538). Hypsipyle, hearing the baby’s final cry, rushes to the scene with the Seven, who proceed to kill the snake. Statius narrates the actions of two heroes in particular: Hippomedon throws a stone at the snake but misses; then Kapaneus attacks and successfully kills the snake with his spear (5.544–565). The snake retreats to Zeus’ temple to die, and the god becomes angry at the death of his sacred guardian. For a brief moment he contemplates striking Kapaneus with a thunderbolt, but demurs; as Vessey notes, Statius here is clearly prefiguring the antagonism between hero and god that will play out later at Thebes.112 As in all other accounts where this detail is preserved, it befalls Amphiaraos to interpret Opheltes’ death and to divine the necessary cultic response.113 Whereas in Euripides’ play this comes in the context of defending Hypsipyle against Eurydike’s wrath, in Statius’ epic, as in Hyginus, it is Lykourgos who must be appeased; Eurydike is relegated to a short speech of grief and fury at Opheltes’ pyre, later in the poem (6.135–192). The seer’s speech, which closes Book 5 of the epic (5.733–753 = T 49), marks the transition between the hero’s death and his subsequent cult. Amphiaraos announces Opheltes’ new name, Archemoros, and indicates its etymology with reference to the fate of the Argives: et puer, heu nostri signatus nomine fati, Archemorus (738–739).114 He 112  Vessey 1973, 188. Ganiban, 259–260, further argues that referencing this antagonism, along with elaborating the subsequent need to expiate the killing of the snake with a special pyre, reflects Statius’ manipulation of the Opheltes story to maximize the tensions between the Argives and Nemeans and thereby further highlight the unjust nature of the Argives’ entire expedition. 113  Pache, 112–113. 114  Scholars point out that Statius may also be uniquely playing with an alternative meaning of the name, “Beginning of Delay,” punning on Latin mora: Ganiban, 253. Curiously, Statius has Hypsipyle anticipate Amphiaraos in calling the dead child by his new name: Upon finding his body she exclaims, “o mihi desertae natorum dulcis imago, / Archemore . . .” (5.608–609 = T 48). The reason for this is unclear; perhaps it is meant as an indication of the deep psychological bond between Hypsipyle and the child. On Statius’ interest in exploring maternal grief see Newlands 2012, 113–117. On the fascinating reception of these lines in medieval poetry, see Newlands 2012, 122–127. Ganiban, 253, argues that Hypsipyle’s mention of the new name is another of Statius’

121

alludes to the need to hold funeral games, . . . det pulchra suis libamina Virtus/ manibus . . . (742–743), and heralds the permanency of these new rites, mansuris donandus honoribus infans (741), even instructing future generations in his worship (5.746– 750). He concludes with the proclamation that Archemoros has forgone a long life and is now a god: nam deus iste, deus (751–752).115 The rites that Amphiaraos enjoins dutifully unfold over the course of Book 6. As a proem, Statius describes Fama spreading the word of the new rites, and at the same time invokes the representation of the great Panhellenic Games as funerary in origin (6.1–14 = T 50), a construct we encountered in the scholia of Pindar as well.116 By Statius’ reckoning, the Olympic festival came first, when Herakles established it for Pelops; then the Pythian festival, which celebrates the death of the serpent Python, and finally the Isthmian, which honors the dead Palaimon. By associating the rites for Opheltes with these three established festivals, moreover, he reinforces Amphiaraos’ prediction that the Nemean rites will become another lasting festival, namely the Nemean Games.117 Statius’ account of the myth of Opheltes is unique in preserving an extensive description of the funeral and attendant rites for the dead child. He tells of the construction of a lavishly decorated bier (6.54–83), followed by the erection of manipulations to develop the tensions between the Argives and Nemeans over the child’s death: for her the name signifies her own expected death as a result of the incident, in contrast to Amphiaraos’ interpretation of the name. 115  Pache, 113, struck by the references to Opheltes as a god here and elsewhere, notes that these need not imply that Opheltes’ cult was not a hero cult: the Greeks themselves often showed flexibility in the terms they used to describe their heroes, and in Roman times the categories became even more fluid. Another explanation of the language of deification may lie in events contemporary with Statius; the poet may be alluding to the recent death and deification of Domitian’s young son: Vessey 1973, 188, with references. As Ganiban, 250, also notes, the phrase recalls Vergil’s description of the deification of Daphnis (Ecl. 5.64). 116  Pache, 113, sees the connection as “between baby heroes and Panhellenic festivals,” but the Pythian festival does not really involve a baby hero. Nevertheless, she is right in noting that Statius is aware of the parallelism between Opheltes and other baby hero myths, as is demonstrated by the image of the baby Linos worked into a tapestry placed on Opheltes’ bier (6.64–65), on which see also Ganiban, 255–257. 117  Contrast the prosaic commentary of Placidus on this passage (T 80), who simply lists the four festivals, to whom they were dedicated, and their respective crowns.

122

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

two great pyres, one for the hero, and a second as expiation for the killing the sacred snake of Zeus (6.84–119). A procession ensues with f lute accompaniment (6.120–122), and trays with offerings are placed on the pyre, followed by the bier itself (6.126–134). After Eurydike mourns and calls unsuccessfully for Hypsipyle’s sacrifice at the pyre (6.138–184), Lykourgos throws on tokens of his kingship and priesthood (6.193). The pyre is lit, and as it burns, the celebrants pour libations of honey, wine, blood, and milk (6.211–212). Then each of the Seven leads a band of 100 men, their insignia reversed, to circle the pyre to the left, three or four times (6.213–216). The second pyre receives offerings of live sheep and cattle, and the Seven lead a similar procession around it; but this time they circle to the right with arms held forward, and each soldier throws on a piece of his own armament (6.221–226). So full an account entices us to wonder whether any of it could have a basis in the actual cult practice for Opheltes at Nemea. Upon ref lection, however, this seems unlikely. First, it is clear that the poet’s description derives from, and competes with, earlier literary models, including Homer’s description of the funeral of Patroklos. Moreover, Statius undeniably infuses his narrative with an admixture of anachronistic Roman ritual.118 We are left with only the most general similarities, then, like the offering of libations, which are as likely to be coincidence as an intentional citation of the actual rites at Nemea. The same question arises concerning Statius’ description of the shrine of Opheltes (6.242–248 = T 51), which Vessey dismisses as more of the fanciful embellishment that characterizes the poet’s Nemea.119 In light of our improved understanding of the actual Heroön, however, the words merit reconsideration: Mirum opus accelerasse manus! writes the poet; stat saxea moles,/ templum ingens cineri . . . (242–243). The poet follows these words with a description of a series of marble representations that adorn the shrine and recount the events of Opheltes’ death (244–248). Vessey Vessey 1973, 191; Fortgens, passim; Ganiban, 254: “But Statius is less interested in representing an actual funeral than in creating a literary one, and indeed Opheltes’ funeral is deeply indebted to epic rites of the past. . . . “ As Ganiban proceeds to argue, the funeral rites are in part constructed to serve Statius’ own thematic interests. 119  Vessey 1973, 193–194. 118 

and others interpret these words to mean a stone temple, with marble scenes such as would be rendered in the entablature.120 Templum, however, is not restricted in meaning to the English temple or Greek ναός; in fact it has a more basic meaning of a defined open area, especially one with a sacred character, like the Greek word τέμενος, to which it is linguistically related. Furthermore, saxea moles is an especially clunky way to refer to a temple, but it is a rather apt phrase to describe the Nemea Heroön, with its rubble-lined mound and Tomb built of rough stone.121 The reference to ashes of course refers in the first instance to the burnt remains of the funeral pyre, but Statius could also have in mind the ashy remains of sacrifice in the Heroön. In short, his description, “a stony mound, a great shrine for his ashes,” therefore may not be a fanciful invention at all, but rather an allusion to the actual Nemean shrine. As for the relief scenes that Statius describes, we must still explain these as fiction, contrived no doubt to afford the poet another passage of ekphrasis; for not a trace of marble relief has been found at the shrine.122 Nevertheless, the inspiration for Vessey 1973, 194; Pache, 113. Fortgens, 123–124, sees instead another anachronism: in his view, Statius is modeling his description on the kind of stone mausoleum familiar to Romans of his own day, such as those found along the Appian Way. 121  Fortgens, 123, takes the phrase as a periphrasis for “monumentum marmoreum,” citing as a parallel Ov. Met. 12.283; but in that passage saxea moles refers to a single, enormous threshold block that the Lapith Charaxus tries to throw upon his centaur rival. The phrase conveys a sense of mass, not masonry. Whether Statius knew of the actual appearance of the shrine by secondhand description or in fact visited Nemea himself cannot be determined, but we do know that his father competed in the Nemean Games, which would have taken place in Argos at this period: Marchand, 116 n. 192. Like Pausanias in the following century, both father and son may have had an interest in visiting the ancient site of the Games. If Statius did see the Heroön, the excavated stratigraphy suggests that he would have seen the rubble features on the upper surface of the mound, together with the remains of ash and debris within the stone enclosure wall, although the surrounding landscape had silted up against the edges of the mound, thus reducing its apparent elevation. 122  On the poet’s penchant for ekphrasis see Fortgens’ commentary, 124–125; also Newlands 2012, 73–86. Pache, 113, rightly notes that Statius’ invention is not out of character for hero shrines, given that others do contain representations of the hero’s myth. To the shrine of Palaimon, which she cites as an example, can be added the Theseion at Athens with its wall paintings (Paus. 1.17.2–3) and the shrine of Aiakos on 120 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

this description may have been the stone enclosure wall of the Heroön, and a hint of this is found in the poet’s own words: . . . extremum tumuli circum asperat orbem / squameus . . . (246–247): the snake is rendered in relief as undulating around the circumference of the mound. Statius’ imaginary series of scenes thus outlines not a stone building but, like the real enclosure wall, the mound itself. Most of Book 6 concerns the funeral games held for Opheltes. The preliminaries involve two ritual processions: first, a procession of hecatombs of black bulls, heifers, and calves (6.265–267), followed by a parade of effigies of the Argives’ ancestral heroes (6.268–295). The specification of the color black for the sacrificial victims is commonly associated in literature with chthonic or funerary ritual, as Fortgens notes,123 but again there is no correspondence with the archaeologically attested ritual for Opheltes, which principally involved sheep according to the faunal remains from the Heroön. The procession of effigies is another anachronism inspired by the procession of imagines in Roman funerals.124 For the events of the funeral games, as Vessey observes, the poet draws mainly on two literary forerunners, Book 23 of the Iliad and Book 5 of the Aeneid; but at the same time he enjoys the freedom of adapting details in ways that suit his own epic.125 Nonetheless, since the funeral games belong to the Opheltes tradition from its earliest formulation, it behooves us to wonder to what extent, if at all, the details of the funeral games were fixed by that tradition. Naturally our understanding would be greatly aided if the relevant part of earlier sources had survived. Our one certainty about Euripides’ version is that Hypsipyle’s sons join in the games, a detail also found in the Pindaric scholia and in Hyginus, who specifies that the twins competed in, and won, the stadion race (cursus). In the Thebaid, however, they appear as competitors in the chariot race. The only other account that offers specifics about the contests is the Bibliotheke, the mythographic compendium of Aigina, the entrance to which was adorned with relief (Paus. 2.29.6–7). 123  Fortgens, 130. As examples of references to the sacrifice of black cattle in Roman literature he cites Lucr. 3.52; Verg., Georg. 4.546; Verg., Aen. 3.120; and other passages. 124  Fortgens, 130–131; Vessey 1973, 211. 125  Vessey 1973, 70, 209–210; Lovatt, passim, esp. 12–22, 40–54.

123

the 1st or 2nd century after Christ that was falsely ascribed to Apollodoros. A comparison of these two reveals differences not only in some of the contests but also in their outcomes. In Statius’ account, there are seven events, resulting in a victory for each of the Seven heroes: a chariot race, won by Amphiaraos; a stadion race, won by Parthenopaios; the discus, which Hippomedon wins; boxing, which Kapaneus wins by proclamation; wrestling, won by Tydeus; a hoplomachia, which Polyneikes wins unopposed; and lastly, archery, the victory going to Adrastos. In contrast, the Bibliotheke account (3.6.4 = T 42) forgoes the hoplomachia and includes the long jump and javelin. It is Adrastos who wins the chariot race, while Parthenopaios wins in archery, Polyneikes in wrestling, and Tydeus in boxing. Amphiaraos wins twice: the long jump and the discus. The remaining heroes are Eteoklos and Laodokos, not Kapaneus and Hippomedon, who win, respectively, the stadion and the javelin.126 Noting these differences, Vessey considers the Bibliotheke version traditional, whereas Statius’ version is an innovation, the mark of the poet’s craft. To support his claim that the Bibliotheke version “has every appearance of antiquity,” he marshals several arguments about what the older, epic tradition must have resembled.127 All are conjectural, and of them the only one that finds some support in earlier sources is the claim that Adrastos traditionally entered and won the chariot race with his vaunted horse Arion. We have already seen the fragmentary nature of that evidence, from Antimachos of Kolophon and Kallimachos. Yet even if we accept this one detail as traditional, there still remain points of inconsistency: the Bibliotheke account clearly differs from Euripides’ (and Hyginus’) in assigning no role to Hypsipyle’s sons, for example. In short, the claim that the Bibliotheke account follows a tradition about the funeral games essentially begs the question whether there existed so detailed a tradition. In fact there is little solid basis in the surviving testimony for it. The variability of events, participants, and victors in the funeral games for Opheltes implies instead

126  On the variability of the names (and indeed the number) of the Seven, see Gantz, 514–517; Krauskopf 1994, 730–732. 127  Vessey 1970, 139–140; Vessey 1973, 209–211 (quote at 210).

124

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

that the myth was not concerned with defining such particulars.128 Even in the midst of his vivid narrative of sweat, dust, and brawn, Statius finds moments to draw the reader’s attention to the tomb being honored by the games. The first happens during the chariot race, when Polyneikes, to whom Adrastos has lent his divine horse Arion, has trouble controlling his team and as a result nearly suffers a fatal crash.129 Here Statius pauses to ponder the consequences if the prince had perished there and thus averted the Theban expedition (6.513–517 = T 52). In gratitude, Statius imagines, he would receive worship even greater than the tomb of Archemoros ( . . . Archemori maior colerere sepulcro, 6.517). Once more the hero’s tomb is signaled before the final competition in archery takes place. Only Adrastos has yet to enter and win an event, and so the others urge him “to add this last honor to the grave mound” (tumulis supremum hunc addere honorem, 6.925 = T 53). One final reference comes at the very end of the Nemea episode. Jupiter at length has had enough of the Argives’ tarrying; he complains to Mercury of the scene he looks down on below (7.17–21 = T 54): ‘illi vix muros limenque egressa iuventus sacra colunt; credas bello rediisse, tot instant plausibus, offensique sedent ad iusta sepulcri. hicne tuus, Gradive, furor? sonat orbe recusso discus et Oebalii coeunt in proelia caestus.’ “These youths, having barely left the threshold of their city walls, Are attending sacred rites—you would think they were back from war, for so much Applause do they vie—and they sit for the due honors of the offended tomb. Is this your rage, Gradivus? Their discus clangs as its circle rebounds, And they engage in battles of the Oibalian boxing glove.”

Jupiter’s juxtaposition of the games and the hero’s Cf. Brelich, 101 and n. 87. Arion goes on to cross the finish line first, but the victory is awarded to Amphiaraos and his team instead. Propertius, in a poem about his rival Lynceus, also alludes to Arion’s role in the Nemean funeral games (2.34.37–38 = T 38): qualis et Adrasti fuerit vocalis Arion, / tristis ad Archemori funera victor equus; on which see Vessey 1973, 210 n. 2. On Statius’ subsequent use of Arion in his Silvae see Newlands 2011. 128  129 

tomb not only emphasizes again the aetiological relationship between them, but it is even possible to see in the phrase offensique sedent ad iusta sepulcri an echo of the early topography of Nemea, where the Heroön physically adjoins the embankment that was used for watching the athletic events, as described above in Chapter 1. The Nemea episode concludes with one final act, one final speech (7.90–99 = T 55): Adrastos pours a wine libation on the ground, over the ashes of Archemoros, and offers the newly worshipped hero a prayer. In it we encounter one last expression of the aetiological relationship between the funeral rites for Opheltes and the Nemean Games. Adrastos wishes for the rites just concluded to continue as a biennial celebration, a transparent reference to the future festival that he further develops with the conceit that the cult figures of the other three Panhellenic Games would abandon their own rites out of envy. As Pache comments, the speech has a strong affinity with Amphiaraos’ speech at the end of Book 5, and Adrastos likewise affirms the dead baby’s divine status (98–99): nos te lugenti, puer, infitiamur Averno,/ maestaque perpetuis sollemnia iungimus astris . . . , “We deny you, child, to gloomy Avernus, / And your mournful ceremonies we join with the eternal stars. . . .”130 The rich narrative that Statius fashions from the myth of Opheltes without a doubt owes much to earlier authors as well as to the clever embroidery of Statius’ own genius; yet through it all the poet adheres faithfully to the core concepts of the myth. At critical points he emphasizes the lasting cult that arises from it and the perpetuation of the funeral games as the biennial Nemean festival. The tomb of Opheltes also figures prominently in the narrative, and perhaps as a token of its importance, Statius, I argue, even transcends all that is fanciful in his account to touch upon the actual topography of Nemea. Finally, there is the renaming of Opheltes as Archemoros and its requisite etymology. For Statius this new name and the hero’s new cult form not just the center point of the Nemean episode; he makes it the very circumference as well: just as he introduces the name and the cult proleptically at the beginning of the episode, he closes with them in Adrastos’ prayer. A few lines

On the image of being joined with the stars and its implication of deification, see Smolenaars, 61–62. 130 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

later, the Argives have reached Akrokorinth and are well on the way to meet their doom. Statius invokes the funerary aetiology of the Nemean Games on one other occasion, in one of the poems of his Silvae. In a poem celebrating the shrine and festival of Herakles that his friend and patron Pollius Felix established at Surrentum, he draws a contrast between the happy celebration there and the funereal ambience of the Nemean and Isthmian festivals (Silv. 3.1.142–143 = T 56): nil his triste locis; cedat lacrimabilis Isthmos, / cedat atrox Nemee: litat hic felicior infans, “No sadness in this place; away with the tearful Isthmus, / Away with gloomy Nemea: here a more fortunate infant makes offerings.” The felicior infans at Surrentum is Pollius Felix’s grandson, whom Statius describes as serving in Herakles’ new cult. In addition to making a pun on the name Felix,131 the phrase contrasts with the “unfortunate” children who are worshipped at “the tearful Isthmus” and “gloomy Nemea,” namely Melikertes and Opheltes. As we noted already in the fragment of Kallimachos’ ode for Sosibios and the Pindaric scholia, the similarity of the myth and cult of these two heroes inclines them to frequent pairing in ancient thought. A far more summary treatment of the legend of Opheltes than that of Statius’ Thebaid is found in the Bibliotheke (3.6.4 = T 42). Its rendition of the funeral games we have already examined; the rest of the story treads a familiar path. In this version the child’s parents are Lykourgos and Eurydike; Lykourgos is described only as a king of Nemea. To provide water for the Seven, Hypsipyle leaves behind Opheltes, who is described as an infant (νήπιον παῖδα).132 After the snake kills the abandoned child (by what means is not specified), the Seven kill the snake and bury Opheltes. Amphiaraos interprets the omen and bestows the new name Archemoros on the child. In the phrase τὸ σημεῖον τὰ μέλλοντα προμαντεύεσθαι we find a restatement in prose of Bakchylides’ σᾶμα μέλλοντος φόνου; despite the passing of so many centuries, the name Archemoros remains inextricably bound with its etymology. Lastly, the Seven institute games for Opheltes, which are marked as funeral games by the use of ἐπί with the dative, but at the same time are recognized as the beginning of the recurAlso noted by Laguna, 178, who cites additional examples of Statius playing on the name at 140. 132  Pache, 105. 131 

125

ring Nemean Games: οἱ δὲ ἔθεσαν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τὸν τῶν Νεμέων ἀγῶνα. . . . We are also indebted to the Bibliotheke for what constitutes our sole account of the extended genealogy of Opheltes, and it is a surprising one (Bibl. 1.9.14 = T 41). It states that Opheltes’ father, Lykourgos, was the son of Pheres, the founder of Pherai in Thessaly, and the brother of Admetos. Lykourgos moved to Nemea from Thessaly and there married Eurydike, or, according to other sources, Amphithea. Now it is possible to reconcile this account with the others that call Lykourgos Argive or Asopian by assuming that the latter appellations ref lect his residency at Nemea rather than his birth.133 On the other hand, there is some possibility of confusion in the mythological tradition: in the preceding section of the Bibliotheke, there is an account of the Argive royal family descended from Bias and Pero, in which both another Lykourgos and another Amphithea appear (Bibl. 1.9.13 = T 41). The Lykourgos in this family tree is the son of Pronax, who is the son of Talaos and a brother of Adrastos. Amphithea is Lykourgos’ sister; she later marries their uncle Adrastos and has five children with him. This second, Argive Lykourgos is connected with an alternate version of the foundation of the Nemean Games, as we shall see below. For now it bears repeating that the Bibliotheke account is the only ancient source that specifically describes the paternal lineage of Opheltes, and it is clearly distinct from the Argive family. Opheltes’ tender age has been a consistent feature of the ancient accounts, in which at the very least the hero is described as a small child. This receives more direct comment in the writings of Plutarch. In an essay composed as consolation to his friend Apollonios (Mor. 110f = T 57), he addresses the special hardship of coping with untimely death, choosing as his mythological exemplum Opheltes and in fact quoting from Another hint of this tradition of Thessalian roots may be the curious circumstance that Admetos of Thessaly is one of the competitors in the chariot race in Statius’ account of the funeral games. He is the only participant who has no connection to the Argive expedition, the Hypsipyle story, or the region around Nemea. If, however, Statius is assuming the same genealogy presented in the Bibliotheke, it would be more understandable for the dead child’s uncle to join in the rites. For other possible explanations of Admetos’ presence, see Vessey 1973, 214. 133 

126

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

Amphiaraos’ speech to Eurydike in Euripides’ Hypsipyle (F 757.920–927). Plutarch prefaces the quotation with a description of Eurydike’s distress: ὅτι νήπιος ὢν ὁ παῖς καὶ ἄγαν ἄωρος ἐτελεύτησε, «that her son died an exceedingly untimely death as an infant.»134 When Pausanias visited Nemea in the 2nd century after Christ, the myth of Opheltes was clearly on his mind (2.15.2–3 = T 61). The Periegete begins his description of Nemea in this fashion: . . . καὶ ἡ Νεμέα τὸ χωρίον ἀπέχει σταδίους πέντε που καὶ δέκα. ἐν δὲ αὐτῇ Νεμείου τε Διὸς ναός ἐστι θέας ἄξιος, πλὴν ὅσον κατερρυήκει τε ὁ ὄροφος καὶ ἄγαλμα οὐδὲν ἔτι ἐλείπετο· κυπαρίσσων τε ἄλσος ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν ναόν, καὶ τὸν Ὀφέλτην ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ τεθέντα ἐς τὴν πόαν διαφθαρῆναι λέγουσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ δράκοντος. . . . and the place Nemea is about fifteen stades away. In it is a temple of Nemean Zeus worthy of view, except that the roof had fallen in and there was no cult statue left, and around it is a grove of cypresses; and there they say that Opheltes was placed on the grass by his nurse and killed by the snake.

Pausanias introduces the story of Opheltes immediately after describing the Temple of Zeus and its surrounding cypress grove, leading many scholars to understand Pausanias’ words as saying that Opheltes died within the grove.135 By this reading, it appears that Pausanias is following the tradition that Hypsipyle set the child aside before heading off to the spring with the Seven. The statement implies, moreover, that the place of Opheltes’ death was a known and fixed element in the topography of the Sanctuary. It is possible, however, to read the text in another way. The adverb ἐνταῦθα need not refer specifically to the grove but could indicate “the place Nemea” in general. This must be its force later in the text, when Pausanias turns to describe the shrine of Opheltes (ἐνταῦθα ἔστι μὲν Ὀφέλτου τάφος . . .), which certainly was not in

the cypress grove. To be sure, the punctuation that many modern editions print—a comma after περὶ τὸν ναόν—facilitates the traditional reading of the passage, but it is just as possible to replace the comma with a period. By this alternate reading, Pausanias, after describing the principal and most interesting monument of Nemea, makes an independent statement identifying the principal myth associated with Nemea, with no intention of pinpointing it within the Sanctuary of Zeus.136 Pausanias continues his account with a statement about the importance of Nemea in his day, as measured by the cult activities of the Argives, and then turns his attention to describing the Heroön, testimony that we have considered already in Chapter 1. Immediately thereafter, Pausanias mentions the tomb of Lykourgos: ἔστι δὲ χῶμα γῆς Λυκούργου μνῆμα τοῦ Ὀφέλτου πατρός. Here too Pausanias’ paratactic style has occasionally tripped unwary scholars, who have claimed that this feature is also to be found within Opheltes’ shrine,137 but this cannot be correct. Syntactically, the ἔστι δὲ introducing the mound of Lykourgos contrasts with the ἔστι μὲν introducing the grave and other elements of Opheltes’ shrine; they must be separate features. Topographically and morphologically, moreover, the proposition of a mound within the hero shrine, which itself is a mound, seems dubious. It is interesting, however, that Pausanias names the occupant of the mound as Lykourgos. Provided that this name was traditionally associated with the feature, and that it is not just Pausanias’ inference from a more general identification of the feature as the grave of Opheltes’ father, then we have some basis for acknowledging the authority of this name at Nemea over the more enigmatic Euphetes seen in some ancient accounts. As for the circumstances of Lykourgos’ death, the literary tradition is utterly silent. The location of his tomb at Nemea remains unknown, as well as whether it, like Opheltes’, was ever a locus of cult. Hence the text would be punctuated as follows: ἐν δὲ αὐτῇ Νεμείου τε Διὸς ναός ἐστι θέας ἄξιος, πλὴν ὅσον κατερρυήκει τε ὁ ὄροφος καὶ ἄγαλμα οὐδὲν ἔτι ἐλείπετο, κυπαρίσσων τε ἄλσος ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν ναόν. καὶ τὸν Ὀφέλτην ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ τεθέντα ἐς τὴν πόαν διαφθαρῆναι λέγουσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ δράκοντος. This

136  134  This explicit reference to his status as ἄωρος, implied in all other references to his tender age, is noteworthy in relation to the finding of curse tablets in the Heroön: see Appendix B. 135  See e.g. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod’s 1918 translation for the Loeb series; Papachatzis, 126–127; Abramson, 151; Pache, 114. On the archaeological evidence for the grove, see the discussion earlier in this chapter of the setting of Euripides’ Hypsipyle.

would not be inconsistent with Pausanias’ style; he frequently shifts his attention in an abrupt manner and starts a new sentence with καί, as is seen later in the Nemea passage: καὶ ὄρος Ἀπέσας ἐστὶν. . . . 137  E.g. Pülhorn, 473; Miller, “Excavations,” 142; Pache, 114.

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

127

The final feature that Pausanias describes at Nemea is a spring called Adrasteia, a name whose origin he cannot explain with certainty:

decades later, offers an account steeped in antipagan polemic (Protr. 2.34.1 = T 67). In regard to Nemea he writes, Νεμέασι δὲ ἄλλο παιδίον

Commentators have been more resolute in equating this spring with the one visited by Hypsipyle and the Seven, the one Statius calls Langia, and they further identify it with one still f lowing on the hillside directly east of the Sanctuary of Zeus, located in a cleft on the opposite side of the ancient pass to Kleonai from the Early Hellenistic Stadium.138 This spring was certainly known in antiquity, and it was almost certainly a source of water for the Sanctuary, the Bath in particular. It is therefore likely to have acquired the patina of legend, through association with the name of Adrastos and/or the legend of Opheltes, but absolute proof is wanting that this spring, the one of the Opheltes myth, and the one mentioned by Pausanias are one and the same.139 While Pausanias’ account of Nemea is colored by his fervent antiquarian respect for the myths and cults of old, Clement of Alexandria, a few

child, Archemoros, is mourned, and the child’s funeral games are called the Nemean Games.” In this passage Clement takes the traditional funerary association of the four great Games—a theme we have observed in Statius (T 50 and T 55) as well as the scholia on Pindar (T 33)—and turns it into an object of derision. Nevertheless, the theme returns with its positive valorization once more in an epigram of the Latin poet Ausonius, writing in the 4th century after Christ (Ecl. 15 = T 73).140 Of the four festivals, the special closeness of the Isthmian Games and the Nemean Games in regard to their aetiological legends of slain child heroes likewise continues to receive notice well into Late Antiquity. We have traced this theme already from Kallimachos, to the Pindaric scholia, to Statius. In a similar vein, an epigram in the Greek Anthology (9.357 = T 66) refers to the four great festivals as sacred, “two to mortals, and two to immortals,” οἱ δύο μὲν θνητῶν, οἱ δύο δ’ ἀθανάτων, the mortals being Palaimon and Archemoros. Furthermore Ausonius, in another of his Eclogues, presents a nearly verbatim translation of this (Ecl. 12 = T 70; see also Ecl. 13 = T 71). So too in the 3rd century after Christ, the NeoPlatonist philosopher Iamblichos, in his biography of the life of Pythagoras, recounts a lecture that he supposedly delivered on the cultural value of boys. Among his observations is the connection of the stephanitic games with boys (VP 52 = T 68), the Nemean and Isthmian festivals in particular being in honor of the dead boys Archemoros and Melikertes. In a treatise on epideictic oratory ascribed to the rhetorician Menander, a rough contemporary of Iamblichos, we find a discussion of the methods of praising festivals, one of which is praising the figure to whom the festival is dedicated, whether a god, a hero, or a ruler. The Isthmian Games for Palaimon and the Nemean Games for Archemoros figure as his examples of festivals for heroes (366.18–20 = T 69).

τὴν δὲ πηγὴν Ἀδράστειαν ὀνομάζουσιν εἴτε ἐπ’ ἄλλῃ τινὶ αἰτίᾳ εἴτε καὶ ἀνευρόντος αὐτὴν Ἀδράστου.

E.g. Frazer, 94; Papachatzis, 128 n. 2; Musti and Torelli, 263; Ogden 55. See the thorough discussion of this spring in Nemea I, 220–227; also Marchand, 118–119. Some support comes from Lactantius Placidus (T 76), who locates the Langia near where the Nemean Games are celebrated. 139  Signe Barfoed recently has published a deposit of pottery and other material that was excavated in 1925 by Oscar Broneer and which she names the Rawson Deposit after Marion Rawson, who first undertook a study of the material. It was located some 100 meters away from the spring to the northwest: see Barfoed 2009, 40–41, with figs. 3 and 5, for a description of the find spot. The deposit clearly consists of votive material of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C., but the shrine to which it originally belonged is unclear. Barfoed 2009, 41–43, 90–94, suggests that the material belonged not to the Sanctuary of Zeus but to a shrine associated with the spring, an argument supported in part by the presence of a great number of miniature hydriai in the deposit; and she further suggests that cult was dedicated to the water nymph Nemea. As she admits, she is dealing in possibilities, but if it could be established confidently that the deposit belonged to a shrine related to the spring, then we could perhaps use it as evidence for the ancient association of the spring with the Opheltes myth. While we are still in the realm of speculation, it is worth considering that such a shrine might have served a hero cult for Hypsipyle, which is admittedly unattested in the ancient sources but could explain the presence of the miniature hydriai: as we shall see in Chapter 4, the hydria is a frequent element in the iconography of Hypsipyle and the death of Opheltes. 138 

Ἀρχέμορος κεκήδευται καὶ τοῦ παιδίου ὁ ἐπιτάφιος προσαγορεύεται Νέμεα, “At Nemea another small

140  Even later, the Byzantine scholiasts on the Greek Anthology (ll. 9–15 Lolos = T 87) express the same sentiment in words that clearly derive, at least in part, from the passage in the Pindaric scholia already discussed (T 33).

128

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

Finally, in his commentary on Statius’ Thebaid, the scholiast Placidus, in an admittedly confused passage, alludes to the similar funerary origins of the Isthmian and Nemean Games, and even seems to muse that the two festivals originally ought to have been called more aptly the Melikertia and the Archemoria (in Stat. Theb. comm. 3.478–479 = T 74). Elsewhere he more explicitly describes the Nemean Games as funeral games in honor of Archemoros (T 76–77, T 81). One additional measure of the importance of Opheltes is the smattering of testimonia regarding persons and things named after him. To be sure his name is not unique. In Boiotia it is attested as a name for both historical and legendary persons, and some Latin authors assign the name to minor characters in their works; none of these need be derived from the Nemean Opheltes.141 There was a mountain in Euboia, however—mentioned in Lykophron’s Alexandra—with the same name, and the Byzantine scholiasts, rightly or wrongly, derive it from the Nemean Opheltes (Schol. ad Lyc. 373 = T 91). More plausible, though otherwise unattested, is a reference to Opheltion as the original name of a mountain in the Nemea Valley ([Plut.], De fluv. 18.4 = T 59), a name that, whether genuine or not, probably derives from the name of the hero worshipped in the valley below.142 Particularly fascinating is the appearance of an Opheltes in the Dionysiaka of Nonnos of Panopolis, who lived in the 5th century after Christ. No baby this Opheltes; rather, he is one of several chief warriors who fight with Dionysos against the Indians but dies in battle, slain by the spear of Deriades (32.184–190). Nonnos singles him out for special distinction, however: in Book 37, a deeply distraught Dionysos takes advantage of a pause in battle to honor him with an elaborate burial and funeral games. As H. J. Rose notes, the book is based in great detail on Homer’s description of the

See Herter, cols. 639–640; Vermeule, 137, who notes that the name may also appear in Linear B in the form o-pe-re-ta at Pylos. The name is also inscribed in the genitive form in the Cypriote syllabic script on a bronze spit or pin from an 11th-century B.C. tomb on Cyprus: Karageorghis, 788, fig. 76. 142  The passage also connects this mountain with the Nemean lion: see Marchand, 218–219. It is not clear from the wording of the passage whether Opheltion is another name for Mount Apesas, as Marchand takes it, or is another mountain in the area of Nemea. 141 

funeral and games of Patroklos,143 but one cannot help but suspect that Nonnos’ choice of Opheltes was inspired by the central myth of the Nemean Games. Immediately before beginning the games, Dionysos exhorts his men to think of the great athletic festivals of Greece: He refers to Pelops and the festival at Olympia, the Pythian Games, the less celebrated athletic festivals at Marathon and at Pallene in Achaia, and he concludes with the Isthmian contest of Palaimon (37.136–153). Thus Nonnos is surely thinking of more than just an epic model. Glaringly absent, however, is any mention of the Nemean Games. Perhaps Nonnos does this because of “chronological scruple,” since the Nemean Games are founded at the time of the expedition against Thebes, hence several generations after the events of the Dionysiaka; but is it not possible that he is consciously toying with the expectations of those who know mythological tradition, giving a subtle wink that signals the inspiration for his character?144 From the Archaic period well into Late Antiquity, the story of the baby hero Opheltes who dies and becomes Archemoros is an enduring tale, one that far outlives the hero’s cult. Our impression of the importance and reception of this foundation legend in antiquity would be skewed, nonetheless, if we did not also consider brief ly the two alternate legends that also lay some claim to explaining the foundation of the Nemean Games.

PRONAX AND THE NEMEAN GAMES The more shadowy of the two alternate foundation stories regards the Nemean Games as funeral games not for Opheltes but for Pronax of Argos. His name surfaced once already in the genealogical passage from the Bibliotheke discussed above: he is the son of Talaos and brother of Adrastos, and the father of a Lykourgos as well (Bibl. 1.9.13 = T 41). Regarding this legendary Argive, Aelian writes (VH 4.5 = T 63):

In Rouse, 36–37. Rouse, 47 (quote). Nonnos may also be influenced by the intertextual associations between Opheltes and Dionysos. In Euripides’ Hypsipyle, he is the nursling of the granddaughter of Dionysos, a fact Hypsipyle proclaims in the prologue, and Dionysos himself appears at the end of the play. In Statius’ Thebaid, he becomes Bacchus’ innocent victim. 143  144 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας Πρώνακτι καὶ ἐκεῖνοι χάριτας ἀπέδοσαν. διὰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἀπολομένου τοῦ Πρώνακτος τὸν ἀγῶνα ἔθεσαν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, ὃν οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τεθῆναι ἐξ ἀρχῆς. And even the Seven against Thebes returned favors to Pronax. For since Pronax died on their account, they established in his honor the contest that is commonly thought to have been established in honor of Archemoros from the start.

The games that the Seven found for Pronax must be the Nemean Games, as the reference to the common opinion relating them to Archemoros makes clear. The only other ancient passage to make the same connection is found in the Pindaric scholia (T 28), where the variant is expressed in passing and in allusive terms: οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ Ταλαοῦ παιδί, Ἀδράστου δὲ ἀδελφῷ, “Others [say that they were founded] in honor of the son of Talaos, brother of Adrastos.” In both sources, then, the Pronax foundation legend is presented as a minority viewpoint. A puzzling element of Aelian’s account is that it associates Pronax’s death with the circumstances of the expedition of the Seven. In fact the story of the death of Pronax is recounted elsewhere in the Pindaric scholia (Schol. Pi. N. 9.30), in a passage that provides an altogether different context for the episode: stasis at Argos among the great families of the Anaxagoridai, the Melampodidai, and the Biantidai. Amphiaraos, of the Melampodidai, kills the Biantid Pronax during his reign as king of Argos and assumes the throne. Adrastos, Pronax’s brother, f lees to Sikyon, where he becomes king. The tradition of Adrastos’ kingship in Sikyon is an ancient one, mentioned even in the Catalogue of Ships (Il. 2.572); and the account in the Pindaric scholia is attributed to the fourth-century Sikyonian historian Menaichmos. M.-C. Doffey unites this account with another tradition in the Pindaric scholia, that Adrastos founded the Pythian Games at Sikyon during his reign there, and adroitly proposes that the Pronax myth originally functioned as aition not for the Nemean Games but for the Pythian Games at Sikyon.145 In this light, the association of the Nemean Games with Pronax appears to be a confused hy-

brid of two different aetiological legends. While the institution of games for Pronax derives from the Sikyonian foundation legend, the other details that Aelian supplies are the traditional elements of the Archemoros legend: namely, the association with the Seven and their sense of responsibility for the death of the hero. Another indication of the hybridity of the account is the attempt to reconcile the Pronax story with that of Archemoros in a chronological fashion. For the implication of the phrase ἐξ ἀρχῆς in the Aelian passage must be that according to this variant tradition, while the games were originally instituted for Pronax, they were later rededicated to Archemoros.146 This method of combining differing aetiologies and organizing them into a chronological sequence of foundation and refoundation bears the mark of ancient scholars and mythographers, who wrestled to make sense of what to them seemed logically inconsistent. We will observe the same phenomenon at work in the tradition of Herakles and the lion vis-à-vis Opheltes. In Doffey’s view, the confusion of the death of Pronax with the origin of the Nemean Games arises from the similarities of both aitia, namely the death of a hero resulting in funeral games, as well as the genealogical similarity of their principal protagonists, Pronax and Opheltes, who are both related to a man named Lykourgos.147 But are Pronax and Opheltes related? As we noted previously in the discussion of the gnarled genealogies of the Bibliotheke, Pronax has a son named Lykourgos, and the father of Opheltes is also a Lykourgos (who is the son of Pheres of Thessaly): the Bibliotheke clearly treats them as distinct men. No other ancient source explicitly equates these two homonymous men, nor is there any ancient attestation of a direct relationship between Opheltes and Pronax. Nevertheless, most modern scholars, including Doffey, dismiss the Bibliotheke account and take them to be one and the same Lykourgos, making Opheltes the grandson of Pronax.148 We need not accept this relationship, however, to explain the confusion between the two myths; the confusion of two men named Lykourgos is a sufficient explanation and one that allows us to So noted by Doffey, 188. Doffey, 189, 193. 148  E.g. Bethe, 171; Marbach, col. 2441; Simon, 31; Brillante, 45, with n. 6. Cf. Gantz, 512, who respects the distinction. 146  147 

145 

Doffey, 189, 193.

129

130

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

respect the ancient testimony. In the case of the death of Pronax, therefore, it is likely that it originally explained the origins of the Pythian Games at Sikyon, and only in the hands of later scholars did it become confused with the Nemean tradition of Opheltes. There is no evidence to indicate a widespread belief in antiquity that Pronax was in any way connected with the Nemean Games or Nemea.149

HERAKLES AND THE NEMEAN LION In sharp contrast with the relative obscurity of the death of Pronax, the tale of Herakles and the Nemean lion radiates throughout antiquity. Already known from the work of Hesiod (Theogony 327–330), Herakles’ first labor was a staple of Archaic and Classical literature and art.150 It is inconceivable, therefore, that ancient visitors to the Sanctuary of Zeus and the Nemean Games could have been unaware of this feat, and many surely reveled in the possibility that they were retracing the great hero’s very footsteps, but the legend failed to leave much of a mark in the archaeological record of the Sanctuary.151 On the basis of the prominence and antiquity of the myth, some scholars have claimed that the Herakles myth was in fact the original aetiology of the Nemean Games, and that only later did the Opheltes myth supplant it.152 A review of the evidence leads to the reverse conWe should accordingly dismiss as spurious conjecture the scholarly claims that Pronax was regarded in antiquity as an early king in Nemea and that his grave should have been located at Nemea: Geisau, col. 741. 150  Maehler 1982, 152 (on the tradition of the first labor); Fuhrer 1992, 80 n. 300 (references in choral poetry); Gantz, 383–384. 151  Two small artifacts may allude to it, a small bronze attachment in the shape of a lion’s head (BR 1040) and a relief representation in gold foil of Herakles’ head with the lion skin (GJ 26): Guide, 25; Guide2, 34, figs. 14–15. Stephen Miller (pers. comm.) points out to me that even the bronze attachment may be generic and not specifically refer to the Nemean lion, just as presumably the lion’s-head waterspouts of the Temple of Zeus do not. For coins found at Nemea bearing symbols related to this myth, see below. 152  Wilamowitz, for instance, maintains that the myth of Herakles and the lion represents a foundation legend for an earlier stage of the festival before its organization as a Panhellenic festival in the 6th century B.C.: Maehler 1982, 253 n. 5 (Maehler himself rejects this view). See also Brelich, 104; Adshead, 24, 59; Marchand, 200 n.151. 149 

clusion, however: its association with the origins of the Nemean Games is a later product of ancient scholarly thought that only appears to challenge the authority of the Opheltes aition. In Bakchylides’ Epinician 9 we earlier observed the poet’s invocation of both legends in the same ode to effect an alternating rhythm of episodes building to the success of the victor Automedon at Nemea. There we noted that while the poet begins the ode with the celebration of Herakles’ victory, it is the funeral games held by the Seven that he acknowledges as the first celebration of the Nemean Games. A stronger case for an early association between Herakles and the foundation of the Nemean Games is Bakchylides’ Epinician 13, for Pytheas of Aigina. Although its beginning is missing, the surviving text opens with a description of Herakles’ defeat of the Nemean lion followed by a prophetic utterance (13.54–57 = T 3): . . . ἦ ποτέ φαμι [τᾶιδε] περὶ στεφάνοισι [παγκ]ρατίου πόνον Ἑλ[λάνεσσι]ν ἱδρώεντ’ ἔσεσθαι.

55

Truly at some time, I declare, In this place, for the sake of crowns, Will the Hellenes have the toil of the pankration Dripping with sweat.

The unknown speaker of these opening lines (Athena, as Herakles’ ally, is a plausible suggestion) foretells future competition in the pankration at Nemea with a crown as the prize. The passage does not explicitly claim Herakles’ feat as the reason for the future Games. Instead, as Maehler elucidates, Bakchylides uses the fierce struggle between Herakles and the lion as a mythic parallel or aition for the pankration competition at Nemea, in which Pytheas is now victor.153 More ambiguous is the fragmentary Victoria Berenices of Kallimachos. The extensive narrative of Herakles’ visit to Kleonai, the hospitality he receives from the peasant farmer Molorkos, and his struggle with the Nemean lion occupy the bulk of the surviving lines. With so much attention to 153  Maehler 1982, 252–253; followed by Fuhrer 1992, 79 and n. 296, 113; Pache 105. Miller 2004, 57–58, notes further that the impenetrable nature of the lion’s hide offers a mythic parallel for the pankration’s prohibition against biting and gouging, actions that would pierce the body of the opponent.

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

this one episode, it is perhaps natural to wonder whether Kallimachos is portraying this myth as the aetiology of the Nemean Games, and the key passage in this matter comes near the end of the narrative of Herakles’ visit (fr. 54i Harder = T 22). The legible text resumes in the middle of what seems to be Herakles’ report to Molorkos about a prediction he received after his victory over the lion, probably from Athena (cf. Παλλάς, l.13). The most coherent lines of the prophecy refer ostensibly to the wild celery crown of Nemea, which, it is said, will be adopted as well at the Isthmian Games in rivalry with the Nemean Games.154 Also of interest in this passage is the reference to an ongoing holy rite or sacrifice (νῦ]ν δ’ ἔθ’ [ἁ] γ ̣ι [̣ στείη]ν οὐδαμὰ παυσομένην, l. 21), if indeed the restoration is correct.155 If it is, this rite may refer to the sacrifice to Zeus at the Nemean Games, but another possible reference is to a local sacrifice at Kleonai, which is directly tied to the Herakles and Molorkos story.156 It is therefore difficult to assign this line any probative value in determining Kallimachos’ stance on the foundation of the Nemean Games. Simply put, the question this passage raises is 154  See the following section for discussion of the celery crown. The similarity between Kallimachos’ use of a prophecy to discuss the future games and the opening lines of Bakchylides’ Epinician 13 has not escaped notice; many argue that Kallimachos consciously borrows from his predecessor: Maehler 1982, 252; Parsons, 41; D’Alessio, 463 n. 29; Doffey, 186; Pache, 105; Harder, II, 474. Bornmann, in Livrea et al., 246–247, also sees Pi. O. 3, with its account of Herakles’ foundation of the Olympic Games, as a thematic model. 155  Pfeiffer supplied [ἁ]γ̣ι̣[στείη]ν exempli gratia, but no one has since offered a convincing alternative. The editors of SH cast doubt on the restoration, however, noting from autopsy that the reading of γ̣ι̣ could just as easily be π̣. Harder, II, 483, finds Pfeiffer’s supplement “attractive” but also advises “caution.” 156  Fuhrer 1992, 77 and 84, maintains that the line gives the aition for a sacrifice, whether to Zeus at the Nemean Games or perhaps for the local cult of Zeus Soter at Kleonai (as recorded e.g. at Bibliotheke 2.5.1); if, moreover, the line refers to a sacrifice to Zeus at Nemea, the poem may also be explaining the transfer of the games to Zeus. Pache, 105, takes the line as a reference to the Nemean Games. Marchand, 106–116, argues that one function of the Herakles and Molorkos story is to explain the cult of Herakles at Kleonai, so that the specific details of sacrifice in the story correspond to cult practice there. Though she does not directly address the line of Kallimachos presently under discussion, her arguments underscore the possibility that it refers to something at Kleonai rather than at Nemea. Harder, II, 480 and 483, suggests as another alternative a banquet in honor of Molorkos.

131

whether Kallimachos represents Herakles’ endeavor as the reason for the Nemean Games. Since Kallimachos refers to Opheltes at the beginning of the ode, it is hard to think that he completely dismisses his role in the aetiology of the Games. This leaves two basic alternatives, as Fuhrer explains:157 either Kallimachos adheres to the tradition of Opheltes, and his narrative of Herakles, Molorkos, and the Nemean lion has some other purpose than to explain the aetiology of the Games; or else he does represent Herakles as somehow responsible for their foundation, in addition to their founding by the Seven in honor of Opheltes. In the latter case, we have two further alternatives depending on the relative chronology of the two legends: One represents the original foundation, the other, a refoundation. Such a combination is attested in later sources, as we shall see, with some giving priority to Herakles, others to the Seven and Opheltes. Scholarly opinion on Kallimachos has ranged the gamut. J. P. Parsons accepts that he portrays Herakles as the original founder of the Nemean Games, and that the Games for Opheltes are, for the poet, a second, later, foundation by Adrastos. He bases this conclusion in part on a passage in the scholia to Vergil’s Georgics attributed to Probus (T 82), which summarizes the Herakles and Molorkos story and ends with the statement: inde Nemea instituta sunt: postea Archemori manibus sunt renovata a septem viris, qui Thebas petebant. sed Molorchi mentio est apud Callimachum in Αἰτίων libris. Thereafter the Nemean Games were established: afterward, they were renewed for the spirit of Archemoros by the seven heroes who were campaigning against Thebes. But there is mention of Molorkos in Kallimachos, in the books of his Aitia.

On the basis of the reference to Kallimachos’ Aitia, then, Parsons argues that the entire summary derives from this poem and accordingly attributes to Kallimachos the series of events preserved in the commentary.158 Fuhrer 1992, 81–85. Parsons, 41–42. He even suggests the possibility that Kallimachos returns to the Opheltes legend at the end of the poem, in keeping with this relative chronology. Harder, II, 387–388, 495, follows Parson’s reasoning. 157 

158 

132

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

A more tendentious claim is that of F. Bornmann, who argues that Kallimachos portrays Herakles as refounding the Games:159 in his view the Seven originally establish the Games for Opheltes, but the advent of the Nemean lion interrupts them; Herakles defeats the lion and reinstates them, but thenceforth as a festival of Zeus and with the wild celery crown as its prize. Bornmann bases his claim on an earlier, fragmentary passage of the poem, in which Molorkos describes to Herakles the wretched state of affairs in the area (fr. 54b.25–29 Harder = T 20): ...]α νυν, δρεπάνου γὰρ ἀπε⌊υ⌋θέ⌊α τέρχν[ε]α̣[ ...]α πολύσκαρθμος τοῦτον ἔχει⌊ν[...].[ ...].ε καὶ λίπτουσα δακεῖν κυτί⌊σοιο [χίμαιρα βληχ]άζει πυλέων ἐντὸς ἐερ[γομένη ....] δ̣υ̣σ̣ηβολίοιο τράγου̣ [...]...[

25

. . . now, for the young trees know not the sickle . . . . . . bounding . . . has this . . . . . . and eager to bite the clover the she-goat Bleats, shut within the gates . . . of the disagreeable he-goat . . .

The meaning of this passage is obscured by the many gaps in the papyrus, but in general it seems to concern purely rustic matters—the pruning of wood, a bleating she-goat confined to her pen. Nevertheless, in the Lille papyrus, the commentator has written a series of glosses after line 26 containing the phrase διὰ τὸν ἀγῶνα (fr. 60g.22 Harder = T 21), which has induced some scholars into understanding the adjective πολύσκαρθμος in line 26 as an allusion to the horses racing in the Nemean Games.160 While Parsons suggests a proleptic reference to the future Nemean Games, Bornmann proposes that the lines allude to the games for Opheltes, which have already been established but can no longer be held because of the lion. Unfortunately the gloss itself is very fragmentary, and no reconstruction is fully persuasive. If Bornmann is right, then Kallimachos’ account would make the funeral games for Opheltes the earlier event, later rededicated by Herakles as the Nemean Games in Zeus’ honor. The lacunose naBornmann, in Livrea et al., 249–251; cf. Harder, II, 433. See especially the commentary of Parsons, 20–21, on these lines and the accompanying glosses.

159  160 

ture of both the poem and the commentary does not inspire confidence in Bornmann’s interpretation, however, especially when the more natural interpretation of the passage is as a description of the simple rustic pursuits that the lion’s presence has brought to a halt.161 Fuhrer, for her part, believes that Kallimachos does not challenge the tradition that derives the Nemean Games from the funeral games of Opheltes. Based on the preserved lines of prophecy, however, she maintains that the poet credits Herakles with the invention of the wild celery crown and, accepting the reading of [ἁ]γ ̣ι [̣ στείη]ν, perhaps the sacrifice to Zeus at Nemea as well.162 Pache makes conf licting statements on this question, at one point writing that the aetiological association of the Herakles and the lion saga is a later phenomenon, while writing elsewhere that the poet does make Herakles the founder of the Games, followed by a refoundation by the Seven.163 Marchand, who approaches the question of aetiology from the perspective of Kleonai and its role in the Nemean Games, offers a fresh perspective on the discussion. In her view, the myth of Herakles, Molorkos, and the lion serves not to explain the foundation of the Games but only to explain the role of Kleonai in their administration, just as the involvement of the Seven in the Opheltes myth ref lects the role of Argos in the Nemean Games. Hence the two myths are “complementary, not antagonistic.”164 She further sees the return of the Nemean festival from Argos to the Nemea Valley at the end of the 4th century B.C. as the impetus for a resurgence of the Herakles myth: With the Games back in Nemea, Kleonai could resume an administrative role in the festival, and so had an interest in promoting the Herakles myth as the aition of its role.165 As evidence of Kleonai’s intent, Marchand points to a series of bronze coins issued by it and found in unusually high quantities at Nemea, particularly Compare the more cautious assessment of Harder, II, 433–434. As D’Alessio, 453 n. 12, points out, an additional problem arises if we follow Parsons in thinking that the later commentary attributed to Probus (above, T 82) is entirely indebted to Kallimachos; for it reverses the order of the two foundations. Parson’s reasoning on this point is not particularly persuasive, however. 162  Fuhrer 1992, 76, 81–85; Fuhrer 1993, 80. 163  Contrast Pache, 97 and n. 7, with Pache, 105 n. 34. 164  Marchand, 201. 165  Marchand, 199–201. 161 

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

in the Early Hellenistic Stadium. Dated by context to the end of the 4th century, the obverse features the head of Herakles wearing the lion skin, and the reverse bears the legend ΚΛΕΩ within a celery wreath.166 The fusion of the symbolism of the Nemean Games (the celery wreath) with the iconography of Herakles and the Nemean lion on these coins symbolizes the ties between Kleonai and the Games. In Marchand’s opinion, then, Kallimachos’ extended narrative of this legend need not signal that he regarded it as explaining either the original foundation or a refoundation of the festival. In my view, the text of the Victoria Berenices is insufficiently preserved to prove decisively whether Kallimachos assigns a founding (or refounding) role to Herakles in the Nemean Games. As was the case in Bakchylides, the prophetic speech to Herakles about the future Nemean Games does not prove that Herakles himself founded them; it may only highlight his feat as a prefiguration of the athletic feats that will one day unfold in the Nemea Valley, especially the victory of his descendant Berenike.167 Nor is it convincing, as Parsons argues, that the foundation narrative recounted by [Probus] must derive from Kallimachos simply because he mentions the poet at the end of the passage. Marchand’s analysis gives us further reason to suppose that the prominence of the myth in the Victoria Berenices serves interests other than explaining the festival’s foundation, and indeed there are several other aitia preserved in the poem. In addition, we should recall that in another of his poems, the Victoria Sosibii, Kallimachos alludes once more to the funerary aetiology of the Games. Hence, as a matter of probability, it is less likely that this poem presents a different aetiology. Several later authors recount the tale of Herakles’ visit with Molorkos, but even if we should accept that Kallimachos is the authority for all these sub-

Marchand, 195–198, 200; Nemea III, 51. In all, 31 examples of this type have been catalogued at Nemea: Nemea III, Cat. 1857–1887. There is also a second, contemporary series of bronze coins of Kleonai having the head of Zeus on the obverse and, on the reverse, a celery wreath encircling a club and the letters ΚΛ: Nemea III, 51; Marchand, 195. 167  Epinician in form, the poem clearly aims to glorify Berenike, and as many have noted, dwelling on the feat of Herakles, her ancestor, is a principal way in which Kallimachos accomplishes this: see, most recently, Harder, II, 392; Kampakoglou, 113–114; Clayman, 145-147. 166 

133

sequent accounts,168 it is certainly not the case that they all associate the tale with the foundation of the Nemean Games.169 In fact the sources that do make the association are just three: the previously discussed passage attributed to Probus (T 82), an account by Nigidius Figulus (fr. 93 = T 36), and one of the scholia by Placidus on Statius’ Thebaid (4.160 = T 75). Conversely, some later sources that do mention the Herakles and Molorkos episode nevertheless attribute the foundation of the Nemean Games to the funeral games of Opheltes. Statius is a prime example. In the Thebaid he most emphatically portrays the death of Opheltes as the reason for the Games, as we have seen; yet he also makes reference to Molorkos and Herakles’ first labor on several occasions (e.g. 4.146–160). Likewise Servius, in his commentary on Vergil’s Georgics, shows his awareness of the Molorkos and Herakles story, but he still assigns the origin of the Nemean Games to Archemoros (T 83). Other later sources attribute the foundation of the Nemean Games to Herakles, but without any mention of Molorkos. Of these, the earliest certain claim that the Nemean Games were founded as a result of Herakles’ first labor comes in the Pindaric scholia. Hypothesis (a) of the Nemean odes (T 26) begins, Τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν Νεμέων τινὲς μὲν ὑφ’ Ἡρακλέους τεθεῖσθαί φασιν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λέοντος ἀναιρέσει . . . , “Some say that the Nemean Games

were established by Herakles on the occasion of the slaying of the lion . . .”; it then continues to present the Opheltes legend as the alternative explanation of their founding. Likewise Ausonius names Alcides, i.e. Herakles, as the founder of the Nemean festival in his Eclogue 14 (T 72); and the scholia to the Greek Anthology record the opinion that the Games were held for Herakles in honor of his slaying of the lion: ὁ δὲ Νεμεακὸς κατά τινας τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λέοντος ἀναιρέσει . . . (ll. 11–12 Lolos = T 87).170 Hypothesis (d) of the Pindaric 168  As does Maehler 1982, 252. Marchand, 109 n. 171, lists 21 references to Herakles and Molorkos in later sources. That these all derive from Kallimachos seems unlikely given that Kallimachos did not invent the story and that it was already serving as aition for the cult of Herakles at Kleonai. There are, moreover, clear discrepancies in the details provided by the various sources: Harder, II, 492–494. 169  Fuhrer 1992, 78. 170  This passage seems particularly confused because it occurs in the context of demonstrating the statement that all the old games were founded for dead people; surely the Opheltes aetiology would be more appropriate in this context, and

134

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

scholia, on the other hand, regards the myths of Opheltes and the Nemean lion not as conf licting traditions but as a sequence of events, with Herakles refounding the festival and dedicating it to Zeus (T 29).171 Lastly, the scholiast of Clement of Alexandria’s Protreptikos (T 86) states that after the foundation of the Games for Archemoros, they were rededicated to Zeus, which may also ref lect an attempt at reconciling this aetiology with the legend of Herakles and the lion. To conclude, based on this survey of the ancient testimonia, I agree with Doffey and others that in the Archaic and Classical periods, and perhaps the Hellenistic as well, the myth of Herakles and the lion, while firmly entrenched in the mythology of the Nemea region, figured as a precedent and parallel to the Nemean Games, which were founded in honor of the slain child Opheltes. Only later does the aetiology of the festival become confused between the two legends.172 Kallimachos, in the 3rd century B.C., may have advanced the Herakles aetiology, but all the sources that certainly do so are of later date. This later confusion of aetiologies elicits some final observations. We begin with Maehler’s comment that while some of the ancient sources treat the two aetiologies as independent alternatives, many attempt to integrate them into a chronological sequence.173 Thus, some sources see Herakles as the founder of the Nemean Games, with the Seven later rededicating them to Opheltes ([Probus] = T 82, Schol. Pi. N. 10.49b = T 32). Others reverse the chronology, seeing Herakles as coming along later and rededicating the festival indeed the scholion subsequently mentions him and his parentage. Another possible reference to Herakles’ foundation of the games is Aelian, VH 4.5, which refers to Herakles transferring his honors from Nemea to Kleonai; for discussion of this passage, see Marchand, 206. 171  Compare also Schol. Pi. N. 6.71a–c = T 30, which records a view that the wild celery sprang from the blood of Archemoros and later become the fodder of the Nemean lion. 172  Doffey, 187, 192; citing her, Pache 105 n. 34; Marchand, 199–201. 173  Maehler, 144; Brelich 103. As Fuhrer points out, it is not clear from mythic chronology itself whether Opheltes or Herakles should have lived earlier: Fuhrer 1992, 82 n. 307. Historical cases of the reorganization of a festival could have made the solution more appealing to mythographers and scholiasts: Simon, 31. Marchand, 150 n. 158, in fact suggests that the return of the Nemean Games to the Sanctuary of Zeus in the 4th century B.C. may have inspired later accounts that make Herakles a refounder of the Games after the Seven.

to Zeus after his defeat of the lion (e.g. Schol. Pi. N. hyp. (d) = T 29, possibly also Schol. Clem. Alex. = T 86).174 What we witness in these late accounts, just as was seen in the case of Aelian’s reference to the legend of Pronax, is the struggle of ancient scholars and commentators to reconcile an apparent contradiction that originally did not exist. Moreover, it is worth observing that several of the sources describing the Herakles myth still betray a sense that the Opheltes myth is the correct, or at least more widely believed, explanation of the Nemean Games. Finally, we may observe that the confusion between the two myths enters ancient thought after the lapse of the cult of Opheltes at Nemea. As the archaeological results discussed in the previous chapter show, the remains of substantial cult activity in the Heroön come to an abrupt end at about the time that the Nemean Games move to Argos, in the first half of the 3rd century B.C.; nor is there any evidence of a comparable cult maintained at Argos. It is therefore possible that the lapse of this cult, which formerly so strongly tethered the Games to the Opheltes legend, contributed to the eventual blurring of their origin.

THE AETIOLOGY OF THE CROWN OF WILD CELERY As we have seen in the course of exploring Kallimachos’ Victoria Berenices, many scholars believe that the poet, regardless of how he treats the foundation of the Nemean Games, still ascribes to Herakles the origin of the crown of wild celery (σέλινον, Fig. 125).175 Ancient opinion was by no means unanimous on this point, and as our final task it is worth reviewing the evidence for the association of the historical crown of the Nemean Games with both Opheltes and Herakles. None of the extant early sources for the legend of Opheltes explicitly links it with the or174  The ancient notion that festivals and cults for heroes preceded those of the Olympian gods may have influenced the development of this sequence for the Nemean Games: see Rohde, 117. 175  Andrews, 91–99, demonstrates convincingly that σέλινον means “wild celery,” not “parsley,” as it has sometimes been translated. In recognition of the tradition, the locals use present-day wild celery to make the wreaths awarded as prizes in the revival of the Nemean Games.

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

135

terms (Schol. Pi. O. 13.45c = T 25): ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἐπιτάφιοι, ἱερὸν δὲ τὸ σέλινον τῶν καταχθονίων, “For both are funerary, and the wild celery is sacred to those below.” By this explanation, the wild celery crown was chosen because of the funerary aetiology of the Nemean Games, hence because of the death of Opheltes. Pausanias makes this association even more explicit (8.48 = T 62):

ἐν Ἰσθμῷ δὲ ἡ πίτυς καὶ τὰ ἐν Νεμέᾳ σέλινα ἐπὶ τοῦ Παλαίμονος καὶ τοῦ Ἀρχεμόρου τοῖς παθήμασιν ἐνομίσθησαν, “The pine at the Isthmus and the wild

FIG. 125. blossom.

Wreath of wild celery with flowers in

igin of this crown. The fragmentary speech of Amphiaraos in Euripides’ Hypsipyle does include a tantalizing mention of crowns (F 757.935 = T 15), but it can only be conjecture that Euripides specifically associates the wild celery with Opheltes either in this passage or elsewhere in the play. Several of the Pindaric scholia, on the other hand, do address the origins of the Nemean prize. A scholion on Pindar’s Olympian 13, for instance, explains the association of wild celery with both the Nemean and Isthmian Games176 in the following A note on the history of the Isthmian crown is necessary, for which Broneer, 259–263, offers a concise summary with reference to the relevant ancient sources and representations in art. Blech, 131–134, disputes some of the finer points of Broneer’s conclusions; see also Harder, II, 475–476. Originally the crown was of pine, but at some time in the early 5th century, the wild celery crown was substituted; later sources attributed the change to jealous rivalry with Nemea (discussed below). Pindar consistently refers to the Isthmian prize as a crown of wild celery, as indeed is the case in Olympian 13, as the scholiast himself points out. Then in the 2nd century B.C., the pine crown was reintroduced, although there is some evidence that the wild celery crown was also used. Schol. Pi. N. hyp. (d) = T 29, along with a few other sources, notes a difference between the wild celery crowns at Isthmia and Nemea, the latter being fresh and the former dry. Broneer, 261, discusses an inscribed Hellenistic relief from Argos that he claims illustrates this, but Blech, 134, doubts that this distinction was real. 176 

celery in Nemea were made customary in honor of the sufferings of Palaimon and Archemoros.” Hyginus, we have seen, gives the wild celery a specific role in the myth, as the place where Hypsipyle placed the child while she drew water from the nearby spring (T 39), but later commentators are aware of more than one way to relate the Nemean crown to the Opheltes legend. Servius, for instance, lays out three possibilities in all (ad Verg. Buc. 6.68 = T 84): et volunt quidam hoc coronae genus ad indicium mortis electum; aut quod humilis herba inmaturum de Archemoro luctum ostendat; aut quod supra hanc herbam reptans puer a serpente extinctus sit. And some want to say that this kind of crown was chosen as a sign of death; or because the low-lying plant shows that the grief for Archemoros was premature; or because the boy was killed by the snake while crawling over this plant.

While the third possibility recalls Hyginus’ explanation, that the child was crawling on wild celery when he was killed, the other two see the wild celery as a metaphor either for death in general or more specifically for premature death. Lactantius Placidus (in Stat. Theb. comm. 6.1–3 = T 79) mentions only the low-lying herb analogy and Opheltes’ crawling in wild celery. In addition to the preceding sources, which explicitly relate the wild celery to Opheltes, there exists more general testimony of an association of wild celery with grief and death.177 The Hellenistic scholar Douris, for example, makes the statement in his work On the Games (FGrH 76 F 33 = T 34) that τὸ σέλινον πένθεσι προσήκει, “The wild celery is appropriate to mourning.” The remark is preserved in an entry of Photios, s.v. Σελίνου στέ177 

Blech, 136.

136

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

φανος πένθιμος; and Hesychios’ Lexikon preserves a similar statement (s.v. σελίνου στέφανος = T 85), which may derive from the same source. Since Douris’ comment comes from a work on games, both lemmata refer to the wild celery crown, and Hesychios also mentions the Isthmian Games, it is very likely that their testimony applies to the Nemean crown. An amusing illustration of this association is Plutarch’s anecdote regarding Timoleon’s campaigns in Sicily (Tim. 26 = T 58). Upon cresting a hill, Timoleon and his men suddenly come face-to-face with several mules laden with wild celery, an event that his men regard as a bad omen, because it was their custom to place wreaths of wild celery on their grave monuments. Plutarch adds that this practice also gave rise to a proverb, that someone who is critically ill only needs wild celery.178 We do not know whether this custom was practiced outside of Corinth, but the story provides one more example of the funerary connotation of wild celery in a city near Nemea.179 Other ancient sources offer contrary explanations of the Nemean crown that relate it to the myth of Herakles and the lion. A scholion on Pindar’s Nemean 6 offers some intriguing testimony. In lines 42–43 of the ode itself (T 4) we read, βοτάνα τέ νίν ποθ’ ἁ λέοντος/ νικάσαντ’ ἤρεφε . . ., “Him once did the lion’s fodder crown. . . .” In his metonymic fashion, Pindar refers to a victory at Nemea by another member of the present victor’s family, but what exactly does he mean by βοτάνα . . . ἁ λέοντος? The scholiast notes two distinct alternatives (Schol., Pi. N. 6.71a–c = T 30): Either it refers to the wild celery, which the lion used to eat, or else it refers to Nemea, as the place where the lion grazed.180 In other words, Pindar Plutarch repeats the story, with slightly different wording, at Mor. 676d, where he also names the Sicilian historian Timaios as his source. For additional references to the proverb, see Blech, 95 n. 60. 179  For evidence of the funereal association of wild celery elsewhere, note that stalks of wild celery appear in the hand of Hades on a terracotta pinax from Epizephyrian Lokroi in South Italy: Miller 2011, 48–49. A parallel phenomenon is the use of the myrtle crown as the prize at the Theban Iolaia, a festival for the hero Iolaos; myrtle was chosen because it was also used to crown corpses: see Rohde, 117 n. 21; Blech, 94. Apart from the funerary association, there is slight evidence for the association of wild celery with newborns, which may be relevant: Blech 135–136. 180  The text in Appendix C reflects Drachmann’s printing; 178 

is saying either “the wild celery crowned him” or “Nemea crowned him.” Now it would be significant if we could demonstrate that Pindar’s meaning was the former. In that case the association of the crown with the Nemean lion, and hence with Herakles, could be traced back at least to the 5th century B.C.181 Certainly the scholiast could not decide between the two, although he does indicate a preference for “Nemea” over “wild celery.” Pindar’s words in the lines preceding these suggest, however, that he means the place, for he describes another victory at Isthmia with a parallel construction: “the bridge of the untiring sea .  .  . gave him honor .  .  . ” (ll. 39–41). It is thus likely the place, not the type of wreath, that Pindar imagines crowning the victor. By the time of the scholion, however, clearly some people thought that the wild celery was what the Nemean lion ate and, furthermore, that Herakles established the Nemean crown of wild celery after defeating the lion (T 30): ὁ Ἡρακλῆς

καταγωνισάμενος τὸν λέοντα τοῦτο ἐνομοθέτησεν εἶναι τὸ στέμμα.182 Nevertheless, the scholiast

promptly rejects both claims about the wild celery crown, reaffirming that the victory prize, like the Games themselves, are “in honor of Archemoros.” A further point of interest in this scholion is the first sentence, which records a belief that the βοτανίδιον, i.e. the wild celery, sprang up from the blood of Opheltes. What we have here is a trace of yet another aition connecting the wild celery to the child hero’s tale. We now return to the key passage of Kallimachos’ Victoria Berenices that we have considered once already. The fragmentary prophecy that Herakles reports to his host Molorkos speaks of the use of a crown of wild celery at the Isthmian Games, and the relevant lines merit quoting here (fr. 54i.5–9 Harder = T 22): καί μιν Ἀλη⌋τεῖδαι π̣⌊ουλὺ γεγειότερον

5

the middle part of the scholion (the start of 71b) appears in two different versions in the different manuscripts and hence is printed in two columns. 181  So Blech, 137. 182  Blech, 137 n. 137, somewhat misrepresents the scholion as saying that Herakles crowned himself with wild celery after defeating the lion. The verb ἐνομοθέτησεν does not denote a physical act so much as an authoritative decree, although admittedly Herakles could have authorized the practice by doing it to himself first.

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

τοῦδε παρ’ Αἰ⌋γαίωνι ⌊θεῷ τελέοντες ἀγῶνα θήσουσιν ν⌋ίκης σύ⌊μβολον Ἰσθμιάδος ζήλῳ τῶν Ν⌋εμέηθε· πίτυν δ’ ἀ⌊ποτιμήσουσιν, ἣ πρὶν ἀγων⌋ιστὰς ἔστεφε το⌊ὺς Ἐφύρῃ. And when the Aleteidai celebrate their contest, Far older than this, in the presence of the Aegean god, They will confer it as a symbol of Isthmian victory In rivalry with the Nemean; the pine will they disregard, Which aforetime crowned the competitors at Ephyra.

Whether or not the fragmentary στέφος just before these lines is relevant, it is clear that the “it” (μιν, l. 5) is the crown of wild celery because of the statement that it will replace the pine crown at Isthmia in jealous rivalry with the Nemean Games.183 So much is certain, but many scholars also maintain that Kallimachos credits Herakles with the invention of the wild celery crown for the Nemean Games and even portrays Herakles crowning himself with it.184 It must be stressed, however, that the surviving text says nothing to this effect, and it is very possible that this prophecy, like the one in Bakchylides, simply describes the future competitions that will take place at Nemea without making any causal connection to Herakles’ labor. As discussed earlier in relation to the aetiology of the Nemean Games, however, many scholars rely on the much later testimony of [Probus] (T 82) to reconstruct the missing elements of the poem on the basis of a statement at the end of the passage mentioning Kallimachos’ Aitia. After Herakles killed the Nemean lion, [Probus] states: sumptaque apiacea corona, qua ornantur, qui Nemea vincunt, < >. supervenit itaque et Molorcho . . . , “and after taking up a crown of wild celery, with which the winners of the Nemean Games are adorned, . . . . And so he came upon Molorkos. . . .” A lacuna 183  See the note above on the history of the Isthmian crown. Another ancient source to mention this rivalry is Plut., Mor. 676f. Compare also Euphorion, fr. 84 = T 35, discussed hereafter. 184  E.g. Blech, 136; Doffey, 186; Fuhrer 1992, 76, 81–85; Fuhrer 1993, 80; Harder, II, 387–38, 495. Livrea, 9–10, cited by Fuhrer 1992, 67 and n. 238, conjectures another possible mention of selinon in an earlier description of the wild growth plaguing the land around Molorkos.

137

interrupts the text, but the image of Herakles crowning himself with wild celery before returning to Molorkos is clear. Thus [Probus] represents Herakles as originating the crown, but there is no certainty that he found this particular detail in the work of Kallimachos.185 The theme of the rivalry between the Nemean and Isthmian crowns reappears in some lines of the Hellenistic poet Euphorion preserved by Plutarch (Euphorion, fr. 84 = T 35). The fragment begins with a narrative about the Isthmian hero Melikertes, how his body was recovered and placed under some pine trees on the shore of the Isthmus, and for that reason pine was used as the crown in the Isthmian Games. The subsequent lines, however, make an abrupt transition to Nemea and Herakles’ defeat of the Nemean lion (called “the Moon’s bright-eyed child”). As a consequence of this feat, Euphorion seems to say, the wild celery crown began to be awarded at the Isthmus.186 Thus Euphorion, too, seems to attribute Some additional support for this opinion comes from a passage of Tertullian (De corona 7.4–5 = T 64), which seems to attribute to Kallimachos a description of Herakles wearing a crown of wild celery. If this is Tertullian’s meaning, he may have in mind this poem. 186  That the opening lines refer to Melikertes is made certain by Plutarch, who names the hero when introducing this fragment: Mor. 676f. The absence of a name in the preserved lines, coupled with the subsequent reference to Herakles’ labor, no doubt explains the confusion of some Byzantine scholiasts, who think the lines refer to Opheltes. This in turn sustains their mistaken belief that a pine crown was awarded at Nemea. The misconception appears in the scholia on epigram 9.357 of the Greek Anthology (T 66), which lists the four Games as sacred to Zeus, Apollo, Palaimon, and Archemoros, and then lists their crowns as wild olive, apple, wild celery, and pine. At first glance the order of the prizes seems to assign the wild celery to Palaimon, the pine to Archemoros. This indeed was a conundrum for Byzantine scholiasts, who clearly understand the epigram in this way and try to explain it (Schol. AG, ll. 48–51 Lolos = T 89; repeated in a more summary fashion at ll. 73–6). See also ll. 91–96 Lolos = T 90, which largely excerpt hypothesis (b) of the Nemean odes of Pindar but conclude with the statement καὶ ἀγῶνα ἐπιτάφιον ἱστῶσι τριετηρικὸν πίτυϊ τὸν νικῶντα στεφανοῦντες. The scholia support this interpretation by adducing the (misunderstood) lines of Euphorion. Exacerbating their confusion no doubt was the fact that wild celery was indeed used as a crown for a period at the Isthmian Games. Obviously the ordering of the games and their prizes in the epigram should not be correlated in strict fashion; the relation between ll. 2–3 makes this clear. In l. 2, the festivals are listed as two for mortals, and two for immortals; but the list that follows in l. 3 presents the reverse. Some other principle, 185 

138

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

the switching of the Isthmian crown to a jealous rivalry with Herakles, and he also appears to project this change back to the time of Herakles, thus implying that it was Herakles who originated the wild celery crown at Nemea. Numismatic evidence is relevant to this discussion as well. For instance, certain bronze coin types of Argos ranging from the late 5th century through the 2nd century B.C. feature as a main or secondary symbol the image of the celery crown, which has been explained as a reference to the Nemean Games.187 Two of these types also feature Herakles’ club, which could perhaps express a mythological association between Herakles and the crown. On the other hand, the club may simply allude to Herakles as Argive hero and function independently of the wreath as a symbol of the Argive festival. The earlier type, dated 421–350 B.C., combines the wild celery wreath, the club of Herakles, and the harpa of Perseus on the reverse. The inclusion of Perseus’ attribute clearly shows that the symbols are not united in a common myth, so that we need not assume a special correlation between the celery wreath and Herakles’ club. The second type, dated to 228–148 B.C., features just the club and the celery wreath on the reverse; here a reference to an aetiological relationship is possible but by no means certain. Similarly, the two bronze issues of Kleonai of the late 4th century, as previously discussed, unite the wild celery crown with the club and the head of Herakles wearing the lion skin. While it is possible to understand all these symbols in relation to one story of Herakles, Molorkos, and the defeat of the lion, followed by the invention of the celery crown,188 it is possible to read them in another way: Kleonai’s role in the Nemean Games (the celery wreath) is justified because it hosted Herakles at the time of his Nemean labor (the club, the lion skin)—without implying an aetiological connection between the crown and Herakles. In summary, indisputable evidence that at least some ancient Greeks regarded Herakles as the inmeter most likely, governs the organization of the epigram, and it should not be understood as evidence for the use of pine crowns at Nemea. (On the epigram’s reference to apples as the prize of the Pythian Games, see Blech, 138 and n. 148.) 187  Nemea III, 50. The baby Opheltes does not make an appearance on coins until well into the Imperial period, as will be discussed in the next chapter. 188  So Marchand, 199.

ventor of the wild celery crown does not appear before the Hellenistic period. The same is true for Opheltes, however; there is no earlier testimony for the crown’s association with him either. Perhaps, then, we should leave open the possibility that the crown was not originally associated with a myth and was chosen as the prize at Nemea for some other reason—a matter of local availability, for instance. Its eventual incorporation into the Opheltes legend could be explained as a secondary development, whereby elements of the festival were attracted to the foundation legend. At the same time, its original independence from the Opheltes story could explain the ease with which it could be associated with Herakles’ labor as well. On the other hand, there are some reasons to prefer an original association with Opheltes. An early bond between the festival’s prize and its funerary aetiology is at least consistent with the other manifestation of funerary origins: namely, the dark robes worn by the judges. The funereal association of wild celery, moreover, has a more folkloric quality, in contrast to the story of Herakles and the lion; that aition, at least as most clearly expressed in [Probus], is transparently projected into myth from the actual practice of crowning victors at Nemea. Finally, if we look to the Isthmian Games and the hero MelikertesPalaimon as a parallel, there too the original pine crown finds association with the circumstances of the hero’s death.189

CONCLUSION The Nemea Heroön served a child hero whose death constituted the mythological founding narrative of the Nemean Games. The surviving testimony is assuredly incomplete, and we can only hope that someday more of the literary and epigraphic record may come to light. Still, what we do have tells the story of a child hero killed under unusual circumstances and consequently rendered a figure of cult. From its earliest manifestation in the early 5th century B.C. through Late Antiquity, certain details of the myth remain immutable. Opheltes dies young, a mere infant. He is the victim of a snake, which strikes unexpectedly when 189  See Euphorion, fr. 84 = T 35; Paus. 8.48.2 = T 62; compare also Plut., Mor. 675e.

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

he is left, if only for a moment, unattended on the ground. Without variation this death occurs in the context of a visit from the Seven who have set out from Argos to attack Thebes. This Argive association not only ref lects and justifies the Argive administration of the Nemean festival, but it is also fundamental to another persistent element of the Opheltes myth: the bestowal of the new name Archemoros, along with an explanation of its etymology. The Argive seer Amphiaraos creates the name, which means “Beginning of Doom,” when he interprets the child’s death as an omen of the Seven’s own forthcoming disaster at Thebes. The renaming, which comes only after the hero’s death, serves as a signal of the hero’s new cult status; at the same time, through its etymology, it perpetually recalls the mythological context that legitimates his cult. In the Opheltes narrative, the new name Archemoros is but one manifestation of the hero’s newfound cult. Time and again our sources emphasize the aetiological connection between the hero’s death and the foundation of the Nemean Games. The manner in which this connection is expressed varies. Some sources explicitly call the Nemean contest funerary, an ἐπιτάφιος ἀγών. Others refer to this relationship with the shorthand of the Greek preposition ἐπί with the dative, as in ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ. In a few instances we are even treated to an extended narrative of the original funeral games conducted by the Seven. Our sources also make an explicit connection between the athletic contest and the tomb of Opheltes. On occasion the act of burial receives special attention, but more generally we encounter references to the tomb, variously called σῆμα, ἤριον, τάφος, sepulcrum, and tumulus, as another lasting consequence of the hero’s demise, created in parallel with the Nemean festival. The ancient testimony thus corroborates the archaeological data assembled in Chapter 1, which reveal the shrine as a mound in shape, physically juxtaposed with the early athletic facilities of the Sanctuary of Zeus. Since the data also show that the Heroön’s construction and that of the western embankment of the Early Stadium are parts of one and the same 6th-century building program, we can therefore reasonably project the aetiological myth of Opheltes back to the time of this construction. Whether the myth is of any greater antiquity remains largely a matter of theoretical debate,

139

but in this regard another of this study’s conclusions may be important: apart from certain core elements of the myth that remain consistent throughout the ancient sources, there is a noticeable degree of variation. Even on so basic a question as Opheltes’ parents we find disagreement. His father is Lykourgos or Euphetes; his mother, Eurydike, Kreousa, Amphithea, or even Nemea. Was his father a priest of Zeus or a king, or both? Did he come from the Asopos valley, Argos, or Thessaly? The Seven enter the Nemea Valley with a need for water, but whether they need it to perform a libation or quench their thirst depends on the source. Likewise we encounter a range of possibilities as to where Opheltes was left vulnerable to the snake, how exactly the snake killed him, the manner in which the Seven dispose of the snake, and the reactions of Opheltes’ parents. While Hypsipyle may have been a fixed element of the myth, the involvement of her sons by Jason was not. Even the accounts of the funeral games, when described, diverge. To be sure, we must expect a certain degree of literary freedom from the various authors who treat the Opheltes legend; but on the other hand, we have very little evidence to sustain a theory that there existed one, authoritative, traditional version of all these details. At Nemea, the existence of a feature that Pausanias calls the tomb of Lykourgos does offer some support for a Nemean tradition of Opheltes’ father. As for Pausanias’ apparent reference to the cypress grove as the place of Opheltes’ death, I have argued for the possibility that this is a misunderstanding of his words. Pausanias’ account also suggests that the spring of the myth was a fixed topographical feature, which he calls the Adrasteia Spring, and it is likely that this was the spring on the slopes to the east of the Sanctuary long noted by scholars and travelers. The variability of the many details of the Opheltes myth, in our view, calls into question the notion that it was a developed part of the Epic Cycle, in which case we should find more evidence for a poetic authority behind the myth. While it is possible that the legend of Opheltes derives from an older, purely local tradition, we should also consider the possibility that it was created at the time of the foundation of the Nemean Games, perhaps drawing on certain folk motifs but not a fully elaborated tradition. Our study of the ancient sources leaves us largely in the dark about the performance at Opheltes’

140

Th e MyTh of oph e lTe s and ori g i n of Th e gaM e s

tomb of ritual activity, the remains of which are ample. Our only extensive description of such activity for Opheltes, from Statius’ Thebaid, is too heavily indebted to a combination of earlier literary models and contemporary Roman practice to hope for any clues about real cult practice at the Heroön. Nevertheless the clear aetiological association between the hero and the Games does at least explain the general correspondence of the periods of activity at the Heroön to the periods of celebration of the Nemean Games at Nemea. In addition, the funerary nature of the aetiology may suggest that we should investigate how funerary ritual might explain the material remains at the Heroön, even if hero cult as practiced elsewhere is distinct from the cult of the dead. Finally, the sources do shed some light on how the rituals of the Games themselves relate to Opheltes, insofar as the dark dress of the judges was reckoned a token of mourning for the hero. As for the victory prize, the crown of wild celery, we can say with

certainty that many of our later sources associated it too with the commemoration of Opheltes, and it is plausible that this association accounts for the initial choice of the crown. But given the state of the evidence, we must also leave open the possibility that the aetiology of the crown only emerged later, from the long-standing association of the Games with Opheltes. Although the cult of Opheltes-Archemoros ceases at Nemea in the 3rd century B.C., his story lived on for centuries afterward. Even after the Games moved to Argos, their relationship to the hero and his tomb continued to exercise a hold on the poetic imagination, which could still represent the victories as taking place alongside the tomb, as they once did. To some degree, however, the myth and the Games drifted apart, and it is perhaps in the interstices of this disengagement where rival notions of the origins of the Games—most conspicuously their association with Herakles and the Nemean lion—find their purchase.

CHAPTER FOUR

Representations of the Hero Opheltes in Art

Complementing the literary and epigraphic evidence surveyed in the previous chapter is the visual material representing the myth of Opheltes. While not as abundant, this body of evidence spans nearly the same breadth of antiquity as the ancient sources just considered. Various scholars have addressed the material in piecemeal fashion over the last century and a half, but the first to engage synthetically with the myth of Opheltes in art is Erika Simon. In her 1979 article, “Archemoros,” she adduces new examples and comments on the literary and artistic models for the surviving representations. Her observations in turn form much of the substance of several articles in LIMC on the figures related to the myth.1 Pache’s treatment of the images in her chapter on Opheltes is the most extensive to date, and while she retains certain interpretations made by her predecessors, she offers many fresh insights.2 The present discussion aims to be both comprehensive and critical. As in our study of the written sources, we are once again interested in observing the degree of variability that exists in the visual representations of the myth of Opheltes, as well as the extent to which the images relate to the aetiological function of

the myth, the cult of Opheltes, and the Nemean Games.

DUBIOUS ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL REPRESENTATIONS Erika Simon has argued that a scene on a bronze Argive shield band of the early 6th century B.C., found at Olympia, relates to the myth of the death of Opheltes (Figs. 126, 127).3 If she is correct, then it constitutes our earliest citation of the myth, both in literature and art, and approximately coincides with the historical organization of the Nemean Games as a Panhellenic festival. The scene portrays two armed warriors who clash their shields and menace one another with swords held low in their right hands. Other warriors are arrayed on each side of the pair, attempting to restrain them, and between them stands another figure—his head is visible above the shields, and his legs stand planted apart below. Who are these warriors? Three preserved inOlympia, Arch. Mus. B 1654 = OF II no. IV.8. Simon, 31–32; followed by Pache, 129–131. Brillante argues very similarly, but without citing Simon. The scene appears twice, on the wide attachment plates above and below the fitting for the warrior’s arm, but the upper scene is very poorly preserved: see OF II, 174–177 and pl. 12.

3 

1  Krauskopf 1981 on Amphiaraos, Pülhorn on Archemoros, Berger-Doer on Euneos and Thoas, Krauskopf 1994 on the Seven, and Boulotis on Hypsipyle. 2  Pache, 115–133.

141

142

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 126. Panel of bronze shield band from Olympia, Arch. Mus. 1654. Photograph: Hermann Wagner, DAI Athens, neg. no. D-DAI-ATH-Olympia 1986.

scriptions help their identification. Most legible is the name Adrastos, which runs vertically between the legs of the central figure; less certain is the name Amphiaraos in the upper field at left; and while only a few letters of the third, at upper right, can be made out, Kunze suggests the name Lykourgos.4 Accordingly many scholars, taking the labels to apply to the three central figures, read the scene as Adrastos trying to defuse a quarrel between Amphiaraos and Lykourgos with the help of their surrounding comrades. Nor is such a scene of conf lict without parallel. The monumental Archaic throne at Amyklai, according to Pausanias’ account of it, showed a similar quarrel (3.18.12): . . . Ἄδραστος δὲ καὶ Τυδεὺς Ἀμφιάραον καὶ Λυκοῦργον τὸν Πρώνακτος μάχης καταπαύουσιν. . . . and Adrastos and Tydeus are stopping Amphiaraos and Lykourgos, son of Pronax, from fighting.

As for the context of the heroes’ quarrel, Simon departs from earlier opinion and ventures her own hypothesis, that it arises from Lykourgos’ rage at the death of his son Opheltes. Earlier scholars had sought other explanations: attributing it either to Amphiaraos’ assassination of Pronax, Lykourgos’

4 

OF II, 174–175 and 213, reads them as Ἄδραστος, [Ἀ]μ̣φ[ι]

ά̣ρ̣[ε]ο[ς], and [Λυ]κ̣οῦρ̣γ̣ο̣ς.

FIG. 127. Drawing of shield band panel. After OF II, beilage 13.1.

father, or to the seer’s initial opposition to joining the expedition against Thebes.5 In support of her new proposal, Simon relies on Statius’ account of a quarrel between Lykourgos and the Seven upon learning of Opheltes’ death (Theb. 5.650–679; as described in Chapter 3). From this she argues that a quarrel between Amphiaraos and Lykourgos over his son’s death was a tradition to be traced back to the Cyclic Thebaid. There is a further twist to her argument, however: in Statius’ poem, it is Lykourgos and Tydeus who draw weapons and threaten one another, whereas Amphiaraos, with Adrastos, intervenes and restores calm. Thus, to justify her reading of the Olympia relief and the throne scene, Simon must also explain why Statius’ version is at odds with the putative traditional account that she has just deduced from it. This shift in the heroes’ roles she attributes to the inf luence of Euripides upon the Roman poet, since it is Euripides, in her view, who changes the representation of Amphiaraos from aggressive warrior to saturnine prophet in his Hypsipyle.6 Simon’s hypothesis suffers on many grounds. First, it is generally dangerous to invoke a tradi5  Killing of Pronax: Bethe, 49–50, 171; reluctance to join the expedition: Schefold, 77. 6  Simon, 32–33. She finds the same influence in the visual repertoire as well, as we shall soon observe. Brillante also argues that the scene on both the shield strap and the throne must take place at Nemea, but he ultimately leaves open both the killing of Pronax and the death of Opheltes as the possible source of the tension, with some preference for the latter (55).

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

tion when there is so little evidence for the tradition itself. With respect to the myth of Opheltes in particular, the analysis of the literary sources in the preceding chapter demonstrates that, apart from some basic elements, the details of the myth were highly variable, suggesting that tradition played a smaller role in fixing the story than previous scholars have admitted. As for Statius’ account, while it is true that he draws on earlier sources for many details, it is surely wrong to deny him the freedom to innovate or adjust details for his own creative purposes. The quarrel could be such an innovation.7 Most importantly, Simon’s attempt to use Statius as evidence for a fight between Amphiaraos and Lykourgos, not Tydeus and Lykourgos as it stands in the poem, employs an unsound method; for we still have no ancient literary source for a fight between the seer and Opheltes’ father.8 Moreover, Simon’s reliance on the Amyklaian throne as iconographic evidence for such a duel is also problematic because of the issue of the two men named Lykourgos. Simon uncritically asserts that the father of Opheltes and the son of Pronax are one and the same, but as we have discussed in the previous chapter, there is no ancient testimony in support of this equation, while one source explicitly contradicts it.9 The scene on the Amyklaian throne, therefore, which by Pausanias’ account features Lykourgos the son of Pronax, should be disassociated from the events at Nemea.10 Whatever the correct interpretation 7  In fact, as we noted in the preceding chapter, Ganiban, 252, 264, specifically argues that Statius manipulates the Opheltes story in several ways in order to exacerbate the tensions between the Argives and the people of Nemea. 8  Even the attempt to blame Euripides for Statius’ “departure from tradition” is unconvincing, since in other ways Statius clearly deviates from the playwright’s account: e.g. drought, rather than libations, as the reason why the Seven need water; Eurydike’s role shifted to a speech at Opheltes’ pyre. 9  Brillante, 45, with n. 6, does address this problem head on, but he rejects the testimony of the Bibliotheke and asserts that the Nemean Lykourgos must be the son of Pronax on the basis of his royalty: “Solo un eroe che figurava in una genealogia di re argivi poteva essere re a Nemea in questo periodo.” What he overlooks, however, is that Lykourgos is not portrayed as a king before Hyginus and Statius, who also fancifully describes Nemea as a populous city, something irreconcilable with earlier Greek tradition, and with archaeological evidence from the site closer to his own time (Hesperia 2015, 298–300). 10  Some scholars (examples cited by Brillante, 47, 50) even

143

of the scene on Bathykles’ work, it more probably ref lects an episode that unfolded at Argos.11 The same interpretation may be given to the bronze shield band relief from Olympia, but there is one final uncertainty that has to do with the identification of the figures. Even if we trust that the name of Lykourgos is the correct restoration of the third inscription, it may not be right to attach it to Amphiaraos’ armed opponent. Kunze, for one, notes that its position is more appropriate for one of the subsidiary men in the right half of the scene.12 If that is the case, then the shield band scene must represent a different duel altogether than the one on the throne and would be even less likely to represent a quarrel over the death of Opheltes.13 In short, as desirable as it would be to wonder how Pausanias knows the names of the figures and whether he assigns the names to the wrong figures, doubts that only augment the uncertainty of the scene. 11  Cropp 2003, 134, is equally convinced that these Archaic images do not pertain to Nemea. Of the earlier theories noted above, Bethe’s is attractive because Amphiaraos’ slaying of Pronax provides a clear pretext for Lykourgos’ enmity. The presence of Tydeus in the scene, however, clearly sets the duel well after the time of the assassination, since he only arrives in Argos as an exile from Kalydon at the same time as Polyneikes, just before the Theban expedition. Bethe, who like so many assumes that Pronax’s son was one and the same as the Nemean Lykourgos, cites the ancient sources attributing the foundation of the Nemean Games to the death of Pronax and so proposes (171) that the fight takes place at Nemea, where he also supposes the grave of Pronax to have been located. These elements should be discarded on the grounds we laid out in our discussion of the Pronax myth in Chapter 3. Instead, purely speculatively, we could imagine a scene set at Argos, with Adrastos calling his nephew Lykourgos to particpate in the Theban expedition; but upon learning that his uncle has reconciled with Amphiaraos, the murderer of his own father, Lykourgos confronts the seer in rage. 12  OF II, 175; Gantz, 512. It is also possible that the artist meant the name Adrastos to apply to the duelling warrior on the right, in front of whose advancing leg the inscription appears. 13  Other quarrels, or at least tense relations, are attested between Adrastos and Amphiaraos; Amphiaraos and Tydeus; and Tydeus and Polyneikes: OF II, 174; Beazley, 313; Blatter, 21 and n. 18; Gantz, 512. Some other fragmentary scenes have been adduced as examples of restraining a fight among the Seven. A fragment of a Laconian cup from Kyrene, attributed to the Hunt Painter and dated to ca. 555–545 B.C., shows parts of four male heroes, one of whom, clearly labeled Parthenopaios, is attempting to hold back the sword arm of another: Beazley, 313; Simon, 32; Brillante, 44; Pipili, 25–26 (cat. 78); Gantz, 512. Some non-joining fragments of a Chalkidian hydria of ca. 540 B.C., in a private collection in

144

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

have a secure representation of the Opheltes myth from the early 6th century B.C., it is very unlikely that we have one here. Another doubtful scene from the Opheltes myth appears on the tondo of a white-ground cup dated to the second quarter of the 5th century B.C. It is signed by the potter Sotades, and its decoration has been attributed to the Sotades Painter (Figs. 128, 129).14 Only fragments of the original tondo scene survive. These show a male figure at center engaging a monstrous snake, which rises up among some reeds at the right. From the snake’s gaping mouth billows a cloud of f lame or vapor. The male is naked save for an animal-skin cloak tied around his shoulders and a beehive-like cap on his head. He keeps a protective stance, his left arm wrapped in his cloak so as to shield his f lank, while in his left hand he holds something resembling a wand or stick. At the same time, with his weight shifted back onto his right leg, he cocks his right arm to throw a rounded object, presumably a stone, at his opponent. A second fragment bears a trace of the toe of his right foot above a ground line, and in addition preserves most of the legs of a second human figure near the tondo’s circular frame. A fine, transparent chiton suggests this figure is female, and the positioning of the legs suggests she is cowering or has fallen or, as some argue, lies unconscious or dead. When the cup first appeared on the art market, in 1892, the tondo scene was associated with the death of Opheltes and interpreted as showing the moment after the baby had been killed, when one of the Seven dispatched the vile snake in the presence of a distraught Hypsipyle. Beginning with J. D. Beazley, a chorus of scholars has cast doubt on this interpretation, sounding out alternate proposals for the two human figures in antiphony: Aristaios and Eurydike, Aisakos and Hesperia, Orion and Artemis, Kadmos and

Basel, portray the animated bodies of heroes, and the names Adrastos and Tydeus appear. Blatter, 17–22, reconstructs the scene after the Olympia shield band, but the result is by no means certain; cf. Pipili, 25–26. In Attic black-figure, some scenes of anonymous heroes breaking up a quarrel may also be relevant. These have usually been identified as Ajax and Odysseus’ quarrel over the arms of Achilles, but perhaps the composition could be applied to more than one mythic quarrel: OF II, 175–176; Beazley, 313; Blatter, 17; Pipili, 25. 14  London, British Museum D 7 = ARV 763.3 = Pülhorn no. 11.

Europa.15 Most recently, however, Pache has ventured to revive the original identification while offering a new solution to one of its principal objections.16 Opposition to the Opheltes identification springs both from a consideration of the preserved elements of the composition and from attempts to relate the cup’s iconography to the other vessels found with it. Regarding the scene itself, Beazley was the first to object that the appearance of the man in the cap did not befit a typical Greek hero.17 The cap and hide are usually worn by laborers or rustic figures in Greek art, and the wispy facial hair and beady eyes find parallels in the representations of foreigners.18 Hence it is difficult to see this figure as one of the Seven against Thebes. Additionally, there is no trace of the snake’s victim, Opheltes, in the surviving fragments.19 Apart from the visual cues within the tondo scene, both Burn and Hoffmann interpret it by exploring an iconographic relationship between this cup and the other vases found with it. The characteristics of this assemblage and the circumstances of their discovery are intriguing. A total of nine vases appeared for sale in 1892, and according to a handwritten copy of the catalogue in the British Museum, they all originated from a tomb excavated in Athens in 1890. Sadly, there is no known record of the tomb itself, its excavation, or any other contents.20 The vases share many common features: All are products of Sotades and For summaries of these differing opinions see Collinge; Hoffmann, 119 and n.7. 16  Pache, 116–117. 17  ARV 763.3: “ . . . the man, from dress and face, can hardly be a hero.” Collinge, 12–13, notes how strongly Beazley’s pronouncement has resonated with subsequent scholars, and she rightly argues that an unqualified acceptance of his words unnecessarily rules out certain possible identifications: The figure can be a hero, but he must be one that makes sense of the unusual garb and facial features. Pache argues similarly, as will be discussed below. 18  Burn, 99; Collinge, 13–15; Hoffmann, 138–139. See also Miller, “Eurymedon,” 317–323, for a discussion of other similar figures of lower social standing in Attic vase painting. 19  The toe preserved in the second fragment was once taken as Opheltes’, but its proper relation to the male figure has since been recognized: Burn, 96. Pülhorn, 474 (= no. 11), also rejects the death of Opheltes as the tondo’s subject on the basis of the male figure’s appearance. For another image once interpreted as illustrating the Opheltes myth but now discredited, see Pülhorn, no. 12. 20  Burn, 100–102. 15 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 128. Cup by Sotades Painter, London, British Museum D 7. © The Trustees of the British Museum.

his workshop, and in their decoration, the colors black, white, and coral are used for interesting effect. In both shape and decoration, eight of the nine form pairs; there are two each of phialai and mastoi, and four stemmed cups make another two pairs. The color schemes that decorate the vessels accentuate these pairings. The phialai and the mastoi, for example, share white ground interiors and, on the exterior, identical schemes of alternating bands of color. The cups, on the other hand, are decorated in complementary schemes; thus, whereas one cup is glazed black on the outside with coral red rings, its companion is coral red with black rings. The cup with the possible Opheltes scene is exceptional, for it lacks a mate. Like several of the other vases, however, it is decorated with an alternating scheme of black and coral red on its exterior. There is a distinct possibility, then, that the cup did once have a mate, which for some reason did not make it to market with the others.21 Burn associates the iconography of this singleton with two of the other cups, which likewise feature white ground figured tondos and are attributed to the Sotades Painter.22 One illustrates the Cretan myth of Glaukos, the young hero who drowned in a vat of honey and was restored to life by the seer Polyeidos. The other preserves Burn, 101–102. London, British Museum D 5 and D 6 (= ARV 763.2 and 763.1). 21  22 

145

FIG. 129. Drawing of tondo of cup by Sotades Painter, London, British Museum D 7. Drawing by Susan Bird, © The Trustees of the British Museum.

a fragmentary scene of two women f lanking an apple-laden tree that may represent the Garden of the Hesperides. The women are identified by inscription, but only one name is legible: Melis(s)a.23 In these two cups Burn finds common themes of death and the afterlife, and above all, honey, which is evoked by the figures of Glaukos on the one cup and Melis(s)a on the other. Burn’s proposal for the third cup, that it represents Aristaios’ pursuit of Eurydike, the wife of Orpheus, and her death by snakebite, shares in these themes.24 The death of Eurydike and her consequent afterlife are central to the myth, and the connection with honey is effected in two ways: not only is Aristaios a culture hero credited with the invention of beekeeping, but also this myth is intimately bound to the figure of Orpheus and his “honeyed music.”25 Hoffman also explores the thematic ties among these three cups; without offering a definitive interpretation of the scene of the man, woman, and snake, he finds all three scenes united by the themes of initiation, death, and the afterlife.26 In her study of the representations of the hero Opheltes, Pache revisits this cup and revives the Burn, 93–95, with accompanying figures. The story is told by Vergil, Georgics 4.457–459: see Burn, 96–98. 25  This is of course a very summary treatment of a complex argument; see Burn, 97, 100, and 102–104, for her thorough explication of these themes. 26  Hoffman, 119–140. 23  24 

146

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

possibility that its subject is indeed his death.27 Pache defends the Opheltes identification as relevant to the thematic links among the three cups described by Burn and Hoffmann. The Opheltes myth does suit Hoffmann’s theme of failed initiation as a parallel to death. As for Burn’s claim of honey as a unifying element, Pache proposes identifying the male figure not as one of the Seven but as Euneos, the son of Hypsipyle; since he is trained by Orpheus and becomes connected to Dionysos Melpomenos, his association with “honeyed music” constitutes the honey element in this scene.28 A critical problem with arguing for the identification of the scene on the basis of a broader iconographic theme among the cups is that we do not know whether we are dealing with a complete set. Indeed, to the extent that the cup under consideration probably had its own mate that has not survived, it is more likely that it had some relationship to its mate, not to any other pair.29 As to the male’s unusual dress, aside from questioning its suitability for Burn’s proposed Aristaios, she notes that Beazley’s interdiction is unduly limiting, since Beazley’s own list of parallels for the cap includes some light-armed warriors.30 Pache has a point, as far as it goes, but there is a more decisive question: Is there a parallel for this mode of dress among the secure representations of the Seven or Hypsipyle’s sons? Illustrations of the Seven are numerous, but a review of the images gathered by I. Krauskopf in LIMC yields no good parallel. Admittedly, we have only two probable representations of Euneos and his brother, both to be discussed later; nevertheless in both instances they appear in the more normal dress of youthful heroes. Regarding the baby Opheltes, Pache argues that his absence is not detrimental to the identification Pache, 117. On Euneos and his connection to Orpheus and Dionysos, see Berger-Doer; Burkert 1994, 45–46; Cropp 2004, 176, 178. 29  The extant cups illustrate the point. Another pair of cups from the group feature tondo scenes of a young woman spinning a top and a young woman seated before a small child in a high chair: Burn, 101. While these two scenes clearly relate to one another, there is no obvious connection to any of the other tondo scenes, and yet both Burn and Hoffman ignore them in their arguments about thematic unity. 30  Pache, 116. Cf. Collinge’s remark, cited above, n. 17. Pache makes no mention of the hide cloak or the facial features. 27  28 

of the tondo scene since the emphasis of the scene could just as well be on the killing of the snake. She cites as a literary parallel Statius’ account, where Hypsipyle finds the snake but not the baby (Theb. 5.544–554). The comparison is not exactly fair, however, since Statius’ account has a larger context, in which the baby’s body does figure. The more appropriate question for the Sotades Painter’s tondo is whether in this circumscribed image we ought not to expect the baby to be present in order for the ancient viewer to apprehend its meaning. Without weighing in on the various alternative proposals voiced by scholars over the years, we can conclude that the identification of the tondo as a scene from the Opheltes legend is doubtful.

THE SOUTH ITALIAN VASES Not until the 4th century B.C., on a series of South Italian vases, do we encounter our first secure representations of the Opheltes story. The earliest is a fragmentary calyx krater from Paestum, attributed to the painter Python, now in the Bari Museum (Fig. 130).31 Dominating the preserved left side of the scene is an enormous serpent that is swallowing the whole of Opheltes’ right arm up to his shoulder. The hero, shown as a small child, sits on the ground with one leg bent under at the knee, the other sticking out to the side, while with his free left arm he reaches up and out to a larger adult figure at right. His drapery has slipped down around his leg, leaving him naked save for a band around his torso and delicate sandals of added white, while a leafy crown adorns his curly hair. The adult figure seems female; traces of a richly decorated chiton and himation can be seen, as well as an exposed foot. The ripples in her drapery and the positioning of her body suggest that she is reacting in shock to what is unfolding beside her; the hydria that she was once carrying is falling to the ground. This is certainly Hypsipyle, in a pose we shall see time and again. The setting of the action is suggested by a few preserved details. Most significant is a rectangular construction over which the snake cranes his

Bari Museum 3581 = Pülhorn no. 2 = Boulotis no. 2, dated to ca. 360 B.C. 31 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

147

FIG. 130. Fragmentary krater from Paestum, Bari Museum 3581. DAI Rom, neg. no. D-DAI-Rom 1480 (cropped).

neck, and which Pache interprets as an altar.32 This is possible, but on the other hand, the black band across its upper surface suggests an opening. A. D. Trendall takes it to be a well, and I am inclined to agree.33 The setting thus corresponds to the version of the myth attested by Euripides and Hyginus, in which the snake appears and strikes the child near the spring where Hypsipyle draws water. The foliage of trees that fills the space beside the monster and at the far right of the scene recalls the frequent characterization of Nemea as a grove in the ancient sources. None of the f lora seems to be wild celery, however, nor is the crown on Opheltes’ head.34 The reverse side of an Apulian vase from Ruvo, attributed to the Lycurgus Painter and dated about ten years after the Paestum krater, takes up a later moment of the Opheltes myth. Here the child hero lies dead, while some of the Seven labor at killing the culprit (Fig. 131).35 A pair of youthful Pache, 118. Trendall, 62. Andrew Stewart also points out (pers. comm.) that an altar should normally be taller and have moldings along its upper surface. 34  For the representation of wild celery in art, see Blech, 51–53. 35  St. Petersburg, Hermitage B 1714 (St. 523) = RVAp 16/12 32  33 

heroes, their weapons drawn, frame the snake, which has coiled itself around the trunk of a tree with long, slender fronds. At the base of the tree is a line of stones forming a closed triangle or semicircle, just below which lies the prostrate body of the dying or dead Opheltes. The snake’s lethal bite has left its mark on the child’s right thigh. Around these central figures, four others complete the composition with chiastic effect. At lower left, rushing with arms outstretched to the body of Opheltes, is Hypsipyle. At upper right, a bearded hero joins the central pair in attacking the snake by preparing to throw a rock. The remaining two figures, on the other hand, stand removed from the action. A richly dressed and adorned woman holding a tray or plate at lower right watches the combat with little sign of emotional response, while at upper left, another hero stands with spear and shield at rest, his left arm raised only in a gesture of observation and commentary. This passive hero must surely represent Amphiaraos; his gesture signals his prophetic realization of the significance of the unfolding calam-

= Pülhorn no. 8 = Boulotis no. 3. The obverse portrays a gigantomachy and a scene of Orestes at Delphi on the neck.

148

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 131. Apulian volute krater from Ruvo, St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum B 1714. Courtesy of the State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg.

ity.36 The female figure may represent the eponymous nymph Nemea.37 In the Lycurgus Painter’s staid characterization of Amphiaraos, Simon once more sees the inf luence of Euripides’ Hypsipyle, which in her opinion established this new, tempered representation of the prophet.38 It is not necessary to derive the artist’s conception from Euripides, however. As we observed throughout the ancient literary accounts of the myth, Amphiaraos’ interpretation of the ominous significance of Opheltes’ death and the ritual consequences that proceed from it constitute an essential and unvarying component of the myth. The Séchan, 365–366; Simon, 37; Trendall and Webster, 91. Séchan, 365; alternative suggestions are the nymph of the spring where the death occurs (i.e. Statius’ Langia), or (what we regard as least likely) a representative of the chorus of Nemean women from Euripides’ Hypsipyle: Trendall and Webster, 91; Boulotis, 647. Regardless of her specific identity in this scene, the figure is a stock one for this painter: RVAp, 414. 38  Simon, 36, sees this in the Naples vase as well, to be discussed shortly; in this she is followed by Pülhorn, 474; Boulotis, 649; Pache 129 n. 68. 36  37 

artist’s choice is therefore just as likely to stem from his understanding of the myth itself as from the inf luence of any one of its literary exponents.39 Whether the Lycurgus Painter intended viewers to recognize the specific identities of the three heroes fighting the snake is unclear. The preserved fragments of Amphiaraos’ account of the episode in Euripides may have named specific heroes in the attack, but it is by no means certain. In Statius’ rendition, Hippomedon and Kapaneus dispatch the monster. Hypothesis (d) to Pindar’s Nemean Odes (T 29) mentions shooting (τοξεῦσαι), which may have been a feature of Euripides’ account as well. As a whole, the literary tradition gives no indication that these details were in any way essential, and therefore immutable, elements of the story. A peculiarity of the depiction of Opheltes is his apparent age: his long limbs and bodily pro39  Even more certain is Pache’s point that neither the Bari scene nor this one can represent an actual scene from the Hypsipyle since the death scene surely took place off stage: Pache, 120.

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

portions are in no way like those of the infant or small child consistently described in literature. Simon characterizes him rather as “fast schon ein Ephebe,” although she offers no explanation for this detail.40 Pache relates it to other elements that in her view foreground the hero’s role as a recipient of cult.41 For instance, she sees the tray of offerings carried by the lower right figure as an allusion to hero cult offerings. Pache accordingly explains the “aging” of Opheltes as a sign of his transformation from dead child into an eternal figure of cult. As attractive as this explanation is, we are lacking any corroborating examples of this representational strategy. Perhaps the Lycurgus Painter was simply uninterested in a careful, realistic representation of Opheltes’ age.42 There is another element to which Pache rightly draws our attention: the stone perimeter around the snake and tree. In this detail she finds twofold significance. First, it evokes a sense of the sacred space that was protected by the snake and transgressed by the boy. Second, she continues, it alludes to the sacred space of a hero shrine, and she cites as parallels Pausanias’ description of the Pelopion at Olympia and the shrine of InoLeukothea at Megara.43 The Lycurgus Painter may have had a more specific, and more pertinent, model in mind, however: the Nemea Heroön itself. The curved line of stones passing behind the tree has a precise parallel in the southwest corner of the Heroön, where a segment of curvilinear rubble wall still remains and, at a short distance from it, a tree-planting pit.44 The scene on the vase thus resembles the view of these features from the northeast. Alternatively, it is possible that the artist was thinking of the shape of the Heroön as Simon, 37. Pache, 120. 42  His repertoire, as described in RVAp, includes no other example of a small child or infant to serve as a useful comparison. A close parallel in terms of Opheltes’ proportions are some of this painter’s erotes, e.g. on a pelike in Milan, RVAp, 16/2. 43  Pache, 120. 44  See Chapter 1, with Figs. 37 and 67. This strong resemblance was pointed out to me by my colleague Dylan Sailor in a seminar presentation in spring 1997. There is, however, nothing among the archaeological remains corresponding to the horizontal segment that closes off the semicircle on the vase. The illustrated tree resembles a palm (so Séchan, 365), but the type of tree that stood within the Heroön is unknown. 40  41 

149

a whole, as a rubble-lined mound at the south end of the embankment. It is even possible to see in the positioning of the tree at the top of this enclosure an attempt at a three-dimensional perspective of a mound, with the tree at its peak. An Apulian volute krater of ca. 340 B.C., now in the Louvre, presents a still later scene from the myth (Figs. 132, 133).45 One side of the vase illustrates two scenes in two registers. The lower scene concerns a seated woman holding a dead child in her lap. The boy’s limbs are slack, his head hangs unsupported by the neck, and a wound is visible on his chest. He is naked save for a band around his torso and some anklets on his left leg. The woman, richly dressed and seated on an elaborate chair with footstool, cradles him and raises her right hand to her hair in a gesture of mourning. Facing her is an armed hero whose extended right arm marks a gesture of address. Behind him sits a younger hero, who turns his head toward the center of the scene, while to the left of the seated woman are two more heroes. The farther of the two faces right, leaning over his left leg, which is propped on a mass of rocks. The nearer stands with his head lowered to the side and holds a fillet no doubt intended for the child. While Winckelmann originally identified the woman and child as Andromache and Astyanax, and other identifications have been proposed, Séchan interprets them as Eurydike holding the dead Opheltes, with Amphiaraos addressing her.46 Here too Séchan sees Euripides’ Hypsipyle as a source of inspiration, but he readily admits that the painting cannot be a direct quotation of any Paris, Louvre K 66 (N 3147) = RVAp 28/36 = Pülhorn no. 9 = Berger-Doer no. 3. Favier, 4, gives the vase a date of around 320 B.C. The vase bears the signature of Lasimos, but this appears to be a later addition; the vase belongs to the Group of Taranto 7013: see RVAp, 913–914. The reverse depicts a youth in a naiskos surrounded by seated and standing women. 46  Séchan, 358–360; Favier, 4; Cropp 2004, 180; cf. Pache, 122–123. Séchan, 360, followed by Cropp 2004, 180, suggests that the two heroes at left may be Hypsipyle’s sons, standing in for their absent mother. On a vase in Naples (Mus. Naz. 81944 = Berger-Doer no. 2 = Boulotis no. 16), Séchan, 364, interprets another scene along similar lines. At its center are two bearded male heroes in conversation, perhaps either Amphiaraos or Adrastos with Lykourgos; to the left, two females, one seated, perhaps Hypsipyle and Eurydike; and at right, two youthful male heroes, perhaps Euneos and Thoas. There is no sign of Opheltes, however, and the identification of the figures is far from secure. 45 

150

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 133. Detail of upper and lower scenes of Apulian volute krater, Paris, Louvre K 66 (N 3147). Photograph: Stéphane Maréchalle, © RMN-Grand Palais/ Art Resource, NY.

FIG. 132. Apulian volute krater, Paris, Louvre K 66 (N 3147). Photograph: Stéphane Maréchalle, © RMN-Grand Palais/ Art Resource, NY.

particular scene.47 While we do have preserved the fragments of Amphiaraos’ speech to Eurydike, it seems unlikely that she ever appeared with her dead son in her lap, and certainly not during the debate about Hypsipyle’s fate. The significance of the scene surely lies in Amphiaraos’ gesturing, which recalls, as on the Hermitage vase, the central act of renaming the child Archemoros and prescribing his future honors both at his tomb and in the Nemean Games. So too the fillet held by the youthful hero beside Eurydike functions 47 

Séchan, 359–360.

proleptically, anticipating the funerary ritual for the child that is the structural equivalent of the ongoing ritual he will receive in his shrine.48 The scene in the upper register is interesting in its own right, but of little help in securing the identification of the lower scene. A winged female figure with a nimbus around her head drives a four-horse chariot to the left. In front of her chariot stands Hermes, easily distinguished by his pilos, kerykeion, and winged feet. He is guiding her to the left side of the scene, where stands a youthful hero clad in chlamys and petasos. Surely the female can reasonably be identified as Eos, and the youth must be one of the goddess’s mortal love interests, like Kephalos, whom she has come to abduct.49 Séchan, who seems less sure 48  Cropp 2004, 180, identifies this figure as Thoas, son of Hypsipyle, and sees the fillet as perhaps alluding to his victory in the funeral games, in which case the reference is to the future Nemean Games rather than the cult at the Heroön. 49  RVAp identifies the figures as youth with spear, Hermes, and Eos in quadriga. Favier, 4, suggests Iris as another possibility for the winged figure; Séchan, 358, and Berger-Doer, 61, call her Eos only with some reservation. None of them ventures a specific identification of the youthful male at left.

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

151

FIG. 134. Apulian volute krater from Ruvo, Naples, Mus. Naz. 81394 (H 3255). Photograph: G. Singer, DAI Rom, neg. no. D-DAI-Rom 71.439.

about the figures in the upper scene, suggests that it possibly alludes to the Nemean Games that are to be founded in honor of the dead hero portrayed below.50 If the scene represents an abduction by Eos, however, the possibility of such an allusion Cropp 2004, 180, takes a different aproach, reading the upper and lower registers as one. Taking his cue from the downward glance of the youth with spear, he identifies him as another of the Seven, looking down to the scene below, and he interprets the chariot and gods as alluding to the heroization of Opheltes. There is no parallel for such iconography, however, and the inclined head of the youth with spear is a common pose that need not indicate a glance at the scene below (compare the similar pose of the young hero to the left of Eurydike). 50  Séchan, 360, followed by Pache, 123 n. 61, without offering any specific identification of the figures in the scene. We can only suppose that it is the presence of a four-horse chariot that prompts Séchan’s interpretation.

seems weak at best. Perhaps the artist intends to juxtapose two different expressions of youth being removed from the mortal realm, by divine abduction and by death.51 A final South Italian vase to feature the Opheltes myth is another volute krater from Ruvo that represents the more mature work of the Darius Painter (Fig. 134).52 The centerpiece of the front of the vase is a tripartite naïskos; in each of its three intercolumniations stands a figure, each conveniently labeled. In the middle, a sorrowful This also relates to the other side of the vase (illustrated in Favier, fig. 6), which shows a youth in a naiskos, a composition usually identified with the deceased. 52  Naples, Museo Nazionale 81394 (H 3255) = RVAp 18/42 = Pülhorn no. 10 = Boulotis no. 15. Trendall and Cambitoglou (RVAp, 492) group it with vases produced “in the later stage of his career around or shortly after 330 B.C.” 51 

152

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

and pensive Eurydike stands with head turned slightly to her left, as she listens to Hypsipyle, who occupies the left intercolumniation. She in contrast stands in a more agitated pose, contracting her body slightly as she gestures with both hands. At the opposite side of the naïskos stands Amphiaraos, who is turned toward the other two and raises his right hand in a gesture corresponding to Hypsipyle’s.53 Numerous other figures, mostly labeled, populate the space around the outside of the naiskos. To either side are two registers of two figures each, immortals above and mortals below.54 The upper right side of the vase shows a seated Zeus and Nemea in conversation. Below them stand two of the Seven, the youthful Parthenopaios and the older Kapaneus. The left side of the vase, which is partly damaged, shows Dionysos in the upper register. Reclining on a panther skin and surrounded by vines, he extends a phiale to an incompletely preserved second figure—a satyr?55 — who attends him. Below Dionysos stands Euneos, one of Hypsipyle’s two sons. He is in conversation with another, of whom only the right arm is preserved. Like Euneos, this other holds a pair of spears, so that we may plausibly identify Euneos’ interlocutor as his twin brother, Thoas.56 The field below the naiskos represents another focus of activity, a scene of prothesis. The child, labeled Archemoros, lies in repose on an elegant bier as two unidentified females attend him: one holds a parasol over his exposed head while the other places a wreath upon it. Beside the bier stands an aged male figure holding a lyre, labeled paidagogos. At the far right stand two more unlabeled figures, who support on their heads tables laden with vases and fillets. The symmetrical arrangement of the On the gesture, see RVAp, 492: “The Darius Painter is fond of what may be termed the admonitory conversational gesture, the raising of one hand with two fingers slightly parted and pointing upwards . . . , as if to command the attention of the listener. . . .” It appears in several of his works, and several of the figures in this scene perform it. This painter apparently has a particular interest in Amphiaraos as a subject and includes three different scenes of his departure in his repertoire: RVAp, 484, 493. 54  Such a compositional scheme, as well as the propensity to label most of the figures, is characteristic of the Darius Painter’s larger works: RVAp, 485. 55  So Trendall and Webster, 91. Séchan, 361, calls him just “un échanson.” 56  Séchan, 363; Trendall and Webster, 91. 53 

figures on the vase hints that two more may be missing from the lower left side.57 More than the other vases, the Naples vase exhibits evidence for the use of Euripides’ Hypsipyle as a model. In particular, the interaction of Hypsipyle, Eurydike, and Amphiaraos seems to be a clear allusion to the agon of Euripides’ play, in which Hypsipyle pleads her defense with the support of Amphiaraos’ testimony.58 Other claims of Euripidean inspiration are more problematic. Trendall and Webster, for instance, see the tripartite structure as an imitation of the typical stage building background, here representing the palace of Lykourgos and Eurydike of Euripides’ play. They further construe the prothesis scene below as an imitation of an actual scene unfolding in front of the stage building.59 But the structure really is nothing more than the conventional South Italian naiskos made triple; other instances of stage settings portrayed in vase painting are clearly unrelated to it.60 Moreover, there is no evidence from the surviving fragments of the Hypsipyle corresponding to the prothesis. Other scholars comment that the Darius Painter appears to have assembled the entire dramatis personae of the Hypsipyle.61 We should expect, of course, that a detailed illustration of the Behind the head of the servant with the parasol, at the point where the vase breaks off, can be seen part of a large shape with a lipped profile. A plausible reconstruction, then, would have two more figures carrying tables laden with objects as a pendant to the two on the right: Séchan, 362. Trendall and Webster, 91, identify the two men on the right as servants. Their dress suggests to me instead that they are two more of the Seven, who are assisting in the ritual preparations. If two more of them appeared on the left, all of the Seven would be accounted for. 58  Séchan, 362; Simon, 36; Pülhorn, 474; Boulotis, 649; Cropp 2004, 180. 59  Trendall and Webster, 91; also Boulotis, 649, who explicitly rejects the term naiskos; cf. RVAp, 484, where several other works of the Darius Painter with scenes indebted to drama are listed, and 493. 60  For a discussion of the likeliest examples of stage settings in vase painting, see Small, 52–57. A separate problem is Trendall and Webster’s claim that Euripides’ stage setting represented “the palace of . . . Lycurgus and Eurydice, King and Queen of Nemea,” for there is no evidence in the text of the play that they were rulers: see the discussion in Chapter 3. 61  Berger-Doer, 62; Boulotis, 649. Séchan, 364, also notes the absence of Lykourgos from this scene, as indeed from the other vase scenes considered heretofore, which accords with Euripides’ play (on the question of Lykourgos’ role in the play, see the discussion in the previous chapter). 57 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

Opheltes myth would overlap with the characters of a drama that treats the same myth. Nevertheless scholars attach particular significance to the presence of Dionysos and his juxtaposition with Euneos below. Not only are these two blood relatives (great-grandfather and great-grandson), but Dionysos here also appears with a lyre, alluding to his cult epithet Melpomenos. His proximity to Euneos thus also alludes to Euneos’ founding of the Euneidai, the Athenian clan charged with serving the cult of Dionysos Melpomenos. Since Dionysos appears ex machina at the end of Euripides’ drama and, it is conjectured, instructs Euneos to travel to Athens, scholars accordingly see the Darius Painter’s placement of these two figures as another conscious reference to the Hypsipyle.62 Other figures in the scene, however, certainly did not appear as speaking characters in the play, such as Zeus, Nemea, or any of the other members of the Seven. Particularly troublesome is the figure of the paidagogos. While Trendall and Webster take him as another sign of the direct inf luence of drama on the composition,63 there is again no evidence for this character in the Hypsipyle. It is even very unlikely that such a character appeared since Opheltes is clearly too young in the play to have one. The discrepancy does not escape Simon’s notice, who regards the paidagogos as but one element, in conjunction with the lyre and the representation of Opheltes’ form, that indicates the artist’s conception of the hero as a schoolage boy.64 Pache, on the other hand, explores alternative grounds for the old man’s inclusion. Comparing the role of the paidagogos on other vases by the Darius Painter, she suggests that he uses this figure to indicate “a lack of unity of time and space” in the composition, in other words to distinguish the naiskos scene from the prothesis scene. She also suggests that the old tutor’s grief serves as “a tragic reminder of Opheltes’ short and violent life,” by mourning the pupil he will not have.65 Whatever the correct explanation, it does not involve Euripides.66 Séchan, 364; Trendall and Webster, 91; Simon, 37; Pülhorn, 474; Berger-Doer, 60, 62; Boulotis, 649; Pache 120. 63  Trendall and Webster, 91; also RVAp, 484, 493. 64  Simon, 37; followed by Pülhorn, 474. See the discussion above in relation to Opheltes’ apparent age on the Saint Petersburg vase. 65  Pache, 122. 66  Cf. the general skepticism of Small, 60, on scenes with a 62 

153

In short, the degree to which the Darius Painter has fashioned his scene in the likeness of Euripides’ Hypsipyle has been exaggerated. The scholarly preoccupation with finding a literary model for artistic representations has usurped meaningful discussion of what significance artists like the Darius Painter accorded the myth itself. If we ref lect upon the scene in light of the aetiological function of the Opheltes myth, we once again find the Darius Painter focusing on two of its central elements: the renaming of Opheltes as a sign of his transformation into a figure of cult, and the iconography of funerary ritual that in turn alludes to his cultic role at Nemea. It is the central scene that foregrounds the former element. As we know from the fragmentary text of Euripides’ tragedy, Amphiaraos secures Hypsipyle’s safety precisely by predicting to Eurydike the great honor that will befall her slain son, who will be renamed Archemoros. The Darius Painter makes manifest the import of Amphiaraos’ words through the centrally placed label Archemoros that f loats over the prothesis scene. With respect to the ritual elements of the composition, the tables carried by the side figures are noteworthy. Simon sees in them a possible allusion to the Nemean Games; thinking of the table of Kolotes at Olympia, she notes that such tables were used to hold the prizes awarded in the ancient contests.67 Closer scrutiny of the tables reveals that they carry drinking or libation vessels tied with fillets. Such equipment alludes primarily to the funerary ritual to be performed for the child, and symbolically to the heroic status of Archemoros as well.68 A second important ritual element is the placing of a wreath around the head of Archemoros. Séchan muses that this is perhaps an allusion to the crowns of the future Nemean Games: “ . . . c’est à Archémoros que va paidagogos: “As a result, I think that the combination of the scrappy evidence, the use of pedagogues as full participants in the action, and the co-occurrence of pedagogues with messengers means that the presence of a pedagogue cannot be considered a conclusive sign that a picture is based on a play.” 67  Simon, 37. 68  Boulotis, 649. To the extent that fillets are also used in athletic contexts to mark victory, a further reference to the funeral games of Opheltes and hence the Nemean Games may also be understood. This additional layer of signification would be all the stronger if, as Miller suggests, the use of fillets in the funerary context reflects the notion of victory over death: see Miller 2009, 40–55.

154

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

la première de ces couronnes qui feront la gloire des mortels.”69 The shape of this wreath does not resemble known representations of wild celery wreaths, however, and Rohde instead identifies it as a myrtle wreath, which like the wild celery had a special connection with death and the chthonioi.70 Regardless of the nature of the wreath, placing one on the deceased unquestionably denotes the normal ritual of prothesis,71 although we should still allow ancient viewers to see a possible resonance with the crowns of the future Games. As a final indication of the Darius Painter’s interest in the aetiological significance of the death of Archemoros, we may point to the illustration he has chosen for the neck of this vase: Oinomaos and Myrtilos in a chariot pursuing Pelops and Hippodameia in another. The image surely alludes to the aetiological myth of the Olympic Games,72 and its pairing with the Opheltes myth cannot be coincidental.

OPHELTES IN HELLENISTIC ART We next encounter the Opheltes legend on Attic vases of the Hellenistic period. The image of Hypsipyle holding the baby Opheltes appears as one of the stamps in the repertoire of Attic workshops producing moldmade relief bowls from the last quarter of the 3rd to the mid-2nd century B.C. Susan Rotroff has published three fragmentary examples from the Athenian Agora.73 Two of them (Agora P 24082 and P 28588) exhibit the same stamp (Fig. 135): a draped female figure moves Séchan, 363. Rohde, 189 n. 40. 71  Garland, 26. 72  Noted in passing by Séchan, 363 n. 7; compare also RVAp 18/18, Oinomaos administering the oath to Pelops. The reverse side of the krater shows Herakles in the Garden of the Hesperides while Atlas holds up the sky, and on the neck, Dionysos and Ariadne flanked by a maenad and satyrs. Stephen Miller (pers. comm.), noting the helmet of Macedonian type worn by Kapaneus, suggests that the Darius Painter may also have an interest in contemporary affairs concerning the Nemean Games: it was in these years that the Games returned to the Nemea Valley from Argos with Macedonian support (see further Chapter 1, n. 199 for references). 73  Athens, Agora P 21040 = Agora XXII no. 182 = Boulotis no. 13a; Agora P 24082 = Agora XXII no. 203 = Boulotis no. 13b; Athens, Agora P 28588 = Agora XXII no. 204 = Boulotis no. 13c. 69  70 

left, holding in her left arm a small, naked child shown from the rear. Her right arm is raised in a gesture of shock comparable to what is suggested in the fragmentary Bari scene (cf. Fig. 130). She looks over her shoulder at a large snake that rears up from behind; its tail can be seen in front of her legs. The third bowl features essentially the same composition, but the stamp is obviously different. All three may come from the same workshop, called Workshop A, which produced a variety of figured bowls with mythological and hunting scenes, as well as imbricate and f loral bowls.74 Rotroff expresses some uncertainty about identifying the stamps’ subject as the death of Opheltes. Her hesitation comes from the fact that the death scene is usually portrayed differently, with Opheltes, abandoned, locked in the snake’s mouth or coils; here Hypsipyle seems to be carrying the child in her arms at the time of the attack. Rotroff ventures that perhaps some alternate version of the story is being shown. She is correct insofar as the literary and visual traditions are unanimous in representing the child as lying unprotected on the ground when the attack occurs. A slight modification to the stamps’ interpretation, however, will bring it into agreement with this invariable detail: Hypsipyle has snatched up the boy’s body after the attack and has turned to f lee the snake with the dying Opheltes in her arms. The Hypsipyle and Opheltes stamps constitute only one of several different stamps used around the wall of each bowl, as was the common format of bowls with mythological scenes. Other stamps include Herakles’ abduction of Auge, Prokne and Itys, silenoi, erotes, and a tritoness. A survey of the range of mythological subjects on such bowls reveals that the most common images are groups of gods, abduction scenes, and the labors of Herakles and Theseus.75 It is difficult to explain, then, how or why the Opheltes legend was selected for inclusion in the repertoire of stamps in Hellenistic Athens, but a familiarity with Euripides’ play could have played a role, as could the ongoing celebration of the Nemean Games in Argos. Roughly contemporary with the Attic bowls is a bowl fragment from Leibethra on Mount Olympos, now in the Dion Museum.76 Preserved Agora XXII, 28–29. Agora XXII, 20–24. 76  Boulotis no. 10, with illustration. 74  75 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

155

FIG. 135. Moldmade relief bowl, Agora P 28588. American School of Classical Studies at Athens: Agora Excavations.

FIG. 136. Engraved red jasper gemstone, New York, MMA 81.6.110. Gift of John Taylor Johnston, 1881. www.metmuseum.org.

on it is a relief representation of a woman’s head, turned to the right, and her raised left arm. An inscription assures us that she is Hypsipyle, and her raised arm recalls the same shocked reaction that she often expresses in response to the death of her nursling. Although it is possible that the vase illustrates some other part of the Hypsipyle story, such as from her time on Lemnos, in fact most, if not all, of the known representations of this queen-turned-slave represent her as Opheltes’ nurse.77 It is highly probable, then, that the Dion fragment belongs to a scene of the death of Opheltes, who may have been represented as well. Boulotis attributes the appearance of this myth on a Macedonian relief cup to Macedonian interest in Euripides, who of course sojourned there in the reign of King Archelaos.78 Macedonian interest in the Nemean Games themselves, however, may also explain the choice of subject. The death of Opheltes also forms the subject of a carved red jasper gemstone in the Metropolitan Museum (Fig. 136).79 The stone bears an intaglio representation of the baby wrapped in the coils of the snake; Opheltes’ body is fully extended horizontally, as if he were swimming. While his right hand is cupped, palm up, the left hand turns

up at the wrist, palm out, with fingers raised and curled. The overall effect of the artist’s rendition of the body is to communicate Opheltes’ utter helplessness, his f lexed limbs showing not so much resistance as the effect of the snake’s constricting hold. Opheltes’ thick, curly hairstyle also deserves notice, for it very much resembles the coif of the bronze figurine from Nemea, to be discussed further below. Richter catalogues the gemstone among the Roman types ranging from the 1st century B.C. to the 4th century after Christ, but within the catalogue entry itself, she describes it as a “Hellenistic type.”80

Boulotis, 648. Boulotis, 649. 79  New York, MMA 81.6.110 = Pülhorn no. 1. 77  78 

Richter, 95, no. 427. See also her introductory remarks on the Roman intaglios (p. 62): “ . . . it is often difficult to determine whether a specific gem belongs to the Roman or Hellenistic epoch. Many representations . . . that have been included in this section may therefore belong to the Hellenistic period.” The use of red jasper does become more common in the Roman period, but it is not unknown before then. It is also important to make a distinction between the date of the gemstone and the date of the image engraved upon it; innumerable Roman engravings reproduce Greek images of earlier periods from sundry media: Richter, 61–62. An unpublished seal impression from Seleucia on the Tigris may also be relevant; R. H. McDowell describes it thus: “Serpent partly coiled, grasping a small human figure. This figure has been impressed only in part, but it appears to represent a child.” Noting some similarity to the Metropolitan Museum intaglio, he identifies the child in the seal impression as Opheltes: McDowell, 104. The sealing appears on a bulla fragment from a documentary archive spanning the early 3rd 80 

156

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 137. Wall painting from Herculaneum, Naples, Mus. Naz. 8987. After Herrmann and Herbig, pl. 205.

WALL PAINTING AND RELIEF SCULPTURE OF THE ROMAN IMPERIAL PERIOD Roman interest in the myth of Opheltes was not restricted to literary production, as a wall painting from Herculaneum attests (Fig. 137).81 The small panel (0.33 × 0.44 m.) illustrates Opheltes’ moment of crisis: the small child, trapped in the snake’s coils, still struggles to free himself by reaching out with his free left arm and trying to crawl away. Two men, one in full panoply, the other in short chiton and chlamys, stand ready to strike the snake with their spears. To the right stands Hypsipyle, throwing her arms wide in reaction to the horrifying event. Details of the landscape are sparse—just a few tufts of grass or reeds—but these together with the dropped hydria at the feet of the fully armed warrior are enough to suggest that the setting is near the spring where Hypsipyle has led the Seven, two of whom are now attempting to intervene. Whether the painter had in mind specific identities for these two heroes is unclear.82 Simon compares the figure of Opheltes with to mid 2nd century B.C.: McDowell, 13. If his identification is correct, therefore, then the sealing provides a parallel for the gemstone that is of securely Hellenistic date. 81  Naples, Mus. Naz. 8987 = Pülhorn no. 3 = Boulotis no. 9. Dated to the 1st century after Christ. 82  See the earlier discussion of the heroes on the Hermitage vase.

FIG. 138. Wall painting from Casa dei Dioscuri in Pompeii, Naples, Mus. Naz. 9039. Photograph: Olivierw/ Wikimedia Commons/ Public Domain.

that in the scene on the Bari krater painted by Python (Fig. 130); both show the more naturalistic, pudgy bodies of small children that are first depicted in classical Attic art, both on miniature choes and in funerary relief. From this observation she constructs a precarious argument that both Python and the painter of the Herculaneum panel derive their scenes from a 4th-century B.C. Attic model.83 Apart from the similar treatment of the child’s body, however, the only other element that the two scenes have in common is the frightened posture of Hypsipyle, who appears to the right of the child in both instances.84 Despite these similarities, both Opheltes’ pose and the conception of Simon, 37–38, 41; followed by Pülhorn, 475; Boulotis, 650; Pache, 123. Cropp 2004, 179, mentions Simon’s thesis but only questions whether this model need have been inspired by Euripides’ play. As further evidence of a Classical Attic model, Simon adduces the band around the Bari Opheltes’ torso, which has parallels in Attic art as well, but a quick survey of Python’s oeuvre demonstrates that this is a detail he often paints on youthful nude male figures, including the gods Apollo and Dionysos. The device cannot be taken as evidence for a specific model. 84  Convinced of her earlier model, Simon also proposes re83 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

157

FIG. 140. Detail of grave altar of Nicephorus, Detroit Institute of Arts 38.107. Photo: Author.

FIG. 139. Grave altar of Nicephorus, Detroit Institute of Arts 38.107. Photo: Author.

the snake’s attack are radically different. As a result, it is difficult to accept that these two images derive from a common Attic source. Another Roman wall painting, from the Casa dei Dioscuri in Pompeii, offers an interesting glimpse at the Opheltes myth as it continued to be performed on stage (Fig. 138). Two actors appear in the scene, dressed in the gear—exaggerated masks and laced boots with high soles—of tragic performance. The actor at left wears a chiton and chlamys, and his mask represents a bearded male. At his right side he holds a pitcher, while he holds his left hand open and extended toward his fellow actor. This one wears a belted chiton, with a himation draped over the left shoulder, and a female mask with locks of hair reaching down to the chest. He raises his right arm high toward the other actor, and in the crook of his left arm is a small doll-like figure wrapped in swaddling. The tableau has been identified as a scene from a performance of Euripides’ Hypsipyle, storing two attacking warriors, as in the Herculaneum painting, in the Bari scene (cf. Pülhorn, 475, and Boulotis, 647).

when Amphiaraos arrives on stage and approaches Hypsipyle, who greets him while holding the child Opheltes. The pitcher signals Amphiaraos’ request for water.85 Beginning in the Flavian period, a series of marble relief sculptures reprises the theme of Opheltes’ death. Earliest among them is a grave altar erected for the deceased P. Egnatius Nicephorus dated to the late 1st century (Figs. 139, 140).86 Carved in the center of the front side, beneath a panel containing the funerary inscription, is another illustration of the moment of the hero’s demise. Trapped once more in the coils of his foe, the baby Opheltes dangles upside down, powerless to extricate himself. A male figure with chlamys and sword belt, presumably one of the Seven, makes a valiant but futile effort to save the child. Simon suggests instead that he may be Lykourgos, Opheltes’ father. Not only is this unprecedented in the iconography, but it is also completely inconsistent with the literary tradition, which never has Lykourgos present at the moment of his son’s death.87 On the ground below him is a dropped Cockle, 147–148. 1st c. A.D., after 2nd c. B.C. original. Detroit Institute of Arts 38.107 = Pülhorn no. 4a = Krauskopf no. 17a = Boulotis no. 4. The altar was found in the 16th century in Rome with a nearly identical mate dedicated to Herbasia Clymene (Pülhorn 4b = Krauskopf no. 17b = Boulotis no. 5), which is now lost: Simon, 45. Records of the DIA indicate that it is in a private collection in England. 87  Simon, 45, repeated by Pülhorn, 473. We shall see that she advances the same identification for similar figures on 85 

86 

158

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

hydria with water spilling out, once more signaling the context of the episode. At left, Hypsipyle runs away in shock, her f light registering in the f luttering folds of her dress. Similar in conception is a marble relief of the 2nd century after Christ in the Palazzo Spada (Fig. 141).88 Despite plentiful restoration, the original relief shows Opheltes suspended upside down by the snake’s powerful coils. As on the grave altar, a hero with a chlamys attempts to rescue the baby, and at his feet is a dropped hydria. This hero, however, also holds a shield on his left arm; his right arm is raised high to strike with his weapon, although his hand and the spear shaft are restorations, as is his helmeted head. Hypsipyle appears at left, once again in f light—as is indicated by the folds of her drapery appearing in low relief above the hydria—but this time also turning her head back to watch the unfolding calamity in horror. The relief also includes a second male hero joining the fray at the upper right of the scene. Only the left side of his torso is original, showing him to be nude save for a chlamys; his helmeted head and shield, as well as his right arm and spear, are all restored. The Spada relief also features a background rich in landscape detail. Rocks fill the bottom of the scene and right side behind Opheltes, partially obscuring the second hero. At upper left has been carved an old, knobby tree trunk and some leaves, which resemble those of an oak. Deeper in the background is a building with pediment that resembles a Roman temple.89 The combination of the oak tree, sacred to Jupiter/Zeus, and the temple defines the setting as an idealized version of Nemea. The Flavian altar and the Antonine Spada relief, in Simon’s view, exemplify a distinct Roman tradition that adapts the earlier model she believes is ref lected in the Bari vase and the Herculaneum wall painting. While drawing on the same figures of Hypsipyle, Opheltes in the snake’s grasp, later sarcophagi, but in all cases there is no need to see him as someone other than one of the Seven. 88  Rome, Palazzo Spada 1812 = Pülhorn no. 5 = Krauskopf no. 18 = Boulotis no. 6. It is one of eight relief panels in the Palazzo Spada originally found in 1620: Wace, 183. For the date of the relief see Wace, 197. 89  So Wace, 185. The building is nearly identical to the temple of Athena from a scene of the theft of the Palladion. Cockle, 166, wrongly identifies it as a palace.

FIG. 141. Relief, Rome, Palazzo Spada 1812. Photograph: F. Schlechter, DAI Rom, neg. no. D-DAI-Rom 85.429.

and the two male heroes, the adaptation involves moving Hypsipyle to the left side of the scene and compressing the scene so that it becomes more vertical than horizontal.90 We have already called into question the existence of Simon’s putative earlier model; as for the variant Roman tradition, it is a difficult claim to accept on the basis of two examples alone. We could be dealing with two artists who, given similar constraints, coincidentally arrive at similar solutions to representing Opheltes’ death. The finest illustration of the Opheltes myth from this period is a fragmentary Attic sarcophagus in the Corinth Museum, dated to ca. A.D. 160.91 Of this artifact, first published by F. P. Johnson in Corinth IX, substantial parts of one long and one short side have survived (Figs. 142– 90  Simon, 44 n. 37. In this she rejects the opinion of prior scholarship that the Spada relief was directly modeled on a late Classical painting. Her view is repeated by Pülhorn, 475, and Boulotis, 650. 91  Corinth IX no. 241 = Pülhorn no. 7 = Boulotis no. 7.

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

159

FIG. 142. Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum. Photograph: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corinth Excavations.

145).92 The short side depicts Opheltes as a small, chubby child who is fatally locked in the coils of the snake (Fig. 143). Much like the figure on the Paestan krater (Fig. 130),93 he squats on the ground with one leg bent at the knee, the other stretched out to the side, while he turns his head to look toward his nurse and raises his free right hand in a plea for help. Above and to the right, Hypsipyle reacts in horror. Her tresses f ly away in low relief behind her head, suggesting that she has just come upon the scene. Almost ref lexively she throws up her own right hand, in sympathy with her suffering nursling. Opposite her, a male hero lunges toward the snake, and with his left hand protectively wrapped in his cloak, he tries to check his opponent while he prepares to strike with the sword in his right.

A little of the back side is also preserved, as well as two large fragments from the lid, which represented a single reclining figure on a couch: Corinth IX, 116. 93  Simon, 38. 92 

FIG. 143. Short side of Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum. Photograph: Ino Ioannidou and Lenio Bartzioti. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corinth Excavations.

FIG. 144. Detail of left half of long side of Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum. Photograph: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corinth Excavations.

FIG. 145. Detail of right half of long side of Attic sarcophagus S779, Corinth Museum. Photograph: Ino Ioannidou and Lenio Bartzioti. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corinth Excavations.

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

To the right of Hypsipyle the sculptor has rendered several objects that are partly broken away. Immediately beside her is a short, columnar stand on which sits an indeterminate vessel. Beside these is a larger, pillar-like shape that f lares out slightly to the left at its base. The area above these objects is missing, but along the break at the top of the right side are traces of a face and paw in low relief that suggest a sphinx, perhaps to be restored as seated on a tall stele. Simon suggests that this sphinxtopped stele and the vessel, which she thinks may be a thymiaterion, allude to the funeral honors to be established for the child hero, in much the same way as the ritual equipment found associated with the death of Opheltes on the South Italian vases.94 In addition, it is hard to ignore the association of the sphinx with Thebes in this context, so that the funerary foreshadowing may extend even farther, to the eventual disaster awaiting the Seven as well. If so, then the sphinx may constitute a visual allusion to the renaming of Opheltes as Archemoros, one of the core details of the legend. The front of the sarcophagus depicts an earlier episode, the departure of the Seven from Argos. At the far left side stand two females, one handing a helmet to a male warrior beside them (Fig. 144). This vignette of the warrior’s departure is a self-sufficient iconographic scheme well known from Classical vase painting and elsewhere. Here it is extrapolated to accommodate all seven of the heroes departing for Thebes, who appear spaced along the remainder of the field. The sculptor has included attributes that pin down the identities of most of the figures, but disagreement still remains about some.95 The warrior of the departure scene, for instance, wears a garland, which Johnson interprets as an attribute of the seer, Amphiaraos. Simon, on the other hand, takes it as a wedding garland, alluding to the marriage of Polyneikes and Tydeus to the daughters of Adrastos; since Tydeus can be identified without dispute elsewhere in the scene, this figure must represent Polyneikes. By Johnson’s reckoning, the woman holding the helmet is Amphiaraos’ wife, Eriphyle, and the other remains anonymous (an attendant?). By Simon’s, the women represent 94  Simon, 39; see also Brendel, 204. Another possibility worth considering is that the vessel is a hydria, as in so many other scenes, functioning to define the setting as the spring. 95  Corinth IX, 114–116; Simon, 39–40.

161

Adrastos’ two daughters, the wives of Polyneikes and Tydeus. The next warrior in the sequence we can identify with confidence as Adrastos because of the horse rendered in low relief behind him; this must surely represent Arion, Adrastos’ divine steed celebrated in literature from Homer onward. Next comes a youthful figure wearing only a himation draped loosely across him; the bow he carries and the hunting dog that accompanies him mark him as Parthenopaios, the young Arkadian hunter. A nude hero strides before him, carrying a shield and a boar skin, which identifies him as the Kalydonian hero Tydeus (Fig. 145).96 Before him stands a cuirassed hero with a helmet in one hand, a sheathed sword visible at his side, and below him in low relief, a quiver. He moves arm in arm with the next hero, who wears only a chlamys and holds a shield on his left arm. A crested Corinthian helmet appears on the ground below him. In the space between these two heroes’ shoulders is a ladder, the attribute of Kapaneus, whom both Johnson and Simon see as the cuirassed hero. By process of elimination, the cuirassed hero’s companion and the leading hero must be Hippomedon and either Polyneikes or Amphiaraos, depending on how we identify the hero at far left. The leading hero wears a cuirass and strides boldly to the right; the large shield he carries on his left arm frames and highlights his torso. Simultaneously he turns his upper body and head back toward the others and raises his right arm to call on his followers. It is Amphiaraos whom Simon sees as this leader; his portrayal as a confident, powerful warrior harks back to earlier, Archaic and Classical representations of the hero. Johnson, in contrast, sees the leader as Polyneikes, and in support of this he draws our attention to the shield on the ground below him, which bears the emblem of a sphinx. To be sure, the loss of most of the heroes’ heads has muted the effect of the scene’s artistry. Nevertheless, the more stationary figures at left give way to a succession of legs and torsos that thrust to the right like a well-wound spring just released.97 The lead hero, however, by turning back toward the left, sends the viewer’s gaze back to the beginning: from the heroes’ final farewells Compare Hyginus, F. 69, as Johnson notes. Krauskopf 1994, 736, notices this effect as well and likens it to an accelerating tempo. 96  97 

162

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

in Argos to their first eager steps on the march to Thebes, the sculptor has captured not a moment, but a short loop of time, which continually replays across the surface of the sarcophagus. Emphasizing the closure of this loop is a solitary, draped female figure, stationed like a karyatid, at the right edge of the scene. Whether she has a more specific identity is unclear; but visually she functions as a pendant to another such figure at the left edge of the scene and reinforces the unity of the front of the sarcophagus.98 Simon offers a reading of the sarcophagus that to my eyes violates its composition. She maintains that five of the heroes of the long side, from Parthenopaios onward, actually belong to the scene unfolding on the short side; in other words, these heroes are rushing to aid the baby Opheltes around the corner.99 Simon’s reading is in part motivated by her wish to see the same Attic model at work in the sarcophagus as she sees in the Bari vase and the Herculaneum wall painting. That model includes two warriors engaged with the snake, and since the short side of the sarcophagus shows only one, she takes the lead hero of the long side, her Amphiaraos, as the second warrior of the model composition.100 Furthermore, because she views the two sides as a thematic whole, the attacking hero on the short side cannot be one of the Seven, who are all represented on the front; therefore she identifies him as Lykourgos, Opheltes’ father.101 This allows Simon to deliver her own coup de grâce: By taking the two warriors of the putative Classical model and investing them with the specific identities of Amphiaraos and Lykourgos, the sculptor, she argues, is deliberately playing on the old tradition of conf lict between Amphiaraos and Lykourgos over

Only the smallest bit of drapery of the left karyatid is preserved: Corinth IX, 116. Simon, 45, ventures more specific identifies for both: The right figure she sees as the eponymous nymph Nemea, who is shown on the Naples vase and perhaps on the Hermitage vase as well. The left figure she suggests is Larisa, the eponymous nymph of the Argive akropolis. This proposal depends in good measure on her reading of the two preserved sides, which I find faulty (see following). 99  Simon, 39–40. 100  Simon, 38. 101  On this point she follows an earlier suggestion made by Brendel, 204. Johnson does not assign this figure a specific name: Corinth IX, 116.

the death of Opheltes, seen in the Olympia shield band and the throne at Amyklai.102 Simon’s interpretation fails to convince. I have presented already my objections to the tradition of a quarrel between Amphiaraos and Opheltes’ father in the earlier discussion of the Olympia shield band. Likewise, I remain skeptical about the existence of a specific artistic model that features two warriors attacking the snake. Even if we accepted both of these premises, their applicability to this sarcophagus is doubtful. In the first place, her identification of the lead hero of the front side as Amphiaraos is uncertain. More fundamentally objectionable is her reading of the action as taking place across the two sides. In such a reading, the karyatid figure is completely out of place, becoming a trip hazard for the Seven as they rush to the scene on the short side. It is also difficult to accept that the sculptor would apply a model of two warriors by splitting them between two sides of the sarcophagus. If instead we allow the two sides to represent two distinct phases of the Seven’s journey, then there is no reason to identify the warrior of the short side as Lykourgos; we are free to identify that warrior as one of the Seven, repeated from the long side. The likeliest candidate in this case is Hippomedon, who appears also on the front, armed but nude.103 This is not to deny the basic observation that the two preserved sides of the sarcophagus are indeed related: without question they represent a sequence of early episodes from the expedition of the Seven against Thebes.104 Moreover, we can accept that the rightward thrust of the figures on the front does set up the viewer for a surprise around the corner. In this respect the sculptor skillfully adapts his craft to an element of the unexpected that is inherent in the Thebaid tradition: namely that just after setting out, the Seven come face-to-

98 

Simon, 41–42. Again, it is not necessary to seek a specific literary authority for this choice. Although Statius does specify Hippomedon and Kapaneus as the heroes who attack the snake, he arms them with a stone and spear, not a sword as on the sarcophagus. As we observed in the previous chapter, there is no consistent tradition about which of the Seven attacked the snake or what weapons they used. 104  Simon, 38. She reasonably suggests that the other two sides of the sarcophagus were related to one another as well, but very little of the back side and none of the other short side have survived: see Corinth IX, 116. 102  103 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

face with an ominous disaster. Simon’s division of the episodes, however, seems to be a case of special pleading for her argument about Amphiaraos and Lykourgos. Another Attic sarcophagus fragment, approximately contemporary with the Corinth sarcophagus, preserves a comparable scene of Opheltes under attack (Fig. 146).105 The f leshy baby sits on the ground, with his left leg tucked in, his right leg extended. His weight is shifted to his left side, and his fragmentary left arm probably reached to the ground for support. His right arm is raised, and around it coils the sole surviving fragment of the snake that assaults him. Behind Opheltes towers a nude bearded male who prepares to deliver a blow to the snake. His pose—sword arm bent and drawn back behind the head, left arm tensed and drawn back, rib cage drawn up, and right leg planted forward—invokes a long tradition deriving from the Harmodios statue of the tyrannicides group by Kritios and Nesiotes. Simon is the first to identify the subject of this fragment as the death of Opheltes; formerly it was thought to represent the baby Herakles strangling the snakes sent by Hera to kill him.106 While the two episodes possess a similar iconography, there are two important distinctions. First, Herakles usually fights two snakes, not one; and second, Herakles usually engages more actively with the snakes, often squeezing them with his own hands, as a token of his eventual victory.107 Since the working of the preserved fragment clearly indicates that it formed the right edge of one side of the sarcophagus, any additional figures must have appeared to the left. Simon conjectures that Hypsipyle appeared there in f light, on the basis of the Roman variant that she extrapolates from the grave altar of Nicephorus and the Spada relief, but other reconstructions of the scene are also possible. As for the hero behind Opheltes, Simon suggests Lykourgos once more,108 but he is more likely to represent one of the Seven.

105  Athens NM 1457 = Pülhorn no. 6 = Boulotis no. 8, dated to A.D. 150–160. 106  On the iconography of the baby Herakles, see Brendel, Woodford. 107  Simon, 43–44; Pülhorn, 475; Pache, 124. 108  Simon, 44; Pache 126.

163

FIG. 146. Attic sarcophagus fragment, Athens NM 1457. Photograph: Gösta Hellner, DAI Athens, neg. no. D-DAI-ATH-1974/91.

ROMAN IMPERIAL COINAGE Imperial period interest in the Opheltes story finds expression not just in stone relief sculpture but on coins as well. As R. C. Knapp has observed, the 2nd century after Christ witnesses a revival of Nemean iconography on the coinage of Argos, which continues to administer the festival of Zeus.109 Beginning in the reign of Hadrian, coins appear featuring diverse types, among them the legend NEMEIA in a celery wreath and a scene of Herakles killing the Nemean lion. So too the legend of Opheltes finds expression on a series of seven different types of bronze coin, spanning the reigns of Hadrian to Caracalla. 109 

Nemea III, 50.

164

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 147a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Hadrian). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256596.

FIG. 148a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Antoninus Pius). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256597.

Earliest in the series is an issue from the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117–138).110 The reverse depicts the snake at left, rearing up while coiled around the small figure of Opheltes, whose legs appear to dangle below (Fig. 147). Rushing toward them at the right is Hypsipyle, whose animated state is communicated through the billowing folds of her drapery as well as her raised arms. The reverse of a second type, issued under Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138–161), presents just the core image of Opheltes entangled in the snake’s coils (Fig. 148).111 He reaches out his right arm in a gesture of helplessness. A fuller version of the scene of the baby’s death appears on the reverse of a type issued under Lucius Verus (A.D. 161–169). In this version, the snake has already released the dead body of Opheltes, which lies spread out on the ground below it (Fig. 149).112 Rearing up above the body, the snake faces a male figure at left, apparently nude, whom Pache is probably correct to identify as one of the Seven.113 Hypsipyle, in turn, appears as the draped female figure at right. The slight

twist of her body away from the center hints that she is about to f lee the scene, and she holds her right arm aloft in shock. The next Argive type to represent the death of Opheltes omits Hypsipyle (Fig. 150).114 Issued in the reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193–211), the coin depicts on its reverse the snake coiled at right while rearing to face an armed male figure standing to the left. The latter figure, again likely to represent one of the Seven, cocks his right arm back as he prepares to attack with a spear, and he extends his left hand before him in a protective gesture. Opheltes appears on the ground, his upper body emerging from the snake’s coils. His hands are stretched out before him to the left in a sign of his desperate situation. Hypsipyle returns on the reverse of a coin bearing the portrait of Julia Domna (A.D. 198–217).115 Once again she appears in f light, moving rightward away from the snake that has coiled itself once more around Opheltes (Fig. 151). Another Argive issue, again with Julia Domna on the obverse, combines Opheltes and the snake with a large standing figure (Fig. 152).116 The figure appears to be male and naked, but unlike the similar figures on other coins who actively engage the snake, he seems detached from the figures at his feet. With his raised right arm he holds a tall spear or scepter upright, and his left arm is bent with his hand held at the level of his chest. Meanwhile, the baby Opheltes lies sprawled before him, apparently

110  Boulotis no. 11. Cf. Friedländer, 99; Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33; Pache, 126. 111  Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33. Although the reverse is illustrated there (pl. I.2) oriented with Opheltes standing, it is more likely that Opheltes is represented prostrate on the ground, as shown here. Compare the composition on the engraved gemstone in New York, discussed above. 112  Boulotis no. 12. Cf. Friedländer, 100; Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33; Pache, 129. 113  Oikonomides, 77–78, apparently unaware of the full range of literary and visual evidence about the myth, combines the numismatic iconography with the testimony of Euripides’ Hypsipyle to argue that the armed hero on the coins must be Amphiaraos and that Euripides’ text should be restored to say that Amphiaraos shot the snake with a spear, not an arrow. As we have seen, however, there is no consistent tradition about who of the Seven kills the snake, and it is not even certain

that Amphiaraos shoots the snake in Euripides’ version (see the discussion of T 14 in Chapter 3). 114  Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33. 115  BMC Pel. 152 no. 169 = Boulotis no. 11a. Cf. ImhoofBlumer and Gardner, 33; Nemea III, 50. 116  Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33.

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

165

FIG. 150a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Septimius Severus). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256595.

FIG. 149. Drawing of reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Lucius Verus). Drawing by M. Zoie Lafis.

supine with his arms beside his head; the snake appears on the ground to the right of the standing figure. If the slender object in his right hand is a scepter rather than a spear, perhaps we have here a figure of Zeus Nemeios, interposed between the hero and his killer.117 Another possibility is that he represents the seer Amphiaraos, and his passive stance, similar to the stance of Amphiaraos on the vase in Saint Petersburg, ref lects his witnessing of the omen that will lead to the institution of the Nemean Games. A different combination of the snake and the baby Opheltes appears on the reverse of a bronze coin with Plautilla (A.D. 202–205) on its obverse (Fig. 153).118 At left, the snake springs up above his coiled body, facing right toward a reclining figure that probably represents Opheltes. His long legs are extended but crossed, and while his left arm is also extended straight beyond his head, his right arm is bent so that the hand rests at his head. It is difficult to decide whether Opheltes is shown here dead, after the snake’s attack, or asleep beforehand.119 In favor of the latter is the detail of the

A very similar standing figure appears on the reverse of an Argive bronze coin from the reign of Hadrian in the British Museum. Gardner ventures the suggestion that it represents the statue of Zeus Nemeios that Pausanias saw in Argos (2.20.3): BMC Pel. 148 no. 148. 118  Friedländer, 99; Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33; Pache, 129. 119  Dead: Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33. Asleep: Friedländer, 99; Pache, 129. 117 

FIG. 151. Reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Julia Domna). © The Trustees of the British Museum.

arm bent up to the head, which is a characteristic gesture of sleeping figures in Greek art. Also difficult to interpret is the array of three courses of slab-like shapes represented below the child’s body. Pache describes it as “a pile of rocks, maybe an altar,” but certainly no altar figures in the surviving narrative accounts of Opheltes’ death. Perhaps she is thinking of a possible allusion to the actual shrine for Opheltes, specifically the stone Tomb at the center of the Nemea Heroön.120 120  This has been called an altar in earlier scholarship, and as we noted in Chapter 1, it may have functioned as one in addition to marking the hero’s grave.

166

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 152a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Julia Domna). Photograph: Nicolai Kästner, Staatliche Münzsammlung München.

FIG. 154a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Corinth (Domitian). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256802.

It is also possible that the artist intended only a more general reference to the stony mound that constitutes the Heroön. If instead we look to the narrative accounts for an interpretation, then perhaps the feature is intended to designate the spring where the death takes place in some accounts, or else it simply represents a rocky landscape, comparable to that of the Palazzo Spada relief. In addition to the Imperial bronze coins from Argos, some bronze coin types from Corinth also represent the Nemean myth. The earliest known example is from the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81– 96).121 An armored hero stands at right, brandishing a sword in his right hand while his left still holds the scabbard (Fig. 154). The snake he confronts is of monstrous size, rising above him in the left side of the field. Opheltes is not to be found in the voluminous coils of the snake’s body; rather, he is shown trapped in the monster’s jaws. A coin Friedländer, 99; Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33. Friedländer mistakenly states that Hypsipyle appears on the coin.

121 

FIG. 153a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Argos (Plautilla). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256592.

issued under Septimius Severus (A.D. 193–211) seems to repeat this scheme (Fig. 155).122 Once again the armed hero appears at right, but the coin is unfortunately too worn to confirm whether he holds a sword and scabbard or something else. Nor can we tell how Opheltes was represented in the scene, whether lying on the ground or in the snake’s coils or mouth. Finally, under Caracalla (A.D. 211–217), Corinth issues a bronze type featuring a naked hero fighting the snake, which pins Opheltes on the ground with its coils (Fig. 156).123 His nurse Hypsipyle f lees at right, with one hand raised in horror. Like the contemporary coins of Argos, these bronze issues of Corinth ref lect local interest in the founding myth of the Nemean Games.124 Corinth, of course, had no direct administrative tie to the festival, as it did to the Isthmian Games, and in fact the founding myth of the latter festival was a more frequent subject on Corinthian imperial coins.125 Perhaps the status of Corinth as the dominant Roman colony of the region, however, accounts for its occasional choice to represent myths more appropriate to other cities within the region. The latest representations of the Opheltes myth from antiquity are found on Roman contorniates minted in the latter half of the 4th century after Friedländer, 99; Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33. Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner, 33. 124  Boulotis, 649. 125  Friedländer, 99, claims that Corinth did have oversight together with Argos and Kleonai, but this is incorrect. For representations of the Isthmian Games see Corinth VI, 8, and cat. nos. 77–79, 94–95, 110–112, 135–137, 150–152, 164–165, 171, 185–186, 203–205. 122  123 

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

FIG. 155a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Corinth (Septimius Severus). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256799.

Christ (Fig. 157).126 A. and E. Alföldi have catalogued numerous examples featuring a perplexing rendition of this myth on the reverse. Apart from some minor variations, such as the details of Hypsipyle’s dress and hairstyle, the elements of the scene are essentially the same for all of them. Hypsipyle, identified by inscription, cradles the baby in her left arm. The bend in her legs suggests that she is about to move to the right, but her head and her outstretched right arm suggest that she is reacting to what is taking place beside her. There, on the ground, sits another baby engaged with two snakes: propping himself up with legs bent at the knees, he firmly throttles the snakes, one in each hand. The Alföldis interpret the baby on the ground as another representation of Opheltes, but as Pache argues, since this child is active, not passive, he must be the infant Herakles.127 The contorniates thus present a visual conf lation of the two child heroes in a manner that recalls the parallelism between them occasionally invoked in the literary sources. The scene is relatively rare among the catalogued contorniates, and its selection may be a consequence of late antique literary interest.128 Boulotis no. 14. Cf. Pache, 129. 127  K-M, pt. 2, 137–138; Pache, 129. Also in favor of identifying the child on the ground as baby Herakles is the fact that he is handling two snakes, not just one: see K-M, pt. 2, nos. 8a, 68, 272, pls. 3.12, 24.8, 114.8. Some of the contorniates, however, have been struck in such a way that one of the snakes is not visible: contrast K-M, pt. 2, nos. 351, 488, pls. 144.3–6, 194.4. Pache further compares the image of Hypsipyle carrying Opheltes with those of Ino carrying Melikertes; both scenes show a maternal figure at a dangerous moment, before the death and heroization of the children. 128  K-M, pt. 2, 137–138. Woodford, 129 and n. 76, raises the possibility that the contorniates are entirely devoted to the 126 

167

FIG. 156a-b. Obverse and reverse of bronze coin of Corinth (Caracalla). Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, object number 18256806.

FIG. 157. Reverse of bronze contorniate with bust of Alexander the Great. Roman, Imperial Period, Midlate 4th century A.D. Diameter: 36.5 mm, Weight: 28.19 grams, Die Axis: 12. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Theodora Wilbour Fund in memory of Zoë Wilbour, 1971.286. Photograph © 2018 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

IMAGES FROM THE SANCTUARY OF ZEUS Our examination of the iconography of the myth of Opheltes now turns to possible examples recovered from excavations within the Sanctuary of Zeus. From the Heroön itself come two figurines that have been identified in earlier publibaby Herakles story and that the female with child represents Alkmene carrying Iphikles, but she offers no explanation of the inscription.

168

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

cations as representations of the child hero. The first may represent Opheltes in the arms of his nurse Hypsipyle (Cat. 159; see Figs. 402–406). Exceedingly worn and incompletely preserved, it appears to show a female with shoulder-length hair cradling a child at her bosom. Because the lower portion of the figurine is missing, it is unclear whether she is standing or seated, although the working of the back may represent the backrest of a chair, as noted in the Catalogue. The representation of Opheltes in his nurse’s arms is rather uncommon among the surviving examples in art. The stamps used on the Hellenistic moldmade bowls (Fig. 135) show Hypsipyle clutching Opheltes, but there the ordinary connotation of the kourotrophic pose is dramatically transformed by the narrative context of f leeing the snake. For images of Hypsipyle holding the baby as a matter of routine, we are left with the wall painting from Pompeii (Fig. 138), which represents a theatrical production rather than the myth itself, and in which Opheltes is but a prop. The image then reemerges in late antiquity on the Roman contorniates (Fig. 157). The presumably votive nature of the Heroön figurine accounts for the calm composure of the woman and her nursling, for votive figurines tend to be more static than narrative. In the previous chapter we discussed the origin of Hypsipyle’s connection with Nemea, noting that while Euripides is the earliest preserved source documenting her role, she may have been integral to the myth from an earlier time. Discounting her dubious identification on the Sotades tondo, we only first encounter her in art on the South Italian vases of the 4th century B.C. The Nemea figurine thus has the potential to contribute to the debate, but the date of the figurine is uncertain. It was discovered in the layers dense with sacrificial debris and votive material covering the surface of the shrine, but as was described in Chapter 1, these contained material spanning the entire period of use of the shrine, from the 6th century B.C. down into the 3rd century. The context therefore prevents a more precise dating, and although the crudeness of its manufacture may suggest an earlier date within this range, the argument is not definitive. In the absence of a secure date, the question of the role of Hypsipyle in the cult at Nemea must remain open. The second figurine from the Heroön is a small terracotta squatting figure (Cat. 160; see Figs.

407, 408). The traces of genitalia indicate that he is both male and naked. His pose, with legs spread out before him, is childlike and finds parallel in other images of Opheltes sitting on the ground (compare Figs. 143, 146). The gesture he makes with his right hand, holding it up near his mouth, is also well attested in images of small children, though not otherwise employed in the images of Opheltes.129 The finding of a figurine with these childlike qualities within the Heroön makes it likely that we are dealing with a votive figure of the hero dedicated in his shrine, but as with the first figurine, we cannot be more precise about its date. A third figurine from Nemea is much better preserved. It is a bronze statuette portraying a small squatting boy (Cat. 271; see frontispiece and Figs. 537–542). Found to the south of the Temple of Zeus, in a disturbed context of the Early Christian period, it is probably a product of the Early Hellenistic period, based on a consideration of its style and given the history of the Nemean sanctuary as a whole. It can be safely identified as Opheltes through comparison with his other representations. That the figure is of a small child is clear from his chubby proportions, a feature of many of Opheltes’ images (e.g. Figs. 130, 140, 143, among others). The mass of his hair, with its prominent shock of curls at the crown, is rendered similarly on the carved red jasper gemstone (Fig. 136). Regarded in isolation, his upraised right arm with open hand resembles a gesture of benediction or salutation; but the gesture also recalls the one of helplessness that Opheltes so often makes with one or both hands in the scenes of the snake’s attack (e.g. Figs. 130, 136, 143, 155). Of these scenes, the sarcophagus in Corinth (Fig. 143) offers the closest parallel.130

129  In earlier publications the figure is said to be holding a mask up to his face, an interpretation we have rejected in Chapter 1. Ogden, 56 n. 188, suggests that the upraised arm is a cry for help, as seen in other images of Opheltes, but in this instance the forearm is directed toward the face, not upward and outward. See also the entry in the Catalogue for further discussion of this gesture. 130  The presence of a small tang on the underside of the figurine suggests that it was inserted into some object, perhaps a base, and we should perhaps leave open the possibility that it was once part of a larger composition that may have included the snake wrapped around him.

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

CONCLUSION

169

metaphorical language to express important components of the myths. . . .131

Quite possibly, the figurines from the Heroön of Opheltes may be the earliest surviving representations of the young hero and his nurse, but certainty escapes us. Other early representations formerly attached to the legend of Opheltes are doubtful. While the bronze shield band from Olympia does portray an event involving the Seven, the reasons for interpreting it as a quarrel over the death of Opheltes remain tendentious. Also dubious is the association of the tondo scene by the Sotades Painter with our Nemean myth; despite Pache’s reasonable arguments, there still remain significant obstacles to proving the claim. Consequently, our earliest certain illustrations of the myth begin in the 4th century B.C. and recur sporadically thereafter over the next 800 years. Previous scholarly discussion of the extant representations of the myth of Opheltes in art has focused on the question of models, both literary and artistic. While the enterprise is not without merit, the results have been less than compelling. Too much has been made of Euripides’ inf luence on artistic expression. Almost as a ref lex, scholars have attributed artists’ interest in representing the myth to the appeal of the Athenian tragedian’s Hypsipyle. His play was surely popular and continued to be performed and read in later times, as we can deduce not only from the quotations sprinkled throughout later literature but also from the illustration of a performance painted on a wall in Pompeii. Nevertheless, the particular signs of Euripidean inf luence can be called into question, from Simon’s argument about the characterization of Amphiaraos to Trendall and Webster’s claims about how the Darius Painter refers to the play in his work. Moreover, such explanations of the images ring a bit hollow, to the extent that they fail to address what the artists may have found significant about the myth itself. In this regard, Pache deserves to be commended for abandoning the search for a direct link between literature and art:

As for an artistic model that may underlie the multiple illustrations assembled in this chapter, Simon’s contention that the Bari vase by Python, the Herculaneum painting, and the Corinth sarcophagus all derive from an unknown Classical Attic scene of the death of Opheltes should be discarded, as should her corollary, that Roman period representations like the grave altar of Nicephorus and the Palazzo Spada relief constitute a conscious modification of the earlier model. A question that has not been asked is whether there was any image at the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea, such as a cult image in the Heroön, for example, that could have served as a model for any of the surviving representations. Once more the answer is probably negative, for nothing in the archaeological record points to the existence of such a work.132 Moreover, the three Nemean figurines that are likely to represent Opheltes are widely divergent in their conception; and among the other surviving images, there simply is no consistent pattern that could warrant the inference of a specific model at Nemea. Nevertheless there are some undeniable commonalities among many of the representations. Simon’s observation of the naturalistic rendering of Opheltes’ body in several examples remains valid even though her deduction of a specific model does not. In these examples we witness an artistic development that is exhibited by numerous depictions of children from the Classical period on, not only of ordinary and anonymous mortal children but also identifiable divine and heroic children such as the baby Herakles. Images of the latter, who has his own reptilian encounter, come even closer to those of Opheltes, and the two even become conf lated on the late Roman contorniates. The possibility should not be excluded that an artist working in either iconographic tradition could consciously borrow from the other.133

The link between the written word and the painted record is controversial, but the assumption that guides this book is that vase-paintings are not “illustrations” of the literary sources and that they offer us their own articulations of the myths. Each myth comes in multiform narratives, yet we always find the same key elements emphasized in both types of evidence. The visual variants also develop their own

Pache, 181. In literature, as discussed in the previous chapter, Statius’ description of a marble relief surrounding the hero’s tomb suggests another possible manner for representing the hero at his shrine, but again there is no archaeological evidence for the relief and the detail is surely fictional. 133  On the similar iconographies of baby Herakles and Opheltes, see the remarks of Ogden, 56–57, 65. One of the likeliest instances of such borrowing is the figure of Opheltes from the 131  132 

170

R E P R E S E N TAT I O N S O F T H E H E R O O P H E L T E S I N A R T

Other common elements of composition among the surviving representations of the Opheltes myth permit us to assess their significance throughout antiquity. The most frequent scene illustrates the baby hero suffering the snake’s attack: he usually appears locked in the stranglehold of the snake’s coils, although on the Bari krater the snake consumes his arm. Other scenes show the hero already dead, whether in the immediate aftermath, as the Seven attack the snake, or in later scenes of mourning. Least common are kourotrophic images of Hypsipyle holding the baby Opheltes. In some of the images we find reference to the aetiological connection between the myth and the Nemean Games. This is particularly demonstrable on the three South Italian vases with complete, or nearly complete, scenes from the myth. The inclusion of elements of funerary ritual—in the Darius Painter’s prothesis scene with all its funerary equipment, and perhaps in the fillets of the Louvre krater and the tray of offerings on the Hermitage krater—alludes to the cult honors to be established for the dead hero in much the same way as in the literary accounts of the myth. Likewise all three vases represent Amphiaraos in a mode of address or commentary, alluding to the new name Archemoros, which we even find spelled out by the Darius Painter. Further anchoring the myth to the Sanctuary of Zeus is the labeled image of the god himself, together with the eponymous nymph Nemea, in the Darius Painter’s scene; in the Hermitage scene, the female figure holding the tray of offerings may represent Nemea as well. The Hermitage scene may also contain a visual allusion to the Heroön itself, in the image of the rocky enclosure with tree juxtaposed with the hero’s dead body. Finally, the Darius Painter’s decision to pair his scene with Oinomaos’ pursuit of Pelops suggests his awareness of the common aetiological role of these two myths. The prevalence of elements alluding to the cult of Opheltes and the Nemean Games on the South Italian vases may be a symptom of when they were produced. Nemea in the 4th century B.C. saw a

great change of fortune. The century opens with the Sanctuary in ruins after more than a century and a half of hosting the spectacle of the athletic festival. The Games certainly continue, but in the city of Argos. The second half of the century, however, witnesses a revival of interest in Nemea, perhaps under Macedonian inf luence, resulting in a major rebuilding of the Sanctuary and the return of the Games. Consideration of Nemea and the aetiology of its Games may, therefore, have contributed to the inspiration of the South Italian vase painters. An interest in the aetiological significance of the myth is not so readily apparent in later representations, however, with the exception of the Corinth sarcophagus, if the interpretation of the sphinx and related objects on its extant short side is correct. Another possible factor in the decoration of this sarcophagus is the myth’s relevance to civic and regional identity. Certainly Argos’ decision to issue several coin types with images of Opheltes is easily understood in light of its ongoing administration of the Nemean Games, not to mention its maintenance of the cult of Nemean Zeus. The myth also continued to lure visitors to the Nemea Valley as well, to judge from Pausanias’ account of the site. Corinth too, as the dominant Roman city of the region and a hub for travel, surely had an interest in the myths of the region. Like the coin types issued by Corinth, the sarcophagus may ref lect in part such an interest. The popularity of images of Opheltes’ struggle with the snake also owes something to the scene’s innate dramatic tension.134 As Pache observes throughout her discussion of the myth, this tension taps into feelings of fear, distress, and parental anxiety, which in many of the scenes is communicated especially by the movements, f luttering dress, and gestures of Hypsipyle, and above all, through the motif of the dropped hydria.135 Finally, the choice of the Opheltes myth as a subject for funerary monuments in general, such as grave altars and sarcophagi, returns us to the myth’s core, which is a story of a premature and painfully unexpected death.136

Corinth sarcophagus, which is especially similar to a series of images of the baby Herakles that begins in the early 4th century B.C.: Brendel, 204. Simon, 43, resists such a possibility on the grounds that the outcomes of the two heroes’ stories are radically opposed, but that is not a strong objection. Both become heroes, despite the different outcomes.

Boulotis, 649. Pache, 118, 181. This motif is not limited to scenes of Opheltes’ death; Pache also traces it through scenes showing the death of Medea’s children and the children of Herakles: see e.g. 46, 57–58. 136  Boulotis, 649. 134  135 

CHAPTER FIVE

The Shrine of Opheltes in the Context of Greek Hero Cult

pottery or any other artifact with a special cultic character, and none in a good state of preservation. Likewise, the soundings evinced no substantial construction or architecture of earlier date, a possible exception being a short segment of wall deep in the southwest corner of the Archaic shrine. Even if that is an earlier feature, however, there is nothing about the pottery found around it to suggest a cult installation. The Heroön, then, represents a new construction of the Archaic period. It makes use of the preexisting terrain to some degree, but substantial alteration around the edges was needed to complete its final shape: a large earthen mound, reinforced in places with internal rubble walls, lined with red clay, and surfaced along its slopes with stones of varied size. The upper surface of the mound was a broad, fairly level area elevated about 1.5–2.0 meters above the surrounding landscape and measuring somewhat greater than 600 square meters. Its principal surviving feature is a rectangular stone construction, originally measuring ca. 2 × 4 meters on the exterior, with a north-south orientation. An irregular scatter of rubble, which may have been denser and larger in antiquity, still surrounds it. The extensive remains of ritual activity concentrated around it clearly signal its importance within the shrine, and thus we can be reasonably certain that the stone fea-

The results of the careful excavation of the Heroön of Opheltes at Nemea make a substantial contribution to the study of ancient Greek hero cult. Considered together with the evidence about the hero and his cult that is gained from literature, epigraphy, and art, they yield conclusions that in turn can be compared productively with other examples of hero cult, particularly those in similar Panhellenic settings such as Olympia and Isthmia. As a demonstration of this potential, we will outline here how the findings from the Nemea Heroön illuminate four aspects of hero cult: its antiquity, its connection with the hero’s tomb, its association with funeral games and athletic competition, and the nature of its ritual. Before we address these broader issues, however, let us first review the chief observations and conclusions presented in this study. The Heroön thrived in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Nemea in the Archaic, Classical, and Early Hellenistic periods. As extensive probing into the layers below the shrine revealed, there is no evidence to support the existence of a shrine before the 6th century B.C. Evidence for earlier human activity is primarily in the form of small and worn fragments of pottery of the Early Neolithic, Late Helladic III, and Geometric periods, together with occasional small finds. Absent from these remains, however, is any substantial quantity of

171

172

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

ture represents the Tomb of Opheltes described by Pausanias when he visited Nemea. Aside from this, the shrine also featured a tree in the southwest corner, and small altars, such as those Pausanias saw in his day, may have been erected within the shrine from an early date as well. If the rectangular stone enclosure marks Opheltes’ grave, the entire mound constitutes his grave mound. In Chapter 3 we reviewed the numerous literary references to his tomb, described variously as a σῆμα, ἤριον, τάφος, sepulcrum, and tumulus. I have also argued that Statius’ description of a templum created for the hero represents an embellished description of the actual Heroön. The mound itself is but the southern extension of a long earthen embankment constructed together with it. Excavation shows that it extended for at least 100 meters away from the shrine in a north-northeasterly direction. In cross-section it is a triangle with unequal sides, having a long, gentle eastern slope of 5 degrees, whereas the western slope is shorter and steeper, with a slope of about 30 degrees. Whether or not this embankment was considered part of the temenos of the Heroön (the presence of a transverse rubble wall and an adjacent pit deposit far to the north of the shrine suggest the possibility), it certainly served as the western embankment of the Early Stadium at Nemea. In addition, it may have served as a viewing area for the Hippodrome, located to the west. The best indication of the date of this new shrine’s construction comes from the numerous artifacts embedded within the artificially dumped earth layers that contributed to the Heroön’s perimeter. These objects were intentionally placed within the shrine’s slopes as foundation deposits, a building practice with many parallels in the Greek world. Most of the objects are ceramic vessels related to drinking and libation, and the variation in their state of preservation and arrangement within the earth fill points to a range of ritual actions to be associated with their deposition. Those objects that lend themselves to close dating suggest a terminus post quem for the establishment of the Heroön in the second quarter of the 6th century B.C., more probably later in the quarter than earlier. The date is significant in relation to the Nemean Games, the institution of which is traditionally dated to 573 B.C. The archaeological dating does seem to lag behind the traditional date to some

degree, perhaps by as much as a quarter century, a discrepancy that may demonstrate a need to revise ceramic chronology or question the validity of the traditional date. Otherwise, we must find a way to account for the functioning of the Games and the cult during the intervening years; perhaps a simple, informal track and cult structures were used that have left no trace in the record. Regardless of how this problem is resolved, the fact that the Heroön is built together with the western embankment for the Early Stadium suggests that the aetiological link between the hero and the Games, for which Bakchylides’ Epinician 9 provides our earliest surviving literary testimony, was already forged by the time of the Heroön’s construction. Perhaps it was in place from the beginning of the Nemean festival. The contiguity of embankment and shrine and the juxtaposition of this cult center with the two venues for the performance of the Nemean Games underscore the aetiological bond between the Games and the hero Opheltes. This association permeates the literary tradition of the hero’s myth, as demonstrated in Chapter 3. While many of its details are variable, the myth possesses an essential, unchanging structure: a small child, Opheltes, is attacked by a snake and dies as a consequence of a request by the Seven against Thebes for water. The seer Amphiaraos interprets the event as a bad omen for his band of heroes, who feel responsible. To avert the omen, he instructs his companions to bury the child and hold funeral games in his honor. These games, as he foretells, will become the ongoing celebration of the Nemean Games, providing lasting honors for the child’s tomb. At the same time, the seer bestows on the child a new name, Archemoros, “the Beginning of Doom.” These core elements of the story not only remain consistent in the literary tradition but also find expression in art, for instance on the South Italian vases discussed in Chapter 4. Since other details of the myth vary significantly, it is unlikely that a single, authoritative version circulated at Nemea in conjunction with the cult of Opheltes or the Nemean Games, although two other monuments seen by Pausanias also plausibly relate to the myth: the grave mound of Lykourgos and the Adrasteia Spring. Similarly, in regard to the representation of Opheltes, there does not seem to have been a particular image of the hero at Nemea, such as a cult statue, to serve

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

as a model. Not only is there no archaeological evidence for such an image, but also the three figurines from Nemea that represent the hero are too dissimilar to suggest a common model, as is true as well for the other images of the hero from farther afield. As for Hypsipyle, while it is clear that her association with the myth becomes canonical in literature and art beginning at least with Euripides’ play, there is little evidence to indicate what role she may have played in the cult of Opheltes, particularly during the century and half before Euripides composed his work. Since it may be the case that Euripides himself introduced Hypsipyle into the story, it is possible that the identity of Opheltes’ nurse (or mother?) at Nemea was originally different or else left unspecified. The single votive figurine from the Heroön (Cat. 159) perhaps representing the baby Opheltes in the arms of Hypsipyle underscores this uncertainty, for we can be sure neither of the date of the votive offering nor of the identity of the female holding the child. Despite evidence for refurbishment and other changes to the embankment over the subsequent two and a half centuries, the Heroön itself underwent little change. For just over half a century of that period, from the end of the 5th century into the second half of the next, the Sanctuary of Zeus was abandoned and its athletic festival relocated to Argos as a consequence of violence that is documented in the archaeological record. With the return of the Games to Nemea in the last third of the 4th century, activity in the Heroön resumed; meanwhile an extensive rebuilding program commenced that dramatically transformed the Sanctuary. As a late project of that program, the Heroön received a new enclosure wall built of ashlar masonry. This resembled a lopsided pentagon in plan, with a foundation course of soft poros limestone and at least one course of harder limestone blocks, of which but a few now survive near the southeast corner. Once more a foundation deposit was made to mark the importance of the new construction, but on a far smaller scale than in the Archaic Heroön. This new Early Hellenistic phase of the shrine can be dated more precisely to late in the first quarter of the 3rd century. The focal point of the Heroön continued to be the Tomb of Opheltes, although the new wall enclosed a larger area than

173

the original upper surface of the mound, about 800 square meters. Cult activity did not endure for long, however, because the Sanctuary of Zeus was abandoned once more within about a decade. Except for a possible attempt by Aratos of Sikyon to conduct the Games at Nemea in the 230’s, the festival never returned. While organized activity in the Heroön ceased, individual acts of devotion may have continued for some time afterward. It was probably in this twilight of the Heroön that four curse tablets were deposited in the shrine. The special magical efficacy attributed to the aoros and biaiothanatos, individuals who died a premature or violent death, no doubt accounts for the appeal of the Heroön of Opheltes as a place to exercise this magic (see Appendix B). Meanwhile, composers of victory odes, such as Kallimachos and the author of the epigram for Kleonymos of Rhodes, continued to celebrate the association of the Games with Opheltes’ grave mound and represent victors as racing alongside the shrine, even though in reality the Games were being held elsewhere at that time. References to the baby hero continue to appear in literature and art for centuries after the lapse of his cult at Nemea. Scholars previously have attributed much of this to the inf luence of Euripides’ Hypsipyle and have posited Attic artistic models, but we should not underestimate the cultural value accorded the myth itself by virtue of its relation to the Nemean Games. Roman Imperial bronze coins of Argos with images of the myth, and probably those of Corinth as well, ref lect the continuing association; and certainly interest in Opheltes was strong enough to capture Pausanias’ attention when he visited Nemea in the 2nd century after Christ. Finally, even in the 4th century after Christ, we find that his image still appears on Roman contorniates just as poets continue to recall the baby hero’s association with the Nemean Games.

THE ANTIQUITY OF HERO CULT AT PANHELLENIC SANCTUARIES A prevailing theory about the frequent combination of divine and hero cult in the context of the Panhellenic sanctuaries and their festivals has been that the hero cult is an older stratum of religion eventually overlaid with the cult of the Olympian

174

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

deity. Matthew Dillon’s words illustrate this widespread view: Each festival was in honour of a god: Zeus for the Olympic and Nemean, Poseidon for the Isthmian, and Apollo for the Pythian festival, held at the site of his most important oracle, Delphi. The heroes Opheltes and Melicertes were also associated with the Nemean and Isthmian festivals respectively; Pelops had a hero cult at Olympia. The connection with heroes points to a funerary origin for the contests, and the dual patronage of festivals, between gods and heroes, points to the overlaying of old beliefs with new.1

The idea of hero cult as an earlier religious phenomenon in fact gained currency already in antiquity, and scholars from the 19th century on have argued, or at least taken as their premise, that in this old notion there was some grain of truth.2 Within the past few decades, however, scholars have begun to stress the evidence for the origin of hero cult within the Early Iron Age and the Archaic Period. Carla Antonaccio, for instance, has challenged two older views: that hero cults developed from a Bronze Age practice of venerating ancestors at tombs, and the alternative view that hero cults were located at Bronze Age sites under the inf luence of Homeric epic. She argues that the archaeological evidence for Iron Age cult at Bronze Age tombs or monuments is distinct from the evidence for hero cult proper, which never took place at such sites.3 In regard to Nemea and the hero Opheltes, Hans Herter’s belief that his shrine most likely developed around a real Bronze Age tomb is indebted to this idea of a pre-Olympian stratum of cult in a Greek sanctuary.4 The excavation results prove otherwise, however, and we can firmly place the origin of the cult of Opheltes at Nemea in the Archaic period rather than treating it as a predecessor to the cult of Zeus. Moreover, an examination of the evidence from Olympia shows that Nemea is not unique among Panhellenic sanctuaries in this respect. Dillon, 104. Compare also Scanlon, 37, specifically on the relationship of Pelops and Zeus. 2  See e.g. Rohde, 117 and n. 22. 3  Antonaccio, passim, esp. 5–6 and 246. On the question of the early origins of hero cult see also Abramson, 1–3, 12–26; Ekroth 2002, 335–341; Bravo 2009. 4  Herter, col. 638. 1 

In the case of Olympia, opinion about the greater antiquity of the cult of Pelops vis-à-vis Zeus remained split throughout the 20th century.5 Consensus may emerge at last, however, as the excavations directed by Helmut Kyrieleis in and around the shrine of Pelops in 1987–1994 have greatly clarified our understanding of its form and early history. One of the most important results of that work has been to confirm the existence of a feature first discovered by W. Dörpfeld in the excavation season of 1929. In a series of narrow soundings, he claimed to have found the remains of a prehistoric tumulus ringed around its base with a line of crude, upright fieldstones. Dating the tumulus to the Mycenaean period, he identified it as the first phase of the shrine of Pelops, or Pelopion I, and thus maintained that this cult was practiced continuously from the Late Bronze Age. Many scholars for a variety of reasons subsequently called his discovery into question, however, and so the debate over the antiquity of the cult of Pelops endured.6 The latest excavations have confirmed the presence of Dörpfeld’s tumulus. It measures approximately 27–30 meters in diameter and is built up over the naturally crested terrain that projects southward as a spur from the Hill of Kronos. Around the base of the mound is indeed a line of upright stones, but as a result of the area’s naturally uneven contours, the line rises and falls in elevation around the mound’s circumference. In addition, excavators found traces of a lining of natural limestone rubble applied to the lower slope of the mound on its east side; the top of the mound was no longer preserved, but the excavators suggest that the lining originally covered it in its entirety.7 Where Dörpfeld did err was in the date of the tumulus; the ceramic evidence clearly dates its construction to the Early Helladic II period, over a thousand years earlier.8 No trace of a burial was found within the mound, leaving the excavators unclear about its original function. Rambach compares it to the contemporary mound erected over 5  For a summary of the scholarship see OF XXXI, 55 n. 198; Ekroth 2012, 96 n. 8. 6  For a more detailed summary of Dörpfeld’s findings and the ambivalent reception of them by later scholars, see Rambach, 180–181; OF XXXI, 26. 7  Rambach, 182, and see figs. 6–10; Kyrieleis 2002, 215; OF XXXI, 25–26, 37–39. 8  Rambach, 185; OF XXXI, 26.

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

the House of Tiles at Lerna, but nothing comparable was found under the mound at Olympia.9 There is some evidence that the tumulus was a focus of ritual activity after its construction, and in Early Helladic III, at the time when a small community of apsidal dwellings existed to the north and east of it, Rambach even argues for the existence of a small cult complex organized around it. By the end of this period, however, the apsidal buildings had been destroyed and replaced by rectangular buildings, and their builders appear to have had no special reverence for the mound, which they proceeded to mine for clay. After this community was abandoned in Middle Helladic I, there is no evidence for any significant human activity in the area of the tumulus for the remainder of the Bronze Age.10 As a result, we can be certain that there was no continuity of cult from the time of the mound’s construction into historical times. While Dörpfeld’s tumulus is real, it could not have been Pelopion I. Nevertheless, this ancient tumulus does lie in the middle of the later Pelopion, and so it still remains to be asked when and why the cult of Pelops was established in that spot. In this respect another finding of the latest excavations is significant, for the stratigraphy reveals that the mound was still visible in the Early Iron Age. To be sure, the ground level had risen against the sides of the tumulus, especially to the east and west, so that the visible portion of the tumulus must have diminished. Already in Early Helladic III, when Apsidal House V was built at the northeast edge of the tumulus, the original ring of stones, which passed directly below the house, lay under 0.70 m. of silt.11 Kyrieleis maintains that this visible monument in the area of what becomes the Altis, together with the exposed remains of some of the Early Helladic III and Middle Helladic I structures nearby, served as the earliest focal point for ritual activity in the historical sanctuary, and he cites as parallels several examples of historical era sanctuaries and shrines established over or around visible prehistoric remains.12 The evidence for this new ritual activity derives from a dense, dark layer of bone, ash, and votive Rambach, 191. Rambach, 192–200. Kyrieleis 2002, 216; OF XXXI, 27, 77. 11  Rambach, 193–194; cf. fig. 6, where a dotted line indicates the estimated perimeter of the visible tumulus in EH III. 12  Kyrieleis 2002, 218; OF XXXI, 37–40, 61–69. 9 

10 

175

material commonly known as the schwarze Schicht, or Black Layer. Discovered in the earliest excavations in the Altis, it extended over a wide swath of the Altis but is particularly concentrated near the Pelopion. On the basis of the latest material in the layer, scholars have interpreted its formation as the result of acts of cleaning and landscaping in the sanctuary extending to the end of the 7th century B.C., but the material within it was clearly earlier in date and included great numbers of Geometric figurines.13 What is more, the renewed Pelopion excavations revealed some previously unexcavated portions of this stratum and brought to light the earliest material yet: substantial fragments of large kylikes datable to the late 11th century B.C. Kyrieleis accordingly argues that the historical sanctuary at Olympia actually begins at the very cusp of the Early Iron Age.14 The debate concerning the age of the cult of Pelops has accordingly revolved around the interpretation of the material from the schwarze Schicht. Does this material pertain to the cult of Pelops or Zeus? Because of the breadth of the area covered by the layer, the early excavators ruled out the Pelopion as the source of the deposit, whereas Herrmann later considered the question open and attempted to associate some of the votive material from the layer with the hero cult.15 Equipped with the most current understanding of the archaeological remains, Kyrieleis returns to a line of reasoning like that of the original excavators; in his view, the contents of the schwarze Schicht should be Mallwitz 1988, 81–86; Kyrieleis 2002, 216, 219; OF XXXI, 27–48. Mallwitz notes that subsequent excavation in various parts of the Altis have confirmed Furtwängler’s observation that there were two such layers. The earlier layer was found immediately to the north of the Pelopion, as well as on the treasury terrace. Kyrieleis, too, has found evidence for multiple layers around the Pelopion: Kyrieleis 2002, 217; OF XXXI, 34. The latest material includes fragments of Corinthian pottery datable to the end of the 7th century B.C., but Kyrieleis also notes that the formation of the layer itself could be later, perhaps even taking place after 600 B.C.: OF XXXI, 47–48. 14  Kyrieleis 2002, 216; OF XXXI, 35, 61, 77. 15  Olympia I, 142. Mallwitz 1988, 102, also favored associating the material with the cult of Zeus. Cf. Herrmann 1962, 19 n. 72. Herrmann 1980, 73–74, interprets a class of the male votive figurines found in the layer as representations of Pelops. The figurines, which Kunze had interpreted as representations of Zeus, portray a helmeted male holding an upraised spear in one hand and holding a shield or leading a horse with the other hand. 13 

176

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

understood as remains originally associated with the early Altar of Zeus.16 The establishment of the cult of Pelops, Kyrieleis argues, could only have happened after the dispersal of the schwarze Schicht around the Altis and especially the area around the tumulus, which thus constitutes a terminus post quem. He therefore maintains that the cult did not develop until sometime after 600 B.C.17 Accordingly, the cult of Pelops at Olympia was not an earlier cult that preceded the cult of Zeus, but rather was a new one of the Archaic Period, analogous to the cult of Opheltes at Nemea. The similarity, noted in Chapter 3, between the myths of the two child heroes Opheltes and Melikertes naturally leads us to consider the evidence for the beginning of hero cult at the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia as well, but unfortunately the archaeological record is blank in regard to the cult of Melikertes before Roman times. While the excavators have uncovered the remains of several phases of a precinct for the hero in the 1st and 2nd centuries after Christ, no trace of an earlier phase of the cult has ever been securely identified.18 Thanks to the testimony of Pindar, however, we can be reasonably sure that the hero was worshipped in the 5th century B.C., 16  Kyrieleis 2002, 219; OF XXXI, 4; followed now by Ekroth 2012, 101–102. In this regard he revises his tentative suggestion, made in an early report while the excavations were still ongoing, that the material was more suited to the cult of Pelops: Kyrieleis 1990, 188. For the site of the original Altar of Zeus itself, Kyrieleis proposes that the visible rubble remains of Bronze Age structures located a few meters north of the tumulus were used (what the early excavators termed “Bau I”; it was here that the Black Layer was particularly dense and rich in finds: OF XXXI, 39–41. 17  Kyrieleis 2002, 218; OF XXXI, 55–57, 79. As he notes, Pindar seems to refer to the mound when he describes Herakles’ founding of the Olympic Games ἀρχαίῳ σάματι πὰρ Πέλοπος (O. 10.24–25). Compare also Pindar’s reference to a τύμβον ἀμφίπολον at O. 1.93. For a discussion of the possible political and ideological reasons for instituting a cult of Pelops at Olympia at this time, see OF XXXI, 79–83. As to how the visible tumulus was regarded in the centuries before the establishment of Pelops’ cult, Kyrieleis vaguely suggests that it was seen as a grave of some great figure of the past, but not specifically associated with Pelops: OF XXXI, 55, 61; see also Ekroth 2012, 101. 18  Gebhard and Dickie, 159–160. The original excavator of the precinct, Oscar Broneer, suspected that the cult was located in the same place in earlier times (Isthmia II, 100), but extensive probing of the area in 1989 yielded no evidence for this, suggesting to the excavators that it must have been located somewhere else: Gebhard and Dickie, 159 n. 2.

and his cult may well begin in conjunction with the establishment of the Isthmian festival, traditionally dated to the late 580’s B.C.19 Although the sanctuary itself comes into existence much earlier, perhaps as early as the 11th century B.C., there is no evidence to associate this activity with the cult of Melikertes-Palaimon rather than Poseidon’s cult.20

THE SHAPE OF THE SHRINE OF OPHELTES Another important point of comparison between Olympia and Nemea is the shape of the two hero shrines. For the builders of the Nemean shrine, the choice to create it in the shape of a grave mound attached to the end of the stadium embankment was certainly deliberate and assuredly not the easiest to execute. Although hero shrines frequently contain a hero’s grave and/or physical remains, they can nonetheless take any of several different forms.21 The possibility therefore exists that Olympia, already a long-established and celebrated sanctuary at the time of the organization of the Nemean festival and construction of the Heroön, offered a specific model for the mounded shape of the shrine of Opheltes.22 Kyrieleis is clear in his conviction that the Pelopion was established at a mound that was still recognizable as such and which became identified as a grave monument for Pelops. Moreover, the traces of a lining of natural limestone over the tumulus also resemble the patches of rubble lining found around the perimeter of Opheltes’ shrine. Strengthening the possibility of direct imita19  On the date, see Gebhard, 222–225. Morgan 1990, 220, argues that the parallelism between the myths of Palaimon at Isthmia and Opheltes at Nemea reflects the establishment of their related festivals as part of the periodos within a short time span in the 6th century B.C. 20  Morgan 2002 and, more extensively, Isthmia VIII. 21  Pfister, 401ff; Rohde, 121–122; Brelich, 80. Abramson, 88–196, gives a useful survey of the varied forms of hero shrines although new examples have since come to light. See also Pariente, 205–213, for a survey of archaeologically attested shrines. 22  Miller 2002, 239–240, writes, “I believe that Nemea was copied from Olympia—at least in general—and that the Nemean situation may reflect the previously existing situation at Olympia.” He proceeds to discuss particular similarities between the two sanctuaries, including the shapes of their hero shrines at p. 247. See also OF XXXI, 59; Davies, 55–56.

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

tion is the fact that the later phases of the two shrines are also noticeably similar. We have observed before that Pausanias uses the same phrase to describe both, θριγκὸς λίθων. The later enclosure of the Pelopion is partially preserved and in plan forms an irregular pentagon or hexagon.23 Like the Nemea enclosure it is composed of poros blocks, which in places still stand several courses high. In addition, the new peribolos possessed a monumental propylon 7.75 m. wide located on its southwest side.24 The date of construction of both the wall and the propylon is difficult to ascertain, but Kyrieleis points to some limited stratigraphic evidence that places the construction of the latter in the 5th century B.C.25 Nothing comparable to the propylon has been found at the Heroön of Opheltes, but the decision to provide it with a new pentagonal enclosure of ashlar limestone blocks may thus owe its inspiration to the much earlier Pelopion enclosure. Whether the Pelopion possessed any kind of formal enclosure before the Classical period remains unclear.26 It is therefore possible that the 23  Olympia I, 74; Mallwitz 1972, 134. The walls are best preserved on the northeast and southeast sides. While the north wall is not well preserved, its line is indicated by the extant remains of a water channel that once ran alongside it. The remains of a propylon to the southwest of the enclosure give an indication of the line of the southwest wall, but its exact course is unclear, as is the course of the west wall that completed the enclosure. Thus the southwest side has been restored with either one or two distinct wall segments, for a total of five or six sides. 24  For Dörpfeld’s restoration of the propylon, see Olympia II, 56–57. Ekroth 2012, 111–113, suggests that the addition of the propylon and enclosing wall may reflect a change in the cult of Pelops permitting the Eleans to conduct exclusive rituals to the hero of their polis. 25  OF XXXI, 58 n. 219. Mallwitz 1972, 97, proposed a date in the second quarter of the 4th century on the grounds that the foundations of the propylon included blocks possibly removed from the Temple of Zeus when it was damaged during the earthquake of 374 B.C. 26  At a deeper level, Dörpfeld found blocks that he interpreted as the remains of an earlier propylon of Archaic date: Olympia II, 57; Alt-Olympia, 118 and figs. 21–22. Herrmann 1980, 64, on the other hand, suggests that the earlier shrine had no enclosure wall, or else just a simple fence made of stone posts with wooden beams, a suggestion based upon the finding of several stone fence posts in later, reused contexts within the Altis. Dörpfeld also knew of these fence posts but felt that there was no firm basis for assigning them to the Pelopion: Alt-Olympia, 121–122; see also Mallwitz 1972, 121. Kyrieleis (OF XXXI, 57–58), noting that several stone fence posts were found reused in the tunnel and Early Hellenistic

177

original Pelopion consisted solely of a rubble-lined mound, without any defined enclosure, just like the Archaic Heroön of Opheltes. Ultimately, however, the question of whether the Pelopion served as a model for the original Nemean hero shrine cannot be answered until we know for certain when the Pelopion was established. While Kyrieleis makes a strong argument that the new cult should be connected with the same building program that led to the dispersal of the material from the old Altar of Zeus at the end of the 7th century B.C., or slightly thereafter, he admits that a later date in the 6th century cannot be ruled out; the only certain terminus ante quem is the testimony of Pindar in the early 5th century.27 As a consequence we could entertain the possibility that it was established later than the shrine of Opheltes at Nemea, and so the opposite question could be asked: Did Opheltes’ shrine serve as a model for the installation of the cult of Pelops? Setting aside the question of imitation or even rivalry between Panhellenic sanctuaries, we should also consider other possible sources of inspiration for the shape of Opheltes’ shrine. Although Antonaccio emphasizes a distinction between tomb cult and hero cult, it may be that the practice of the former at Bronze Age tumuli may have suggested the creation of an artificial one at Nemea. Indeed there were several such tumuli near the Aspis in Argos.28 Another source of inf luence could well have been the epic descriptions of heroic burial in a grave mound. As James Whitley has argued, emulation of epic burial may account for the decision of Athenian aristocrats to construct large tumuli for their graves in both stadium at Nemea (on which see Nemea II, 24, 256–261, cat. 16–27), muses whether they might have come from the Heroön of Opheltes and thus provide a parallel for associating the Olympia fence posts with the Pelopion. There is no evidence that the blocks at Nemea were originally used in the Heroön, however. Most recently Ekroth 2012, 102–111, argues that there was no early enclosure and that the earlier remains could belong to a tetrastylon, a construction that could have served as a focal point for theoxenia rituals directed to Pelops. Whatever their identification, it is unclear whether the earlier blocks belonged to the original design of the Pelopion or were added at some later date. 27  OF XXXI, 57, 60, 79. Pindar attests to the existence of a shrine of Pelops at Ol. 1.90–93. 28  Antonaccio, 14–15; for examples elsewhere in the Peloponnese see Antonaccio, 67 (Achaia); 68 (Elis); 70, 73, 77–78, 88 (Messenia).

178

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

the Kerameikos and throughout the Attic countryside, a practice later co-opted by the Athenian state, in his view, as a way of heroizing the fallen at Marathon.29 The creation of a tumulus for Opheltes also underscores his exceptional status given that burial practices within the Archaic Peloponnese did not ordinarily involve tumulus construction.30 Whatever the factors that led to the decision to construct the shrine of Opheltes as an earthen mound, it cannot be considered unique, as other hero shrines are known to have had a similar form.31

HERO CULT AND THE FUNERARY AETIOLOGY OF ATHLETIC COMPETITIONS The epic model is particularly appropriate in relation to Olympia and Nemea since both of their heroes are also connected to their athletic festivals through the aetiological bond of funeral games, another practice with epic precedent. Gregory Nagy, drawing on the work of Walter Burkert, has observed that the major Panhellenic athletic festivals incorporate elements of symbolic death in both the ritual and associated myths of the competitions and their preparations. He attributes this symbolism to Burkert’s explanation of Archaic 29  Whitley, 216–218, 227–230; see also Morris, 129–137. Antonaccio, 118–119, notes that the presence of Bronze Age tumuli at Marathon may have also been a factor in the choice of burial method. On the value of the grave mound as a marker of status in epic see Morris, 46–47. 30  For a survey of burial practice in Argos during the 8th and 7th centuries B.C., see Foley, 34–55; also Morris, 184–185. Luce, 46–48, offers a broader summary of regional variations in Greek burial practice. 31  See Abramson, 168–170, with n. 703, who cites 18 examples mentioned by Pausanias in addition to the archaeologically documented grave of the fallen Athenians at Marathon. To the examples from Pausanias should be added the tomb of Kar at Megara (1.44.6), the mound associated with Orestes’ finger along the road from Messene to Megalopolis (8.34.2), and the tomb of Aristodemos near Megalopolis (8.36.5). Pariente, 207, adds the example of the tumulus of Battos at Kyrene; for the remains of this monument, constructed in the first quarter of the 6th century B.C., see Stucchi, 58–65. More recently, V. Lungu has excavated an exceptionally large, low earthen tumulus (42 m. in diameter) in a necropolis at Orgame, a Milesian settlement on the western shore of the Black Sea. She proposes that the grave mound, dated to the second half of the 7th century B.C. by its ceramic contents, may have belonged to the heroized oikistes: Lungu, 173–183.

period athletic institutions as rituals of initiation into adulthood and rituals of compensation for the catastrophe of death.32 Concerning myth, we have already observed in Chapter 3 the common ancient belief that the oldest games were originally celebrated for dead heroes; several of the sources especially single out the four stephanitic contests of the ancient periodos: the Olympic, Pythian, Isthmian, and Nemean Games. The list of attested athletic festivals honoring mythical dead heroes is in fact longer and includes many local festivals as well.33 These aetiological funeral games are part of a larger phenomenon. Beginning with Homer, ancient sources describe legendary funeral games for heroes without any known aetiological connection to a festival, the most famous example being the games for Patroklos in Iliad 23.34 In addition, funeral games constituted an actual practice for historical individuals or groups and can be documented from at least the 8th century B.C. In tracing the development of funeral games for historical people, Roller observes an important transition between earlier and later forms. The earlier consists of funeral games that were privately organized for individuals, involved competitors who traveled to participate, and “had aristocratic overtones.”35 Private games of this type cease by the middle of the 5th century, just as a new kind of funeral games f lourishes: games organized by the polis as a recurring festival in honor of its heroized civic leaders or war dead. This change, she contends, ref lects a contemporary shift in social structure away from one based on the aristocratic family to one based on broader social cohesion.36 The development of historical funeral games should not be considered in isolation from the legendary funeral games of epic and aetiological myth, all of which share many similarities, as Roller herself is aware.37 Hence the nexus of aetiological funeral Nagy 1986, 73–77; Nagy 1990, 118–122. Roller 1981a, 13 n. 1, counts a total of 18 examples; see earlier lists in Pfister, 495–497; Brelich 94–95, 104–105. 34  Roller 1981a, 13 n. 1, includes this along with 13 other examples. 35  Roller 1981a, 3–6 (quote on p. 5). 36  Roller 1981a, 6–10. Her earliest example of an individual so honored is Miltiades, the Athenian who in the late 6th century B.C. led a colony to the Thracian Chersonnesos; after his death he was honored there as a founding hero with rites that included games: cf. Hdt. 6.38. 37  Roller 1981a, 10–12. Another sign of this interrelationship 32  33 

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

179

games, hero cult, and a recurring festival that appears at the Panhellenic sanctuaries may represent an earlier stage in the same process of social change witnessed in regard to historical funeral games.38 As we see at Nemea, the aetiological representation of the Nemean Games as the funeral games for Opheltes finds physical expression in the arrangement of the Sanctuary of Zeus by the mid-6th century: the Heroön is located between the Early Stadium and the Hippodrome, forming an athletic and cultic complex. Does this arrangement prevail in the case of other hero shrines associated with athletic festivals? In the case of Olympia, the legend of Pelops likewise served as an aetiology for the Olympic games. Burkert has famously argued that the early stadion race of the Olympic Games was part of the sacrificial ritual for Pelops, for which the myth of his dismemberment serves as an aition.39 Pindar implies a close relationship between the hero and the stadium when he calls it the “racecourse of Pelops,” and a close association between the stadium and the Pelopion may also lie behind one scholiast’s statement that the grave of Pelops was located beneath the stadium.40 In contrast to the certainty about the location of the Pelopion, however, the location of the early stadium, or Stadium I, remains obscure. Mallwitz believed that it lay some 75 meters to the west of the extant track, Stadium III, projecting into the area of the Altis, where the closest monuments would have been the Altar of Zeus and the Pelopion.41 Mallwitz in fact rejects an earlier

claim by Ludwig Drees that this track was sited even farther to the west, nearer the Pelopion. Pertinent to this issue may be a monument in the Altis described by Pausanias as the Pillar of Oinomaos (5.20.8–9). Eric Brulotte has argued that this pillar served as a turning post in Stadium I.42 More recently, Miller has wondered about the alternate possibility that it served in an original hippodrome in the vicinity, noting among other things that Pausanias reports the unearthing of horse bits and bridles around it.43 Without better archaeological data, however, it is difficult to pinpoint securely the locations of these early facilities. The archaeological record at Isthmia presents the reverse situation to that at Olympia: while we lack evidence for the location of the earliest shrine of Melikertes-Palaimon, the location of the Archaic stadium is known from excavation. It is curious, however, that the Roman Palaimonion is situated directly above the western end of the stadium, which had been rendered obsolete by the construction of another stadium farther to the east in the Hellenistic period.44 Could the choice of site for the Roman Palaimonion be a ref lection of the aetiological association between the hero and the Isthmian Games? If the archaeological evidence does not support locating the early Palaimonion in the same place, then maybe it was located somewhere else near the early stadium, perhaps at its other end. The combination of athletic venues and hero shrines may have prevailed at the sites of local competitions as well. A case in point is found at Thebes, outside the Proitidan Gates. Pausanias describes the topography in these words (9.23.1):

can be seen in art: Roller 1981b argues that the numerous representations of mythic funeral games on vases and monuments in the early 6th century B.C., particularly during the second quarter, are partly a response to the organization of the Panhellenic festivals with their corresponding funerary aetiologies. See also Miller 2002, 248, who comments on the similarity between Sophilos’ fragmentary scene of the funeral games of Patroklos and the layout of athletic facilities at Nemea. 38  Noted also by Davies, 58. 39  Burkert 1983, 96–98. He is followed by Nagy 1986, 81–83; Nagy 1990, 123–126; Pache, 93. 40  Pindar O. 1.94–95, cited by Herrmann 1980, 59. Nagy argues that the myths in Pindar’s Olympian 1 provide aitia for both the stadion race and the chariot race, corresponding to the historical development of the Olympic games: Nagy 1986, 81–83. Pelops buried under the stadium: Schol. Pi. O. 1.149c Drachmann, noted by Brelich, 96; Herrmann 1962, 20. 41  Mallwitz 1988, 94–95, 99.

At Thebes in front of the Proitidan Gates is the socalled gymnasium of Iolaos and a stadium of mounded earth in the same fashion as the one in Olympia and that of the Epidaurians. Here is also pointed out the Heroön of Iolaos, although even Brulotte, 53–64. Miller 2002, 248. 44  Gebhard, 228–229. For a description of the remains of the earlier and later stadia see Isthmia II, 46–63; Gebhard and Hemans, 57–61, 68–70 (on the earlier stadium). The remains of the early stadium include areas of rubble packing identified as part of its first embankment: Isthmia II, 46–47 Gebhard and Hemans, 68–70. The construction technique is reminiscent of that used for the embankment and shrine at Nemea, but no trace of ritual activity was found in these areas to suggest the presence of a shrine. 42  43 

180

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

the Thebans agree that he himself died in Sardinia as did those of the Athenians and Thespians who joined in the expedition. As you go beyond the stadium on the right is a hippodrome, and in it is Pindar’s grave.

The area has not been excavated, but Pindar’s description of a stadium with earthen embankment juxtaposed with a hero shrine and a nearby hippodrome suggests the presence of a complex that may have been very similar to what is found at Nemea.45

RITUALS OF HERO CULT When it comes to determining what ritual activity occurred in the Heroön of Opheltes, we have no inscribed calendars or sacred laws to aid us, and our ancient literary sources mostly pass over the question in silence. Statius is an exception, providing a lengthy description of the funerary ritual for Opheltes, but it is impossible to extract any sense of real cult practice from his account, mired as it is in Roman anachronism and literary aemulatio. Neither do the visual representations shed much light on the actual practices; instead, they stick to the myth and portray only the tokens of funerary ritual for Opheltes, which only allude to the cult practice. We therefore are largely dependent on the archaeological finds themselves to begin to discern the rituals practiced in the shrine. The evidence for burnt sacrifice within the Heroön is plentiful. As first described in Chapter 1, over 6,800 animal bone fragments were recovered from the layers blanketing the shrine’s surface. The results of Michael MacKinnon’s analysis, which he presents in full detail in Chapter 2, permit us to interpret the nature of the sacrificial activity in light of the developing understanding of burnt sacrifice in hero cult in general. To summarize his chief observations, when the species of the animal could be determined, the majority of the bone fragments were found to belong to sheep or goats, with much smaller amounts of cattle and pig bones also present.46 Among the sheep remains, 45  See further Schachter, 25–27 and 64–65, on the ancient testimony regarding this complex and its relation to the local Herakleia festival; also Moggi and Osanna, 345–346. 46  It is difficult to distinguish between the two species from the bone remains alone, although it is true that in Greek

moreover, there is a marked preference for the upper part of the hind limb, followed by the upper part of the front limb. A smaller percentage belong to the skull of the animal. The remains also demonstrate a clear preference for the left side of the animal, especially among the limb fragments.47 Striking is the virtual absence of rib and vertebra fragments, despite their being the most plentiful part of the skeleton. These bones do routinely show up among the remnants of sacrifice at other sites, so we should not attribute their absence in the shrine of Opheltes to their complete obliteration in the sacrificial fire. It also seems highly improbable that they were burnt in sacrifice here and then carefully sorted and removed to some other location. The inescapable conclusion is that only specific parts of the animal were burnt in sacrifice in this shrine. The primary sacrifice was the upper leg of a sheep or goat, and usually the left hind leg at that. More rarely the limbs of cattle were sacrificed, as well as the heads of sheep/goat, cattle, and pigs. The findings rule out holocaustic sacrifice, in which the entire animal is burnt for the divinity and the worshippers have no share, as the dominant mode of sacrifice in the Heroön. This picture contrasts sharply with that from the Roman period shrine of Palaimon at Isthmia, where there is ample evidence for the holocaustic sacrifice of cattle.48 At first glance we might have expected a stronger similarity in the cults of these two child heroes, both of whom were associated with the celebration of the athletic festivals at Nemea and Isthmia, but the explanation of the contrast may lie in the chronological difference between the periods represented by the Heroön of Opheltes and the Palaimonion. Gunnel Ekroth, in a thorough study of the literary and epigraphic evidence of hero cult, emphasizes a pronounced shift in the Roman period in the sacrificial terminology sacrifice generally the sheep is by far the more common victim. With regard to the sex of the sacrificial victims in the Heroön, nothing could be determined from the fragments in the sample. As for age, most of the animals seem to have been adults, but at least one sheep or goat was younger than 2 years of age when sacrificed: see further in Chapter 2; also MacKinnon 2013. 47  The distribution is far different among the remains of the other identified species; they consist of cranium and teeth fragments of pigs and cranium, teeth, and long bone fragments of cattle. See also MacKinnon 2013, 137–138. 48  Ekroth 2002, 80–81; Gebhard and Reese, 126, 137–139.

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

applied to heroes in favor of destruction sacrifices like holocaust. The change that she observes in the sources, she argues, may ref lect one in actual cult practice,49 and the Heroön remains may help to corroborate her claim. Ekroth is one of the latest scholars to emphasize the need to revise the distinction between Olympian and chthonian cult that was formulated in the 19th century. Consider, for example, Rohde’s description of this dichotomy:50 The Heroes were worshipped with sacrifice like the gods; but these sacrifices were very different from the offerings that were made to the Olympians. They differ in time, place, and character. Sacrifice was made to the gods in broad daylight, to Heroes towards evening or at night; and not on raised altars, but on low, and sometimes hollow, sacrificial hearths close to the ground. For them were slain animals of black colour and male sex, and in sacrificing, the heads of the animals were not turned upwards towards heaven as they were when offered to the gods, but were bent down to the ground. The blood of these animals was allowed to run down into the ground or into the sacrificial hearth, that the Heroes might have their “appeasement of blood.” The carcass was completely burnt, for no living man might taste of it.

Beginning in the early 20th century, however, closer scrutiny of the evidence has produced a growing awareness of exceptions to this picture of strict opposition, so that even now scholars are debating just how to revise it.51 The faunal remains from the Heroön will surely become a part of this debate. Ekroth argues that thysia, the ordinary form of sacrifice to the gods, in which thigh bones wrapped in fat were burnt on the altar, was the common Greek practice in hero cult down to the early Hellenistic period.52 The leg bone fragments of sheep from the Heroön assemblage resemble the findings from other sacrificial deposits interpreted as evidence for thysia, for instance in the cult of Poseidon at Isthmia and the cults of Apollo

at Kourion and Halieis.53 But thysia is not the only possible interpretation of the Nemea remains. Although MacKinnon has detected signs that meat or fat was still present on the bones when they were burnt, he explains that it is difficult to distinguish between stripped bones wrapped in fat or bones with the meat still attached. Thus we cannot exclude an alternate interpretation, that we are dealing with the burning of the entire leg portion with its meat intact, a kind of partial destruction sacrifice for which Scott Scullion coins the term moirocaust.54 A few attestations of this sacrificial practice are known from other cults, and Scullion has argued that it may have been more common in hero cult, although Ekroth disagrees.55 The preference for the left side noted among the sheep bone fragments is also intriguing and may prove relevant to modifying the Olympianchthonian distinction, as MacKinnon has proposed. He cites the cults of Apollo at Kourion and at Halieis, in which the sacrificial remains demonstrate the opposite preference, for the right legs.56 Further support for the distinction comes from the remains of burnt sacrifice that have been found in pyre deposits from the foundations of numerous industrial and domestic buildings in the Athenian Agora. Analysis reveals a bias toward the left side of the animal among these remains, but instead of the thigh, the meat-poor extremities of the limbs were offered. Susan Rotroff suggests that the offerings were made to chthonic divinities of some sort in order to avert misfortune from the activities conducted within the buildings.57 The evidence for the sacrifice of the heads of animals in the Heroön is puzzling. Since the sample size is so very small, it is possible that this is illusory, and that we are really dealing with a very small percentage of holocaust sacrifice that has otherwise gone undetected. Literary or epigraphic testimony specifying the burning of an animal’s head in sacrifice, either to a hero or to a god, is

See Chapter 2. Scullion, 165. 55  Scullion, 165: “ . . . it may well be that most or all of the sacrifices to heroes that are not specified as holocausts were in fact moirocausts rather than straightforward Olympian banquet-sacrifices.” Contra, Ekroth 2002, 316–317. 56  See Chapter 2; also MacKinnon 2010 and MacKinnon 2013. 57  Rotroff 2013, 42, 67–68, 75–85. 53  54 

Ekroth 2002, passim, esp. 121–128. On the Palaimonion, see 125–126. 50  Rohde, 116. 51  See Ekroth 2002, 15–16; also the essays of Scullion, Parker, and Henrichs in Hägg and Alroth; Ekroth 2009a, 130–131. 52  Ekroth 2002, 169, 212–213; Ekroth 2009a, 131–132, 135– 136. 49 

181

182

Th e Sh ri ne of oph e lTe S i n G re e k h e ro C ulT

wanting.58 Van Straten does illustrate a vase painting that seemingly shows a sacrifice to Herakles and features the head of a bull on a low altar; but even though the rest of the animal is not apparent, he still interprets this as a scene of holocaust.59 If the faunal remains represent ordinary thysia, then we should expect the worshippers to have dined on the meat; yet we lack the evidence for this activity among the bone remains in the Heroön. Since it seems improbable that the residue of meals was meticulously collected and removed from the area when the remnants of other activities were left behind, we should assume instead that any feasting must have happened elsewhere in the Sanctuary of Zeus. In fact the separation of the place of sacrifice from the place of feasting finds parallel at other sanctuaries, including Isthmia.60 In contrast, the extensive remains of drinking cups and related service vessels, together with the votive miniature versions of these shapes, suggest that rites involving liquids were an integral part of the activity conducted within the Heroön, giving rise to further questions. What exactly is the context for the use of these vessels? Are they the remains of drinking, libation, or both? It is difficult to regard them as evidence for drinking as part of a feast since we lack the concomitant faunal evidence for this activity. If instead these vessels were used for libations, were they the ordinary kind of libation associated with sacrifice, such as the pouring of a libation to douse the sacrificial fire? A related concern is the knowledge of what kind of liquid was involved. The vessel shapes are the standard types we associate with wine, and there is good evidence that wine was the ordinary liquid for libation even in hero cult, although exceptional cases where libations of other liquids than wine, such as milk, honey, or even blood, are also known.61 Finally, we may wonder under 58  Although the head, or half of it, is sometimes specified as the priest’s portion: Van Straten, 154–155. For the possibility of decapitating the victim in the context of blood-letting, see Ekroth 2002, 174–176. 59  Van Straten, 158 and fig. 168. 60  Gebhard and Reese, 126–127. 61  Henrichs, 98–99. See also Graf 1980, 220, who argues that the choice of libations is not determined so much by the nature of the recipient as by the performative context of the rit-

what circumstances these vessels ended up in the Heroön, whether they represent deliberate votive offerings or were left behind because they broke during use and were no longer serviceable. In addition to the four main issues of hero cult addressed above—the antiquity of hero cult, the shape of the hero shrine, the connection between heroes and the funerary aetiologies of festivals, and the ritual practice of hero cult—there are no doubt other areas of inquiry for which scholars will want to direct their attention to the Heroön of Opheltes. For all the great number of diverse heroes worshipped throughout ancient Greece, the number of carefully excavated and recorded examples of their shrines remains relatively small, particularly for the Archaic and Classical periods. Herein lies the value, it is hoped, of the presentation of the remains of Opheltes’ shrine, together with the study of the literary, epigraphic, and artistic traditions of the hero. Visitors to Nemea today might have a difficult time picking out the remains of the Heroön among the more prominent architecture that fills the Sanctuary of Zeus. Nevertheless the evidence is clear that for the ancient Greeks, the baby hero Opheltes commanded a place of importance in the sacred life of the Sanctuary and its festival. For the polis of Argos, which presided over the Sanctuary and the Nemean Games, the worship of this hero forged a vital link to Panhellenic epic tradition, which both lent prestige to the city and invited the widespread participation of all Greeks. For the multitudes who came to Nemea either to participate in the Nemean Games or to watch them, the hero’s importance is made clear to us by the material remains of their devotion, from the inscribed drinking cup offered by a victorious athlete, to the masses of pottery, small votives, and sacrificial remains that were also left behind. And although the name of Opheltes may not be so familiar to students today, it was the cultural importance of Nemea, no less than the excellence of any single author or artist, that throughout antiquity gave Opheltes a lasting fame. uals of which they are a part. For blood libations in hero cult, see generally Ekroth 2002, 257–269; Ekroth 2009a, 134–135; also Ekroth 2012, 104–105, for the specific case of Pelops.

APPENDIX A

CATA LOGU E OF A RT I FAC T S

with holes approximately 0.005 m. in diameter and 0.007 m. deep. The holes are generally arranged in concentric rings, but they are not precisely aligned. Traces of burning on all surfaces. The shape is also known as a baking pan, associated with Furumark Shape 323. Examples are known from several LH III contexts in the Argolid. Midea: Demakopoulou, 156 and pl. 9b (West Gate); M. Dalinghaus in Walberg, 136–137 and pl. 89 (Lower Terraces). Mycenae: Mylonas,

This catalogue represents the full range of objects found in the course of excavating the Heroön of Opheltes and its environs, as described in Chapter 1. Not every object recovered in this way has received an individual entry, however. Many objects are cited as similar examples at the end of a given entry, and others are mentioned in the notes accompanying Chapter 1. The bronze figurine of the baby Opheltes, Cat. 271, is included here for its obvious relevance to the Heroön even though it was discovered in another part of the Sanctuary of Zeus. The four curse tablets from the Heroön are catalogued, edited, and discussed separately in Appendix B. 1. GRIDDLE FRAGMENT P 1621 (F 18-94) (Fig. 158) Discovered May 26, 1998, in area F/15,20– 18/13,17, at 331.167–330.281. MAX. P. L.: 0.140 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.089 m. DIAM. (EST.): 0.360 m. TH.: 0.025 m.

Mended from two fragments. Only a small part of original griddle is preserved. Curved outer edge of fragment is preserved, with a raised ridge on the upper and lower sides (the upper ridge is more pronounced). The bottom of the griddle is f lat, while the upper surface is thoroughly dimpled

FIG. 158.

183

Griddle fragment, P 1621 (Cat. 1).

184

FIG. 159.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

Sword blade, IL 726 (Cat. 2).

106 and pl. 125b (Citadel); Shear, 111 and pl. 33 (Panagia Houses). Tiryns: Schliemann, 116; Gercke et al., 13 and pl. 9.1 (Citadel). Coarse red clay (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6) with white inclusions, reddish brown core (Munsell 2.5YR 4/4). 2. IRON SWORD BLADE IL 726 (F 18-91) (Fig. 159) Discovered May 14, 1998, in area F/13–18/15, at ca. 331.492–331.477. P. L.: 0.351 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.032 m.

Found in three large joining fragments and 15 small fragments, all very corroded, now partially mended. End of blade for attachment of hilt is f lat with two rivets projecting from each side. A third rivet was found among the smaller fragments. A tang 0.25 m. long extends from this end of the blade. Blade is double-edged with central ridge preserved on one side. Width of blade contracts slightly away from hilt end, then swells again toward the tip, which is rounded in present condition. No trace of the hilt plates and pommel was found, which would have been made of some other material, such as wood or, less common, bone or ivory: Snodgrass, 93 (pommel) and 109 (hilt plates). The sword fits into the broad category of A. M. Snodgrass’s Type I cut and thrust sword, used from the Early Iron Age into the Archaic period: Snodgrass, 93–94; see also Kilian-Dirlmeier, 4. The type, also known as the Naue Type II sword, is characterized by a blade with more or less parallel edges and a hilt with f langed edges, which together with the rivets hold the separately made hilt plates in place. While the f langed edges are not readily apparent here, this may be a result of its heavily corroded condition. Although typological variations do not have a more precise chronological value within this period, it still may be worth comparing two close parallels from

burials at Vitsa, in Epiros, dated to the end of the 7th century B.C.: Kilian-Dirlmeier, nos. 398 and 399. On the problematic relation of typology to chronology see Snodgrass, 106–107, and KilianDirlmeier, 105–106, 121–126. In the middle of the 6th century B.C. the form of the sword changes to a new type that persists through the Classical and Hellenistic periods: Kilian-Dirlmeier, 126, 162; OF XXIX, 77–78. 3. PIN/NEEDLE BR 1432 (F 19-85) (Fig. 160) Discovered June 5, 1998, in area F/17–19/12, at 332.653–332.217. P. L.: 0.052 m. MAX. TH.: 0.002 m.

Mended from four fragments. Pointed end preserved and part of shaft.

FIG. 160. Pin/Needle, BR 1432 (Cat. 3).

4. OBSIDIAN BLADE ST 799 (G 18-53) (Fig. 161) Discovered June 23, 1998, in area G/8–18/19, at 332.613–332.492. MAX. P. L.: 0.015 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.006 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.002 m.

Obsidian blade, trapezoidal in cross section. Two sides have been chipped away to form two sharp edges. Flat central ridge down length of blade on one side. Other side of blade is smooth. Broken at one end. Similar: ST 411, ST 418, ST 420, ST 514, ST 798, ST 819, ST 820, ST 840, ST 841, ST 849-851.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

185

6. SKYPHOS FRAGMENT P 658 (G 19-70) (Fig. 163) Discovered May 1, 1980, in area G/1,12–19/1,20, at 333.62–332.94. MAX. P. H.: 0.065 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.125 m. MAX. TH. (RIM): 0.006 m.

FIG. 161.

Obsidian blade, ST 799 (Cat. 4).

5. OBSIDIAN FLAKE ST 800 (F 19-86) (Fig. 162) Discovered June 10, 1998, in area F/18–19/11, at 332.359–332.115. MAX. P. L.: 0.016 m. MAX P. W.: 0.009 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.005 m.

Obsidian f lake has slight curve along its length. Cross section is wedge-shaped, giving the f lake one sharp edge along its length. Similar: ST 403, ST 404, ST 412–414, ST 419, ST 516, ST 631, ST 794, ST 797, ST 803, ST 804, ST 817, ST 818, ST 821, ST 823, ST 836, ST 842, ST 853, ST 854.

Mended from eight fragments. Preserved are rim and concave upper wall to point just below maximum concavity of Protogeometric skyphos. Rim very slightly out-turned. Worn black glaze on interior. Exterior has red and black painted decoration on reserved background. Just below rim surface, narrow black horizontal band, then a narrow reserved band, followed by a narrow red band and then traces of red zigzag band. Wall has horizontal band of compass-drawn concentric circles; parts of three sets are preserved, with 11 concentric circles each, in dull reddish-brown glaze. One non-joining rim sherd with pottery lot. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 163.

FIG. 162.

Obsidian flake, ST 800 (Cat. 5).

Skyphos fragment, P 658 (Cat. 6).

7. KOTYLE P 1577 (F 19-58) (Fig. 164) Discovered June 2, 1997, in construction fill of the Archaic Heroön, area F/11–19/17, at 332.456. H.: 0.088 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.121 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.071 m.

Mended from 19 fragments but essentially intact. Several large cracks have been restored in painted plaster. Truncated splayed ring foot. Double incised grooves at join of base and wall. Body f lares with slight convex curve from base up to rim. Glaze very poorly preserved. Interior is completely glazed black with a trace of painted red

186

FIG. 164.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

Kotyle, P 1577 (Cat. 7).

band below rim. Upper three quarters of exterior, including handles, originally glazed black. Wide zone of fine rays in black glaze at bottom. Traces of double red bands below handles and above rays. Exterior of foot painted red. Underside shows traces of double concentric circles where it meets the foot, as well as a tight circle around center. Shape and decoration, particularly the presence of interior red bands, are characteristic of 6th century B.C. group iii black glazed kotylai. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare nos. 248-1 and 249-2, dated to late third or early fourth quarter of the century. Compare also Cat. 228, from the North Pit Deposit, and two kotylai from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 105–106, nos. 15, 19. Risser states that the scraped groove at the juncture of body and foot begins in the late 6th century, at least for Conventionalizing kotylai: Corinth VII, v, 54. The practice may start earlier in black glazed kotylai. Though Palmer does not discuss it explicitly, a groove seems to be indicated in the profiles of several group i and ii black glazed kotylai: see for instance Corinth XIII, 107, fig. 11, nos. 190-2, 156-4, and 164-2. Fine pink clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 8. KOTYLE P 1587 (F 19-70) (Fig. 165) Discovered June 4, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/14–19/17, at 332.328. H.: 0.068 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.101 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.056 m.

Mended from 18 fragments. Not mended are 15 non-joining fragments, including a handle and part of rim. Otherwise, about half of rim and body missing. Corinthian kotyle has very short

FIG. 165.

Kotyle, P 1587 (Cat. 8).

splayed ring foot and moderate convex curve from base to rim. Glaze is fairly well preserved but mostly fired red-orange to red-brown. Interior fully glazed as well as most of exterior, except for narrow reserved band at bottom with two encircling red lines. Double red bands above reserved zone, and trace of double red bands below handle. Foot glazed red on both sides, with possible superimposed black band on inside of foot. Underside has two concentric circles and central dot of uncertain color. We can find no exact Corinthian parallel for the reserved band with two red lines, as opposed to the more usual scheme of fine rays. According to Palmer, semi-glazed kotylai with reserved bands begin in the early 5th century B.C. (Corinth XIII, 124–126), but the profile of our vase is much too f lared for so late a date and is closer to the profiles of group ii kotylai (e.g. Cat. 10, Corinth XIII, 107, fig. 11). A reserved band appears on a kotyle from a much earlier context (“late in Early Corinthian or beginning of Middle Corinthian”) in the Anaploga Well: Corinth VII, ii, 120, no. An 112, pl. 65. See also an example from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 104, no. 12. H. Palmer noted two Attic skyphoi with a wide band of added red over the reserved band from grave 155 in the North Cemetery (Corinth XIII, 179, nos. 155-7 and 155-8), which she dated to the first quarter of the 6th century; she further adduced a Corinthian example of Middle Corinthian date (ibid., = Corinth VII, i, no. 354). Also relevant is Agora XII, no. 304, an Attic skyphos dated to the early 6th century featuring a reserved band with two thin and one thick encircling red lines. See also Agora XII, 81–82, on the range of treatment of the reserved bands on early Attic skyphoi. To the ex-

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

187

tent that the early Attic skyphoi are inf luenced by the Corinthian repertoire, perhaps we may infer the existence of contemporary Corinthian kotylai with similar decorative schemes. Fine, pinkish white clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 9. KOTYLE P 1592 (F 19-75) (Fig. 166) Discovered June 4, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/6–19/18, at 332.250. H.: 0.057 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.090 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.051 m.

Mended from 33 fragments. One non-joining rim fragment not mended. Missing are one handle, most of rim, most of body, and parts of base, yet profile fully preserved. Shallow Corinthian kotyle has very slight ring foot with concave underside. Strong convex curve from base to rim, curving inward at rim. Glaze, fired red-orange to redbrown, covers entire vessel except for underside. Incised lines around exterior possibly indicate originally patterned horizontal bands. See Corinth XIII, 105, and Corinth VII, v, 54. Profile suggests a date in the first half of the 6th century B.C. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 166.

Kotyle, P 1592 (Cat. 9).

10. KOTYLE P 1588 (F 19-71) (Fig. 167) Discovered June 4, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/12–19/17, at 332.212. H.: 0.071 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.107 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.053 m.

Mended from 42 fragments. Parts of rim, wall, and base are missing. Corinthian kotyle has short splayed ring foot and moderate curve from rim to base. Glaze is poor, appearing red-orange in places. All of interior and most of exterior are glazed, save for band of fine rays at bottom. Traces of double red bands below handles and above rays.

FIG. 167.

Kotyle, P 1588 (Cat. 10).

Single red band below rays. Foot is glazed uncertain color on both sides, and underside has three concentric red circles around central black dot. Group ii black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 193-1, dated to second quarter of 6th century B.C. or a little later. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 11. KOTYLE P 1580 (F 19-63) (Fig. 168) Discovered June 5, 1997, in construction fill of the Archaic Heroön, area F/15–19/16, at 332.127. H.: 0.086 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.120 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.061 m.

Mended from 20 fragments. Three non-joining fragments. Missing are parts of rim and wall. Corinthian kotyle has very short splayed foot and gentle curve from rim to base. Glaze is fair to poor. Black glaze on interior and most of exterior save for narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Interior also has red bands on rim, and at least two on body. Exterior has double red band above rays and single band below rays. Foot glazed black above and below. Underside has three concentric red circles and central black dot. Presence of interior red bands is characteristic of Group iii black

FIG. 168.

Kotyle, P 1580 (Cat. 11).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

188

glazed kotylai. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 248-1, dated to late third or early fourth quarter of 6th century B.C. See also Cat. 7 for further examples. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 12. KOTYLE P 1589 (F 19-72) (Fig. 169) Discovered June 5, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/13–19/17, at 332.242. H.: 0.083 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.114 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.063 m.

Mended from 19 fragments. Nine non-joining fragments, including part of rim and second handle, not mended. Parts of rim, body, and base not preserved. Corinthian kotyle has short splayed ring foot and gentle curve from base to rim, curving in slightly at rim. Raised underside. Glaze is in fair to poor condition. Black glaze on interior and exterior apart from narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Traces of white and red bands at rim. Below handles, three white lines with red lines between. Above rays, alternating white and red lines can be seen. In general the added white is very fugitive. Red on foot on both sides. Underside has two concentric red circles and central red dot. Group i black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare 160-4, dated to first quarter of 6th century B.C. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 170.

Kotyle, P 1590 (Cat. 13).

Mended from 41 fragments. Eight non-joining fragments, including part of rim and most of one handle, not mended. Some of rim, one handle, body, and base missing. Corinthian kotyle has short splayed ring foot and gentle curve from rim to base. Glaze is in fair condition. Black glaze on interior and most of exterior save for narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Double red lines below handles and above rays. Single red line a short distance from lines above zone of rays. Black base line for rays. Foot glazed black on both sides. On underside, thick black and two thin red concentric circles, as well as central black dot or circle. Group ii black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 193-1, dated to second quarter of 6th century B.C. or a little later. Fine, pale yellow clay (Munsell 5Y 8/2). 14. KOTYLE P 1573 (F 19-59) (Fig. 171) Discovered June 17, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/9–19/11, at 332.636. H.: 0.084 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.113 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.065 m.

FIG. 169.

Kotyle, P 1589 (Cat. 12).

13. KOTYLE P 1590 (F 19-73) (Fig. 170) Discovered June 6, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/5–19/16, at 332.053. H.: 0.071 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.103 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.057 m.

Mended from 20 fragments. Minor parts of rim and body missing. Corinthian kotyle has short splayed foot and gentle curve from base to rim. Groove defines juncture of foot and wall. Glaze is poorly preserved in places, particularly around rim. Black glaze appears reddish-brown in most places. All of interior is glazed. Exterior is glazed save for reserved band of fine rays at bottom. Traces of red band above zone of rays. Foot glazed red on exterior and inner surface, and underside of base has a series of four concentric circles. Shape and decoration conform to group ii or early group iii black-glazed kotylai of the 6th century B.C. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

189

16. KOTYLE P 1578 (F 19-61) (Figs. 173, 174) Discovered June 20, 1997, in construction fill of the Archaic Heroön, area F/4–19/11, at 332.176. Found with Cat. 15, 17, 18, and 36. H.: 0.082 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.128 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.066 m.

FIG. 171.

Kotyle, P 1573 (Cat. 14).

nos. 221-2 and 240-2, dated to middle or third quarter of the century. On the groove at foot and its significance for dating, see Cat. 7 above. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 15. KOTYLE P 1586 (F 19-68) (Fig. 172) Discovered June 20, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/5–19/12, at 332.217. Found with Cat. 16–18 and 36. H.: 0.074 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.107 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.056 m.

Mended from 28 fragments. Parts of rim, body, and ring foot are missing, restored in painted plaster. Corinthian kotyle has very short splayed ring foot and gentle curve from base to rim. Handles poorly shaped. Wall curves inward slightly to rounded lip. Poorly preserved black glaze on interior and most of exterior. Narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Traces of double red bands above rays and below handles. Foot is glazed black above and below. Underside has traces of two concentric red circles. Group ii black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 193-1, dated to second quarter of the 6th century B.C. or a little later. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 172.

Kotyle, P 1586 (Cat. 15).

Mended from numerous fragments. Not preserved are small parts of body and base. Corinthian kotyle with short splayed foot and gentle convex curve from base to rim. Glaze has f laked off somewhat, but scheme of decoration is clear. Black glaze on interior and exterior save for narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Exterior also has two red bands below handles, a red band on rim, two red bands above rays and as baseline for rays. Foot glazed red on exterior, black on resting surface. Underside of base has three concentric red circles and central black dot. Group ii black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 161-2, dated to second quarter of 6th century B.C. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 173.

Kotyle, P 1578 (Cat. 16).

FIG. 174.

Profile of kotyle P 1578 (Cat. 16).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

190

17. KOTYLE P 1579 (F 19-62) (Fig. 175) Discovered June 20, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/4–19/11, at 332.194. Found with Cat. 15, 16, 18, and 36. H.: 0.105 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.161 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.081 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Parts of lower body and base missing. Some in-filling with plaster. Corinthian kotyle has splayed ring foot and strongly tapered body with convex curve. Glaze is in fair to poor condition. Interior and most of exterior glazed black. Narrow band of fine rays at bottom of exterior. Faint traces of red color (bands?) on body below handles. Two red bands above rays. Foot is glazed red above and below, and underside has traces of four concentric circles. Group ii black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 218-1, dated to mid6th century B.C. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 176.

Kotyle, P 1584 (Cat. 18).

Band of fine rays at exterior bottom. Two red bands above rays, one below; traces of red below handles as well. Foot glazed red on outside and inside of foot, with additional black band superimposed on inside of foot. Underside reserved with thick black concentric circle, three thin red concentric circles, and central black dot. Group ii kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, dated to mid6th century B.C. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 19. KOTYLE P 1600 (F 19-82) (Fig. 177) Discovered June 18–23, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/4,10–19/10,15, at 332.629–332.177. H.: 0.090 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.130 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.063 m.

FIG. 175.

Kotyle, P 1579 (Cat. 17).

Mended from 38 fragments. Not mended are seven non-joining fragments. Missing are parts of rim and wall, one complete handle and part of the other, and most of base. Partially restored in

18. KOTYLE P 1584 (F 19-60) (Fig. 176) Discovered June 20, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/4–19/12, at 332.194. Found with Cat. 15–17 and 36. H.: 0.108 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.143 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.083 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing are parts of rim, parts of body, and one handle, now restored in painted plaster. Corinthian kotyle with short splayed ring foot and gentle curve from base to rim. Glaze is poorly preserved on interior and upper exterior, better at bottom. Interior and most of exterior glazed black (but fired red-orange).

FIG. 177.

Kotyle, P 1600 (Cat. 19).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

plaster. Corinthian kotyle with short splayed ring foot and gentle curve from base to rim, slightly incurved at rim. Glaze poorly preserved, mostly appearing red-orange. Glazed on interior and exterior save for narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Double red bands below handles and above rays, and single red line below rays. Foot glazed red on both sides. Group ii black glazed kotyle. See Corinth XIII, 106–108, and compare no. 161-2, dated to first or second quarter of 6th century B.C. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4). 20. KOTYLE P 1660 (F 18-113) (Fig. 178) Discovered June 26, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/9–18/3, at 331.482– 331.251. H.: 0.086 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.123 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.075 m.

Mended from 34 fragments. One handle and parts of rim, body, and base now missing. Slight splayed ring foot. Wall rises up with slight curve to maximum diameter of handles, before curving inward slightly to rounded lip. Black glaze interior. Upper part of exterior is glazed black, bottom third reserved for zone of fine black glazed rays. Exterior also has red band at rim, two red bands below handles, two more above zone of rays. Black base line for rays. Ring foot glazed red on exterior and  black on inside. Underside is reserved with central black glaze dot and concentric rings of black, red, black. Proportions and decoration are consistent with group ii black glazed kotyle, generally datable to first half of 6th century B.C. See Corinth XIII, 106–108. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 10 (color).

FIG. 178.

Kotyle, P 1660 (Cat. 20).

191

21. KOTYLE P 1669 (F 18-118) (Fig. 179) Discovered July 3, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/7–18/2, at 331.107– 330.397. H.: 0.065 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.101 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.062 m.

Mended from 34 fragments. Parts of rim, wall, and base missing, as well as one handle. Slight splayed ring foot. Wall swells with slight curve to maximum diameter at handles, before curving inward slightly to rounded lip. Faintly visible black glaze on interior and most of exterior save for narrow band of fine rays at bottom. Foot glazed black on outer and inner surfaces, with possible added red bands on inner surface. Underside is reserved with concentric black bands around central dot. Group ii black glazed kotyle of first half of 6th century B.C. See Corinth XIII, 106–108. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

FIG. 179.

Kotyle, P 1669 (Cat. 21).

22. KOTYLE P 1612 (G 19-89) (Fig. 180) Discovered May 6, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön (?), area G/18–19/18, at 332.397. RESTORED H.: 0.064 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.085 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.053 m.

Small pattern kotyle mended from 31 fragments, not all joining, with six more not mended. Part of rim and much of wall restored in plaster. Short splayed ring foot. Wall rises steeply with little curvature to rim. Flaking brownish-black glaze is poorly preserved. Interior fully glazed. Exterior decoration: vertical squiggles at rim, traces of horizontal band around wall. Handles and foot glazed

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

192

FIG. 180.

Kotyle, P 1612 (Cat. 22).

black. Profile, if correctly restored, suggests a date as late as first half of 5th century. Compare Corinth VII, v, no. 163. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 23. KOTYLE P 567 a–b (F 18-73 a-b) (Figs. 181, 182) Discovered April 28, 1980, in pottery lots F 18: 8–10, from construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/10,12–18/13,15, at 332.64–332.42. H.: 0.072 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.093 m. RESTORED DIAM. (BASE): 0.059 m.

Mended from 33 fragments. Much of base and some of wall restored in painted plaster. Small

FIG. 181.

splayed foot. Wall rises with gentle convex curve to slightly incurved rim. Black glaze in fair to poor condition. Fully glazed interior. Exterior glazed save for reserved zone of fine rays above base. Possible double bands above zone of rays; clearer traces of double red bands at base of rays. Foot glazed black. Part of thick black circle preserved on underside. Group iii black glazed kotyle. Compare Corinth XIII, nos. 250-10 and 2551, dated to last quarter of 6th century B.C. (on the date of grave 250, see now Corinth VII, v, 11). Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 24. KOTYLE P 568 (F 18-74) (Fig. 183) Discovered April 28, 1980, in pottery lots F 18:8 and 9, from construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/10,12–18/13,15, at 332.64–332.45. H.: 0.065 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.092 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.057 m.

Mended from several fragments. Base, one handle, and about two-thirds of body preserved. Other handle and part of body missing. Some non-joining fragments with pottery. Small splayed ring foot. Wall rises in slightly convex curve to incurved rim. Interior glazed black. Foot glazed black, now faded. Black circle and central dot on underside. Exterior has zone of fine rays (red?) at base, set off from black glazed upper wall by red band. Group iii black glazed kotyle. Compare Corinth XIII, no. 249-2, dated to late third or early fourth quarter of 6th century B.C. Fine, pinkish white clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2).

Kotyle, P 567a–b (Cat. 23).

FIG. 183. FIG. 182.

Profile of kotyle P 567a–b (Cat. 23).

Kotyle, P 568 (Cat. 24).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

25. ONE-HANDLED KANTHAROS P 1595 (F19-81) (Figs. 184, 185) Discovered June 4, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/13–19/17, at 332.371. H.: 0.094 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.102 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.057 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Also preserved are 12 non-joining fragments. Half of rim and parts of body missing. Partial restoration in plaster. Vessel has short, splayed ring foot and convex underside. Convex wall, inset f lared rim. Single curved, vertical strap handle attached at rim and shoulder. Dull, brownish-black glaze on interior, exterior, and handle. Foot is glazed red. Underside reserved. Interior also has traces of a white band at rim, with a red band and two more white bands below. Shape recalls Argive kantharos (see Cat. 26), but certainly only had one handle. (For a miniature version of the shape found outside the Heroön to the northwest, see Cat. 149). Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 184.

One-handled kantharos, P 1595 (Cat. 25).

FIG. 185. Profile of one-handled kantharos P 1595 (Cat. 25).

193

26. KANTHAROS P 1671 (F 18-122) (Figs. 186, 187) Discovered July 8, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/7–18/3, at 330.065– 329.922. H.: 0.084 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.081 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.054 m.

Mended from 31 fragments. Small bits of body restored in plaster. Concave underside, with small nipple at center. Curved wall swells to shoulder then curves inward tightly to grooved, inset f lared rim. Two vertical, angled strap handles attached to rim and wall. Black glazed interior, exterior, and upper surface of foot. Underside reserved. Comparable to Argive kantharoi of Archaic date found at other sites: Biers, 406–407 (Phlious); Cook, 42–44 (Agamemnoneion at Mycenae). Fine pink clay with some tiny inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 186.

Kantharos, P 1671 (Cat. 26).

FIG. 187.

Profile of kantharos P 1671 (Cat. 26).

194

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

27. KANTHAROS P 1581 (F 19-64) (Fig. 188) Discovered June 17, 1997, in construction fill of the Archaic Heroön, area F/7–19/11, at 332.552. H.: 0.063 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.065 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.064 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.039 m.

Mended from 11 fragments. Additional, non-joining sherds kept with pottery, including part of second handle. Rim and body in area of one handle missing. Slightly offset disk foot with slightly concave underside and incised circle. Convex body with traces of paring marks. Sharply f lared inset rim. Angled vertical strap handles attached at rim and shoulder. Dull, brownish-black glaze overall, with possible traces of added white at rim and handle. Argive, Archaic (see Cat. 26). Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 189.

Two-handled cup, P 1557 (Cat. 28).

FIG. 190. Profile of two-handled cup P 1557 (Cat. 28).

FIG. 188.

Katharos, P 1581 (Cat. 27).

28. TWO-HANDLED CUP P 1557 (F 19-52) (Figs. 189, 190) Discovered June 4, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön in area F/14–19/16, at 332.023. Found with Cat. 35. H. (TO RIM): 0.051 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.066 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.035 m.

Complete cup mended from seven fragments; joins filled with painted plaster. Apparently wheel-made, but the shape of the body is uneven. Traces of paring marks. Simple resting surface, from which wall curves outward sharply to maximum diameter, about one-third of way up wall. Wall then tapers slightly to simple rounded lip. Two vertical, curled strap handles join body below rim and at maximum diameter. Traces of black glaze overall.

Shape, size, fabric, and decoration are consistent with Argive miniature cups found at Phlious. Compare Biers, 408, nos. 27–31, which are generally datable to Archaic period. Fine, light gray clay (Munsell 2.5Y 7/2). Compare also a fragmentary example from the Argive Heraion: Caskey and Amandry, 195, no. 194. Guide2, 128 and figs. 92–93 (color). 29. TWO-HANDLED CUP P 1599 (F 19-79) (Fig. 191) Discovered June 5, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/9–19/17, at 332.122. H.: 0.055 m. MAX. P. DIAM. (RIM): 0.065 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.030 m.

Mended from 32 fragments. Missing are parts of rim, handles, and wall. Simple resting surface is slightly offset from wall, which f lares sharply, then rises vertically to rim. Vertical strap handles are curved, almost angled, and attached at rim and mid-wall. Black glaze on interior and exterior, and possibly underside as well. Shape and fabric is that of Argive two-handled cup. Compare examples from Phlious votive deposit

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

195

31. MUG P 1558 (F 19-54) (Figs. 193, 194) Discovered May 23, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön in area F/10–19/19, at 332.135. H.: 0.093 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.103 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.063 m.

FIG. 191.

Two-handled cup, P 1599 (Cat. 29).

and Argive Heraion (see Cat. 28). Generally datable to Archaic period. Fine, light gray to light brownish-gray clay (Munsell 2.5Y 6.5/2). 30. TWO-HANDLED CUP P 1596 (F 19-78) (Fig. 192) Discovered June 17, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/7–19/11, at 332.552. H.: 0.053 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.066 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.035 m.

Mended from three fragments, complete except for one hole in body of mug. Rim chipped in antiquity. Missing parts restored in painted plaster. Simple resting surface is only slightly offset from body by sharp incision, producing a very slight disk foot. Wall is convex. Rim f lares sharply from body. Single vertical strap handle attached at rim and middle of body. Black glaze, very poorly preserved, covering interior and exterior. Underside apparently reserved. Two more examples, P 498 and P 652, come from the debris layer of the Heroön. Clay and glazing suggest Argive provenience. A miniature example of the shape comes from a Late Archaic tomb at Ayia Sotira in Argos (Argos Museum, inv. MA 6021): AslamantzidouKostourou, 192 and pl. 79d. The shape itself recalls

Mended from 14 fragments. Missing are parts of rim, body, and the second handle. Flat resting surface with incised circle executed poorly as a swirl. Wall f lares up sharply, then rises nearly vertically to simple rounded lip. Angular, vertical strap handle attached at rim and just above f lared part of wall. Completely glazed black. Shape, fabric, and decoration consistent with Archaic Argive two-handled cups known from the Phlious votive deposit and the Argive Heraion (see Cat. 28). Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 192.

Two-handled cup, P 1596 (Cat. 30).

FIG. 193.

Mug, P 1558 (Cat. 31).

FIG. 194.

Profile of mug P 1558 (Cat. 31).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

196

Laconian cylindrical mugs: see Stibbe, 41–42, with particular regard to his discussion of a series found at Porto Cheli (ancient Halieis). Fine, very pale brown clay with many small inclusions (Munsell 10YR 7/4) Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 8 (color). 32. MUG P 1624 (F 19-90) (Figs. 195, 196) Discovered June 2, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/16–19/16, at 332.275– 332.233. H.: 0.072 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.090 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.091 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.088 m.

Mended from nine fragments. Only a small part of body missing. Slightly concave simple resting surface. Convex wall bulges to maximum diameter about one-third of way from bottom. Rim f lares outward with slightly convex curve. Broad, vertical strap handle joins at rim and middle of body. Glazed overall with red-brown glaze. Traces of a white wash on exterior and underside may be remains of added white decoration. Nearly identical to Cat. 33. Shape compares favorably with Stibbe’s Group C and D Laconian one-handled

mugs, which he dates to between the first and third quarters of the 6th c. B.C.: Stibbe, 45–46. See also Williams, “Corinth 1978,” 140, for examples found at Corinth, and for examples from the Deiras in Argos see Deshayes, DV 52 and DV 63, pl. 55:7–8. Fine, reddish yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6). 33. MUG P 1670 (F 18-120) (Fig. 197) Discovered July 4, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/7–18/1, at 331.107– 330.168. H.: 0.070 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.081 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.090 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.088 m.

Mended from 18 fragments. Half of rim and a third of body missing and restored in painted plaster. Mug has simple resting surface, squat convex wall bulging near bottom, offset lip, and strap handle attached at wall and lip. Underside is slightly dimpled at center. Thick but worn black glaze, fired red-brown, covers entire vessel. Nearly identical to Cat. 32. Fine, light brown clay (Munsell 7.5YR 6/4).

FIG. 197. FIG. 195.

Mug, P 1670 (Cat. 33).

Mug, P 1624 (Cat. 32). 34. KYLIX P 1610 (G 19-90) (Figs. 198, 199) Discovered May 6, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön (?), area G/20–19/18, at 332.286. H.: 0.049 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.091 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.036 m.

FIG. 196.

Profile of mug P 1624 (Cat. 32).

Mended from 38 fragments, part of rim and numerous joins restored in plaster. Small but heavy ring foot with straight f laring sides. Nippled underside. Convex wall rises to f lared rim. Two horizontal loop handles at shoulder. Flaking brown-

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 198.

Kylix, P 1610 (Cat. 34).

FIG. 199.

Profile of kylix P 1610 (Cat. 34).

ish-black glaze very poorly preserved. Interior glazed, though perhaps f loor reserved. On exterior, glazed band above foot as well as on exterior of foot. Central band on wall seems to have undistinguished and indiscernible pattern of decoration. Bands visible at rim as well. Compare Corinth XIII, no. 222-1, dated to mid-6th century B.C. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 35. COARSE TREFOIL OINOCHOE P 1582 (F 19-65) (Fig. 200) Discovered June 4, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/14–19/16, at 332.062. Found with Cat. 28. P. H.: 0.245 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.196 m.

Mended from numerous small fragments, all of which were individually treated with consolidant. Many small, non-joining sherds with pottery lot. Handle, base, and two-thirds of body not preserved. Traces of handle attachment at rim and body. Handle, mouth, and part of body restored in painted plaster. Globular body. Outer surface burnished; traces of vertical strokes especially clear around neck (comparable to burnishing on Cat. 38). Vessel comparable to Cat. 96. Brittle, coarse, red clay with many inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 4/6). Guide2, 128 and figs. 92–93 (color).

FIG. 200.

197

Coarse trefoil oinochoe, P 1582 (Cat. 35).

36. COARSE ROUND-MOUTHED OINOCHOE P 1593 (F 19-76) (Figs. 201, 202) Discovered June 20, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/4–19/11, at 332.141. Found with Cat. 15–18. MAX. P. H.: 0.169 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.163 m.

Mended from 17 fragments. Other fragments in pottery lots F 19:93, 95, and 96. Mouth, neck, handle, and upper body preserved; remainder restored in painted plaster. Handle is attached at rim

FIG. 201. Coarse round-mouthed oinochoe, P 1593 (Cat. 36).

198

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 202. Profile of coarse round-mouthed oinochoe P 1593 (Cat. 36).

and shoulder. Oinochoe has f laring round mouth with concave then convex curve to lip; narrow, tapering, cylindrical neck; and squat, globular body. Raised ring where neck joins body. Coarse, reddish yellow clay with red inclusions (Munsell 5YR 6/8).

FIG. 203. Right side of trefoil oinochoe, P 1623 (Cat. 37).

37. TREFOIL OINOCHOE P 1623 (F 19-91) (Figs. 203–206) Discovered May 20, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/16,17–19/12,13, at 332.928–332.724. H. (TO RIM): 0.219 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.266 m. RESTORED MAX. DIAM.: 0.182 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.100 m.

Mended from numerous fragments, five non-joining fragments with pottery. Missing are part of trefoil mouth and neck, parts of body, particularly the middle zone, and much of base. Restored in painted plaster. Flaring ring foot. Wall f lares out sharply, then rises in gentle convex curve. Shoulder is broad, rising slightly to neck. Neck offset by groove. Narrow neck rises with slight concave curve then f lares to trefoil mouth. High, crook-shaped double handle joins at rim and shoulder. Decoration is poorly preserved but appears to conform to standard scheme of Corinthian black glazed trefoil oinochoe: red glaze on outside of foot, black on inside of foot; zone of rays on lower wall, black glaze zone above, tongues on shoulder, black glaze on neck, mouth, and handle. No traces

FIG. 204. Back side of trefoil oinochoe P 1623 (Cat. 37).

preserved of polychrome bands on body. Shoulder tongue pattern represented by incised radial double lines, but color scheme not preserved. (Fugitive added purple was visible when excavated). For comparable oinochoai of stout shape see Corinth XIII, 109, and no. 147-5. See also examples from Anaploga well in Corinth VII, ii, passim. Datable to first half of 6th century B.C. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 205. Left side of trefoil oinochoe P 1623 (Cat. 37).

FIG. 206. Profile of trefoil oinochoe P 1623 (Cat. 37).

38. COARSE ROUND-MOUTHED OINOCHOE P 1661 (F 18-117) (Figs. 207, 208) Discovered June 29, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/8–18/2, at 330.584– 330.763. H. (TO RIM): 0.159 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.177 m. DIAM. (MOUTH): 0.111 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.158 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.075 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Chips from rim and parts of body are missing. Globular body with f lat resting surface. Body curves in at shoul-

199

FIG. 207. Coarse round-mouthed oinochoe, P 1661 (Cat. 38).

FIG. 208. Profile of coarse round-mouthed oinochoe P 1661 (Cat. 38).

der and rises to wide neck with f lared round rim. A single strap handle is attached at shoulder and rim, and rim is pinched in somewhat where handle is attached. Handle rises to a peak above the level of the rim. Handmade. Body shows vertical striations from burnishing (compare marks on Cat. 35). Possible traces of black glaze on exterior and underside of handle. Uncertain date and place of manufacture. Coarse red clay with inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6). Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 9 (color).

200

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

39. UNGLAZED OINOCHOE P 1668 (F 18-112) (Figs. 209, 210) Discovered July 3, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/4,11–18/1,4, at 331.107– 329.758. H. (TO RIM): 0.083 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.085 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.092 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.055 m

Mended from 14 fragments. Part of body missing, now restored in plaster. Small chip off shoulder. Simple, squat, globular body with f lat resting surface. Short neck with narrow mouth and f laring lip. Strap handle, attached at shoulder and lip, rises slightly above height of lip. Argive monochrome ware. See Caskey and Amandry, 202–204, and compare no. 282. Soft, light red clay with numerous inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 6/6). Self-slipped for lighter, reddish-yellow exterior color (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6).

40. KRATER P 1627 (F 19-92) (Figs. 211–216) Discovered June 2, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/19,20–19/15, at 332.654– 332.181. H.: 0.251 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.275 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.219 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.118 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Small gaps and chips throughout, now restored in painted plaster. Corinthian krater of Chalkidian type. Thick, low, broad, f laring ring foot. Wall f lares out in convex curve to point of maximum diam-

FIG. 211. Corinthian krater, side A, P 1627 (Cat. 40).

FIG. 209.

Unglazed oinochoe, P 1668 (Cat. 39).

FIG. 210. Profile of unglazed oinochoe P 1668 (Cat. 39).

FIG. 212. Drawing of Corinthian krater, side A, P 1627 (Cat. 40).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

eter just below shoulder, then curves inward to neck. Neck offset by raised ridge. High neck is slightly concave. Collar rim is offset from neck, having slightly concave profile and pronounced lip which rises to inside edge. Composite handles with two parts: broad loop handle that rises from shoulder, and thick, broad strap that rises from top of loop to join with rim in recurve. Decoration is poorly preserved, and painted surface has exfoliated in places. Black glaze on foot with traces of added red; black glaze on inside of foot. Rays along bottom of wall. Trace of red band, then black glaze zone. Above this, zone

of horizontal red zigzag framed by double red lines above and below. Above this, figured decoration. Side A: Cavalcade of three youthful male riders on horses, moving right. Best preserved is far left rider: long hair, short sleeveless chiton and armband on upper right arm (or border of a chiton with short sleeves?), reins of horse held in right hand, left arm held higher and slightly more advanced, bare right leg hangs down at side of horse. Trace of added red for chiton, black glaze for leg and horse preserved. Other figures preserved only in pattern of incised lines. The scene appears on other examples of Chalkidian kraters, although more often the riders gallop to the left: e.g. CorVP Andromeda Group A-8, A-9, A-10; Tydeus Group C-4; see also Amyx and Lawrence no. 153. Side B: Incised patterns preserve outlines of what seem to be three winged

FIG. 213. Corinthian krater, side B, P 1627 (Cat. 40). FIG. 215. Profile of Corinthian krater P 1627 (Cat. 40).

FIG. 214. Drawing of Corinthian krater, side B, P 1627 (Cat. 40).

201

FIG. 216. Drawing of handle side of Corinthian krater P 1627 (Cat. 40).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

202

figures; the traces compare well with the scheme of a siren between two sphinxes, seen on other Chalkidian kraters: e.g. CorVP Andromeda Group A-9, A-12; Tydeus Group C-4. Under handles: Traces of incised lines suggest figured patterns here as well. Below raised ridge at join of neck and shoulder, zone of slanted tongues. Neck is glazed black, with a band of added red above the raised ridge at the shoulder. Handles are glazed black, with trace of red line on loop of one handle. Side of collar rim preserves traces of alternating black and white dots. Top of rim and interior glazed black. Profile and decoration suggest second quarter of 6th century B.C. See CorVP, 511–512. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 15 (color). 41. KRATER P 1664 (F 18-115) (Figs. 217, 218) Discovered June 28–July 7, 2000, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/7,8–18/3,4, at 331.107–329.758. H.: 0.159 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.252 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.113 m.

Mended from numerous fragments found throughout excavated layer. More joining fragments found after mending. Small gaps in rim, body, and base restored in plaster. Heavy f lared ring foot. Wall

rises steadily in convex curve to f lat projecting rim. Two heavy loop handles, tilted slightly above horizontal, attached below rim. Between rim and handle zone are three incised horizontal rings. Worn black glaze over entire vessel, though glaze seems reddish on lower part of exterior and foot. Body and rim somewhat warped, giving vessel oval shape. No clear parallel for vessel type. Fine, very pale brown clay with inclusions (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 42. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 1591 (F 19-74) (Figs. 219, 220) Discovered June 6, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/5–19/16, at 332.016. H.: 0.030 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.049 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.029 m.

Mended from 14 fragments. Four non-joining fragments including part of rim and handle not mended. Otherwise, half of rim and wall and part of base missing, now restored. Miniature Corinthian patterned kotyle. Wall nearly vertical at rim, then curves sharply down to disk foot. Dull, f laky black glaze. Fully glazed interior. Exterior decoration: vertical lines along rim, horizontal bands below, though glaze not well enough pre-

FIG. 219. FIG. 217.

Krater, P 1664 (Cat. 41).

FIG. 218.

Profile of krater P 1664 (Cat. 41).

Miniature kotyle, P 1591 (Cat. 42).

FIG. 220. Profile of miniature kotyle P 1591 (Cat. 42).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

served to determine color other than black. Foot glazed black above and below. Underside has crude black concentric circle and trace of another circle. See Corinth XIII, 106, and compare nos. 172-f, 172-g, and 180-3, all dated to second quarter of 6th century B.C. See also Corinth VII, v, 68, and compare nos. 189–193, which are similarly dated. Fine, pale yellow clay (Munsell 5Y 8/2). 43. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 1620 (F 19-89) (Figs. 221–223) Discovered May 21, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/17–19/16, at 332.928– 332.672. H.: 0.020 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.045 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.021 m.

Mended from three fragments. Part of base chipped, otherwise intact. Offset disk foot with slightly concave underside. Strongly f laring wall

FIG. 221.

Miniature kotyle, P 1620 (Cat. 43).

FIG. 222. Interior of miniature kotyle P 1620 (Cat. 43).

203

FIG. 223. Profile of miniature kotyle P 1620 (Cat. 43).

with slight convex curve. Incurving rim with lip on inside. Ref lex handles formed by two long strips of clay wrapped around the rim and pinched out to form the horizontal loops of the handles. Interior has recessed bottom with conical omphalos. Black glaze overall. Fine white clay (Munsell 5Y 8/1). 44. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 1611 (G 19-88) (Fig. 224) Discovered May 5, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön (?), area G/19–19/17, at 332.581. H.: 0.035 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.061 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.027 m.

Mended from 11 fragments, parts of rim and handles restored in plaster. Bulging convex body. Small disk foot with raised central disk on underside. Horizontal loop handles. Glaze very poorly preserved. Interior fully glazed with brownish-black glaze. Exterior glazed decoration consists of vertical lines at rim, then two thin, one thick, and two more thin horizontal bands. Underside reserved. Profile consistent with miniature kotylai of the first half of the 6th century B.C. See Corinth VII, v, 68, and compare nos. 189–193. Similar examples, now missing, were found in the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 120, nos. 67–70. Fine, pale yellow clay with some tiny inclusions (Munsell 5Y 8/2).

FIG. 224.

Miniature kotyle, P 1611 (Cat. 44).

204

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

45. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 1583 (F 19-66) (Figs. 225, 226) Discovered May 26, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/4,10–19/9, at 331.714– 331.442. H.: 0.032 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.054 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.029 m.

Mended from 10 fragments. All of base and nearly half of body and rim preserved; handles missing. Miniature patterned kotyle of Corinthian type. Simple disk foot with central raised disk on underside. Body has full convex curve from base to rim. Black glaze on interior, fired reddish-brown. Pattern on exterior: band of vertical lines below rim; below, alternating horizontal bands of glaze and reserved zones. Some traces of added red. Foot glazed red, underside reserved. See Corinth XIII, 106, and compare nos. 170-f, 170-g, and 180-2, all dated to second quarter of 6th century B.C. See also Corinth VII, v, 68, and compare nos.

FIG. 225. Interior of miniature kotyle P 1583 (Cat. 45).

FIG. 226.

Base of miniature kotyle P 1583 (Cat. 45).

189–193, which are similarly dated. The Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus produced similar examples, now missing: Barfoed 2009, 120, nos. 67–70. Fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 46. PERFORATED KALATHISKOS P 1598 (F 19-80) (Figs. 227, 228) Discovered June 5, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/10–19/16, at 332.088. H.: 0.055 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.069 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.032 m.

Mended from 15 fragments. Four non-joining fragments also preserved, including part of rim. Most of rim and some of body missing. Wall rises steeply from simple resting surface, then f lares out to triangular rim. A row of vertical slits has been cut around middle of body. Glaze decoration: red on rim, inside and out; red glaze band on exterior in zone of slits and traces of additional

FIG. 227.

Perforated kalathiskos, P 1598 (Cat. 46).

FIG. 228. Profile of perforated kalathiskos P 1598 (Cat. 46).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

205

red horizontal bands above. On interior, traces of two red bands in zone of perforations. Possible added white bands on exterior and interior as well. Votive kalathiskoi of this type are generally datable to the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. Compare Corinth XVIII, i, nos. 521–524. Fine, reddish yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6).

48. KRATERISKOS P 1619 (F 19-88) (Figs. 231, 232) Discovered May 21, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/16–19/17, at 332.928– 332.736. H.: 0.022 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.043 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.020 m.

47. MINIATURE BOWL P 1572 (F 19-56) (Figs. 229, 230) Discovered June 5, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön in area F/5–19/16, at 332.112. H.: 0.024 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.057 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.041 m.

Mended from five fragments. Five non-joining fragments with pottery lot F 19:115. Parts of rim, body, and handles restored in plaster. Rim chipped in two places. Disk foot with slightly concave underside. Flaring wall rises in double curve, convex to concave, to rim. Vertical handles pressed to rim in imitation of column krater with handle plates. Black glaze overall. Krateriskoi were produced throughout the Archaic and Classical periods. The low, squat shape is characteristic of 6th-century examples: Corinth VII, v, 126. See also Corinth XIII, no. 272-3, and Corinth XVIII, i, 65, and nos. 508–512, dated late Archaic or Classical. Numerous examples, now missing, were found in the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 154–155, nos. 186–191. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

Mended from eight fragments; only two small parts of body missing. Bowl has sharply defined f lat rim, slight double curve profile, and heavy ring foot with slight f lare. Underside of base is slightly conical. Paring marks visible on exterior. Traces of red slip or wash on f lat surface of rim, ring on interior wall and at center. On exterior, traces of band around wall and on outside of foot. Possibly Argive. Compare two examples from an Archaic grave at Argos (Argos Museum, inv. MA 6083 and 6086): Barakari-Gleni, 194, and pl. 86d. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4).

FIG. 229. Miniature bowl, P 1572 (Cat. 47).

FIG. 231.

Krateriskos, P 1619 (Cat. 48).

FIG. 230. Profile of miniature bowl P 1572 (Cat. 47).

FIG. 232.

Profile of krateriskos P 1619 (Cat. 48).

206

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

49. PHIALE BR 1387 (F 19-69) (Figs. 233, 234) Discovered June 23, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, in area F/4–19/12, at 332.126. P. H.: 0.061 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.176 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. One small hole remains in center of phiale. Phiale of mesomphalic type, having a central omphalos that originally rose into the interior. Body of phiale resembles a plain, shallow bowl, rising to an everted lip. Much of the surface of the phiale, including the omphalos, has been battered and dented. Green patina still present after conservation. Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 12; Hesperia 2015, 322 and fig. 59:a (color).

FIG. 233.

Phiale, BR 1387 (Cat. 49).

50. SPEARHEAD IL 650 (F 19-67) (Fig. 235) Discovered June 9, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön in area F/13–19/17, at 332.310. P. L.: 0.176 m. MAX. W.: 0.036 m. MAX. H.: 0.025 m.

Heavily corroded iron spearhead mended from three fragments. Two small non-joining bits kept separately. Point of the spearhead is not preserved but has been restored. Two-sided blade has midrib. Socket for shaft of spear formed by bending iron into hollow cone. Shape conforms to Baitinger’s Form A 5 for a throwing spear, attested at Olympia from contexts of mid-7th-century through 5th-century B.C. date: See OF XXIX, 46–47, and compare e.g. his no. 680, from a context suggesting a date from the late 7th to mid-6th century.

FIG. 235.

Spearhead, IL 650 (Cat. 50).

51. SPEARHEAD IL 681 (F 18-92) (Fig. 236) Discovered May 6, 1998, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/16–18/14, at 332.663– 332.390. MAX. P. L.: 0.113 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.024 m.

Mended from eight fragments. Iron is heavily corroded. Spearhead consists of very fragmentary socket and solid, slender blade that tapers to point. Socket for insertion of shaft is hollow, formed

FIG. 234.

Bottom of phiale BR 1387 (Cat. 49).

FIG. 236.

Spearhead, IL 681 (Cat. 51).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

by a f lat end piece of iron that has been folded around to form a collar for the shaft. Shape conforms to Baitinger’s Type A 1 for a throwing spear, which, he notes, is essentially the shape of a spear-butt but is too small for that purpose: OF XXIX, 46. He cites five examples from Olympia (nos. 600–604), only one of which comes from a datable context, however: no. 604, from Stadium Wall III of the mid-5th century B.C. The true date range for the type is unknown.

207

pressions along length and two vertical impressions at end of lock. Tip of similar lock preserved below right shoulder. Light pink-red wash over human parts (Munsell 5YR 7/4). Possible spots of black glaze on rear left leg and left hand. Centaur stands on all four legs and holds both arms outward, slightly bent at elbows. Left arm bent more sharply so that it does not reach as far forward as right arm.

52. TERRACOTTA CENTAUR FIGURINE TC 274 (F 19-53) (Figs. 237–241) Discovered June 5, 1997, in construction fill of Archaic Heroön, area F/13–19/17, at 332.150. MAX. P. H.: 0.131 m. MAX. P. L.: 0.132 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing much of head, part of proper right shoulder, right hand, left fingers and thumb, phallus, whole front right leg, tip of rear right leg, and parts of rear left leg. Legs and shoulder restored in painted plaster. Three non-joining fragments also preserved. Figurine represents a centaur with body, tail, and legs of horse combined with head, arms, upper torso, and genitals of beardless male. Limbs, tail, and body are simply shaped. Preserved part of head includes mouth formed of added clay, lips separated by incised horizontal line. Chin somewhat modeled. Lower part of proper left hair lock preserved from side of head down to shoulder. Lock made of strip of clay with horizontal im-

FIG. 237. Side view of terracotta figurine of centaur, TC 274 (Cat. 52).

FIG. 238. Three-quarter right frontal view of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52).

FIG. 239. Three-quarter left frontal view of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52).

208

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 240. Three-quarter left frontal view of upper half of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52).

The position of the arms suggests that the centaur was once holding something, now lost. Miller 2002, 246, suggests that this was a baby, perhaps Opheltes himself, on the analogy of scenes showing the centaur Cheiron receiving the baby Achilles into his tutelage. For additional support he compares a Boiotian centaur figurine that cradles a small figure in its arms: see Baur, 81, no. 208. The identification of the small figure is uncertain, however; Baur himself thinks that the group represents Nessos abducting Deianeira (followed, it seems, by Drougou et al., cat. no. 141). See further Schiff ler, 74, for discussion of this figurine as well as another Boiotian centaur figurine in Leipzig that holds in one arm a small form, perhaps a child. Another relevant terracotta figurine comes from a deposit of 6th-century votive material in the Corinthian Asklepieion: Corinth XIV, 19 (cat. no. 2). The fragmentary centaur holds at its shoulder a smaller figure that the author identifies as female, whereas Lang, 5, suggests that it may represent the child Asklepios in Cheiron’s care. There is, of course, no mythological association between the baby Opheltes and any centaur, but perhaps some generalized notion of the care of a young hero derived from the legend of the centaur Cheiron lies behind the dedication of the Nemea figurine. In a different vein, however, centaurs are shown much more frequently with branches, rocks, or animals in their hands; these possibilities should not be excluded here. Both the special significance of the Nemea centaur and the reason for its inclusion in the Heroön foundation deposits remain uncertain.

FIG. 241. Three-quarter left frontal view of head of terracotta figurine of centaur TC 274 (Cat. 52).

The techniques of modeling and decoration find parallels among the terracottas of Corinth. The application of locks of hair with horizontal incisions to indicate curls, for instance, finds parallel in figurines from the Potters’ Quarter: compare, e.g., Corinth XV, ii, Class I, no. 14, and Class VIII, no. 22. Both are dated to the late 7th–early 6th century B.C. The representation of the centaur as a beardless male appears in Archaic art most frequently in Corinth and Etruria. Other examples are known from Rhodes and Cyprus, and the Boiotian figurines described above are also beardless. Elsewhere the Archaic centaur appears as bearded and wild: see Baur, 92; Schiff ler, 165. Fine pink clay with small inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). Miller 2002, 246 and figs. 16, 17 (color); Guide 2, 38 and fig. 20 (color); Hesperia 2015, 322 and fig. 59:c. 53. IRON IMPLEMENT IL 849 (F 18-121) (Fig. 242) Discovered July 3, 2000, in area F/4,11–18/1,4, at 331.107. MAX. P. L.: 0.024 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.015 m. MAX. P. TH.: < 0.001 m.

Very thin, f lat piece of iron of roughly rectangular shape. Broken on one edge, and the other three are rough (more likely from corrosion than breakage). Perhaps part of a f lat implement such as the head of a spatula. Compare for example an iron spatula from Isthmia, with triangular head, dated to the Archaic period: Isthmia VII, no. 382.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 242. Iron implement, IL 849 (Cat. 53). 54. LAMP FRAGMENT L 60 (F 18-17) (Fig. 243) Discovered June 18–29, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.34–332.80 P. H.: 0.010 m. DIAM.: 0.060 m.

Mended from two fragments. Three-quarters of upper part of lamp preserved. Raised concentric circles on border. Disc, partially preserved, has a cross decorated with circles and circles above. Trace of fill hole preserved. Related to Agora VII, no. 2921, and Lampes d’Argos, no. 611, 5th–7th century after Christ. Fine reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 6/6).

209

FIG. 244. Lamp fragment, L 61 (Cat. 55).

found in Section K 19. Border decorated with volute diamonds and dotted squares. Disc has rosette with solid tear-shaped petals surrounded by loops. Volute-like element at center. Fill hole partly preserved. Traces of dull red glaze. Related to Agora VII, no. 2571, dated to 5th century after Christ. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6). 56. LAMP FRAGMENT L 62 (F 18-19) (Fig. 245) Discovered June 18–29, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.34–332.49. P. H.: 0.007 m. EST. DIAM.: 0.074 m.

Fragment preserves one-third of disc and border. Border decorated with triangles and squares. Disc device is indistinct, possibly like Lampes d’Argos no. 631 or 635, dated to 5th century after Christ. The former has similar treatment of the border. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 6/6).

FIG. 243. Lamp fragment, L 60 (Cat. 54).

55. LAMP FRAGMENT L 61 (F 18-18) (Fig. 244) Discovered June 18–29, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.34–332.49. P. H.: 0.009 m. EST. DIAM.: 0.068 m.

Fragment preserves one-half of disc and one-quarter of border. A joining fragment, L 242, was

FIG. 245. Lamp fragment, L 62 (Cat. 56).

210

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

57. LAMP FRAGMENT L 65 (G 18-18) (Fig. 246) Discovered May 18–24, 1979, in area G 18, at 333.32–332.58. P. L.: 0.027 m. P. W.: 0.029 m.

Fragment preserves small segment of disc with part of rim area. Disc is rayed, and rim appears to have part of a running vegetal motif, something like Lampes d’Argos no. 318 or 327. Fine, yellowish-red clay (Munsell 5YR 5/6).

ridge along preserved edge of of nozzle, indicating seam where lower body of lamp was attached. For the type, which developed in North Africa and was imitated on the Greek mainland from the late 4th to the 6th century after Christ, see Lampes d’Argos, 86–93, and compare e.g. no. 635; see also Agora VII, 99, no. 323. From Nemea compare also L 255 and L 256. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 6/6). 59. LAMP FRAGMENT L 69 (G 18-19) (Fig. 248) Discovered May 18–24, 1979, in area G 18, at 333.32–332.58. P. L. (WITH HANDLE): 0.034 m. P. W.: 0.022 m.

FIG. 246. Lamp fragment, L 65 (Cat. 57).

Fragment preserves small part of disc, a bit of rim, and upper part of handle. Disc is rayed, surrounded by a ring. Beginning of vegetal motif on rim. Two incised lines along handle. Close to Agora VII, nos. 271, 272, dated to the late 2nd century through first half of the 3rd century after Christ. Fine clay, pinkish-gray to pink at core (Munsell 7.5YR 6/2 to 7.5YR 7/4).

58. LAMP FRAGMENT L 66 (F 18-46) (Fig. 247) Discovered June 18–29, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.34–332.80 P. L.: 0.050 m. P. W.: 0.046 m.

Fragment from upper surface of lamp preserves part of disc and nozzle, including one original edge. Two parallel ridges lead from disk along elongated nozzle to wick hole. Trace of air hole on disc end of fragment. Underside preserves raised

FIG. 248. Lamp fragment, L 69 (Cat. 59).

60. LAMP FRAGMENT L 91 (G 19-48) (Fig. 249) Discovered May 7, 1980, in area G/1,12–19/1,20, at 333.62–332.94 P. L.: 0.041 m. P. W.: 0.027 m. P. TH.: 0.008 m.

FIG. 247. Lamp fragment, L 66 (Cat. 58).

Fragment of lamp rim. Disc has pattern of closely packed radial lines, surrounded by ring of ovolo pattern with ovolo facing outward. See Lampes d’Argos no. 274, dated to late 2nd or early 3rd century after Christ; a less close parallel is Agora VII

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 249. Lamp fragment, L 91 (Cat. 60).

no. 259, dated to first half of 2nd century after Christ. Gritty brown clay (Munsell 7.5YR 5/4). 61. BUTTON ST 513 (G 19-1) (Figs. 250–252) Discovered May 5, 1980, in area G/9–19/17, at 333.54. H.: 0.009 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.020 m. DIAM. (BORE): 0.006 m.

Dark reddish-brown stone. Central bore. Flat bottom with six sets of incised dots within two concentric circles. Convex, tapering sides of button decorated with groups of 7–9 vertical incised

FIG. 252. Bottom view of button ST 513 (Cat. 61).

lines. Upper surface f lat and plain, with diameter of 0.013 m. See the discussion of buttons in Corinth XII, 296–298, and for the shape and decoration compare nos. 2611–2618, dated to the Byzantine period. Similar: ST 515, ST 517. 62. BUCKLE BR 799 (G 19-37) (Fig. 253) Discovered June 12, 1980, in area G/16–19/18, at 333.17. DIAM.: 0.023 m. P. L. (PIN): 0.017 m. TH.: 0.004 m.

Buckle consists of bronze ring, mended from two fragments. Bronze pin attached by means of a loop at one end through which buckle ring passes. Other end of pin broken. Very corroded.

FIG. 250. Top view of button, ST 513 (Cat. 61). FIG. 253. Buckle, BR 799 (Cat. 62).

FIG. 251. Profile view of button ST 513 (Cat. 61).

211

212

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

63. CHAIN LINK BR 679 (G 18-3) (Fig. 254) Discovered May 18, 1979, in area G/11–18/16,17, at 333.19. L.: 0.042 m. W. (LOOPS): 0.008 m. TH.: 0.002 m.

Three interlocking figure-eight links of bronze chain, each link consisting of two loops set roughly perpendicular to each other, save for one of the end loops, which has been bent open along the axis of the chain and terminates in a semi-circular hook of 0.007 m. diam. Bronze is in good state of preservation. Compare examples from Olynthus: Olynthus X, 77–78, nos. 253, 254, 257–261, pl. 16.

Thin disc of bronze with incised circle on one side. Small stub in center of other side is all that remains of shaft. Poorly preserved. 65. PIN FRAGMENT BR 801 (G 19-18) (Fig. 256) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area G/14–19/7, at 333.09. L.: 0.113 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.005 m. MIN. P. TH.: 0.003 m.

Bronze rod, circular in section, tapering toward one end, slightly swelling at other, rounded end. Similar: BR 808.

FIG. 256. Pin fragment, BR 801 (Cat. 65).

FIG. 254.

Chain link, BR 679 (Cat. 63).

64. PIN HEAD BR 865 (F 19-44) (Fig. 255) Discovered May 1, 1980, in area F/9–19/12, at 332.89. DIAM.: 0.009 m. TH.: 0.001 m.

FIG. 255. Pin head, BR 865 (Cat. 64).

66. COSMETIC SPOON BR 1562 (G 15-3) (Fig. 257) Discovered May 24, 2001, in area G/5–15/17, at 331.996. L. (ORIGINAL): 0.127 m. MAX. TH. (SHAFT): 0.004 m. DIAM. (BOWL): 0.007 m.

Shaft of spoon is now bent; otherwise spoon is in excellent condition. Shaft ends in point at one end; other end attached to small bowl with incised lines on underside. Shaft mostly circular in cross section and has zone of decoration near bowl end: set of three rings offset by incised grooves, followed by a zone where shaft is beaten to have triangular cross section. Each of three sides in this zone decorated with incised diagonal lines.

FIG. 257.

Cosmetic spoon, BR 1562 (Cat. 66).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

213

A set of three rings follows this zone. Compare Corinth XII nos. 1322–1324, dated from Roman to Byzantine periods. Compare also BR 149, BR 210, BR 628, BR 629, BR 688, BR 1021. 67. SIMA FRAGMENT AT 84 (F 18-36) (Fig. 258) Discovered June 27, 1979, in area F/9–18/10, at 333.26–332.91. P. H.: 0.24 m. P. L.: 0.235 m. W.: 0.09 m.

Broken at bottom and one end. Preserved is part of lotus-palmette motif in black and buff paint on large cyma reversa, topped by Lesbian leaf motif in red, black, and buff on cyma reversa with battered fascia above. Coarse, light red clay with large inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 6/6). Reddish-yellow wash over undecorated parts of exterior (Munsell 5YR 6.5/6). Hesperia 1980, pl. 46:a.

FIG. 258.

Sima fragment, AT 84 (Cat. 67).

FIG. 259. Corinthian pan tile fragment, AT 86 (Cat. 68). 69. KOTYLE P 510 (F 18-68) (Fig. 260) Discovered June 27, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. H.: 0.106 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.120 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.058 m.

Mended from 29 fragments. Missing are fragments from wall and rim, all of one handle, and part of the other, now all restored in painted plaster. Non-joining fragments with pottery. Low, splayed ring foot. Wall rising in slight concave curve, quickly changing to convex curve, curving in at rim. Slightly triangular handle set just below rim. Reserved zone with added red miltos (or pink?) above foot. Remainder of exterior and all of interior glazed black, now poorly preserved. Underside has red miltos (or pink?) with concentric black circles. Resting surface of foot glazed black with added red band. Corinthian rounded kotyle: see Corinth XIII, 127–128, and compare

68. CORINTHIAN PAN TILE FRAGMENT AT 86 (F 19-10) (Fig. 259) Discovered July 3, 1979, in area F/12,13–19/1, at 333.29–332.81. L: 0.743 m. W: 0.636 m. TH.: 0.033-0.061 m.

Mended from three fragments, missing one corner and chipped in places. Coarse, light red fabric with large inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 7/6). Very pale brown slip (Munsell 10YR 7/3). Similar: AT 513.

FIG. 260.

Kotyle, P 510 (Cat. 69).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

214

nos. 422-1 and 422-2, dated to end of 5th century B.C. Compare also a similar example from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 104–105, no. 14, fig. 99. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c. 70. KOTYLE P 571 (F 19-51) (Fig. 261) Discovered June 30, 1980, in area F/7–19/10, at 332.68. H.: 0.073 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.104 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.057 m.

Mended from 44 fragments. Short splayed foot. Wall rises with gentle convex curve to rim. Glaze poorly preserved. Interior glazed black with faint traces of red bands: one at rim, two more below, two near f loor. Exterior glazed black save for short reserved zone above base. Traces of red bands at rim and below handles, as well as above reserved zone. Two more thin red bands occupy reserved zone. Exterior of foot glazed red, interior black. Reserved underside with three concentric circles as well as traces of added pink. Group ii semiglazed kotyle of second half of 5th century B.C. See Corinth XIII, 124–126. Fine, light gray clay (Munsell 2.5Y 7/2).

FIG. 262.

Skyphos, P 584 (Cat. 71).

Interior fully glazed. Exterior glazed save for reserved zone above base. Bands, perhaps red, at top and bottom of reserved zone. Upper part of foot glazed red, lower part black. Inside of foot glazed red. Underside reserved with central dot, thin and thick concentric circles. Corinthian group ii semi-glazed skyphos. See Corinth XIII, 124–126. An unpublished skyphos also from the Heroön is very similar: P 540. Compare also Cat. 225, from the North Pit Deposit, and two skyphoi from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 128–129, nos. 96, 98. Fine, pinkish-white clay (Munsell 5YR 8/2). Hesperia 1981, 65 and pl. 24:g. 72. KOTYLE P 1576 (F 19-57) (Fig. 263) Discovered May 20, 1997, in area F/6–19/19, at 332.655. H.: 0.123 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.155 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.091 m.

FIG. 261.

Kotyle, P 571 (Cat. 70).

71. SKYPHOS P 584 (G19-62) (Fig. 262) Discovered June 10, 1980, in area G/16–19/16, at 333.16. H.: 0.072 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.090 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.055 m.

Mended from 37 fragments. High torus foot. Wall rises steeply with slight convex curve to rim. Black glaze in fair condition, faded to brownish black.

Mended from numerous fragments. One non-joining fragment with pottery. Missing are one handle, much of rim, and center of base. Missing parts have been restored in painted plaster. Narrow splayed ring foot. Wall rises with slight curve from base to rim. Dull black glaze, poorly preserved in places. Black glaze on interior, with red band at rim and possibly at mid-wall. Upper half of exterior and preserved handle glazed black. Lower half reserved for zone of sparse, long, vertical rays. Two red bands below handles, two above zone of rays, one at base of rays. Outer and inner surfaces of foot glazed red. Underside reserved with thick concentric black circle at juncture with foot, thin black circle closer to center. Shape and scheme of dec-

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

215

handle set at rim. Glazed interior now appears red to red-brown in color. Exterior has patterned decoration: vertical squiggles at rim, double red lines, black glaze band, double red lines, zone of upright buds, double red lines, black glaze. Handle and foot glazed black. Trace of concentric black circle in preserved part of underside. Corinthian Conventionalizing kotyle: see Corinth VII, v, 54– 55, and compare nos. 124 and 126, dated to the last quarter of the 6th century B.C. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6). FIG. 263.

Kotyle, P 1576 (Cat. 72).

oration are characteristic of common household type of Corinthian kotyle that developed from 6th-century group iii black glazed kotylai. See Corinth XIII, 124, and compare no. 265-1, dated to early 5th century B.C. Compare also Corinth XVIII, i, no. 40, dated to first half of 5th century. From the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus come similar examples dated to the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.: Barfoed 2009, 104–105, nos. 11, 13, 16, fig. 100. Also related to the group iii black glazed kotylai are P 502, P 511, and P 566 from the area of the Heroön. Fine, light gray to light brownish-gray clay (Munsell 10YR 6.5/2). 73. KOTYLE P 512 (F 19-14) (Fig. 264) Discovered July 2–3, 1979, in area F/6,11–19/1,5, at 332.87–332.70. H.: 0.120 m. MAX. P. DIAM. (RIM): 0.152 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.073 m.

74. KOTYLE P 1290 (G 19-79) (Fig. 265) Discovered July 4, 1983, in area G/16,18–19/13,17, at 333.213–333.043. H.: 0.072 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.090 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.05 m.

Mended from 13 fragments, preserving entire base, some of wall and rim, and one handle. Small splayed ring foot. Recessed underside. Gentle convex curve from base to rim. Black glazed interior. Exterior decoration: zone of vertical squiggles at rim, row of black buds between double horizontal bands at mid-wall, thin band above foot. Handle glazed black. Red band at lip. Foot glazed red above and below. Corinthian Conventionalizing kotyle: see Corinth VII, v, 54–55, and compare profile of no. 152, dated 500–470 B.C. For similar examples from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus, see Barfoed 2009, 108, nos. 24–25, fig. 86. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

Mended from 34 fragments. Over half of wall and rim, central part of base, and one handle not preserved. Short splayed foot. Wall rises with slight convex curve to slightly incurved rim. Thick loop

FIG. 264.

Kotyle, P 512 (Cat. 73).

FIG. 265.

Kotyle, P 1290 (Cat. 74).

216

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

75. SKYPHOS P 1736 (G 19-96) (Figs. 266, 267) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:2, excavated May 1–12, 1980, in area G/1,12–19/1,20, at 333.620– 332.940. H.: 0.107 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.130 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.074 m.

Mended from 26 fragments. One handle and parts of rim and wall restored in painted plaster. Thick torus ring foot. Slightly convex wall rising to incurving rounded lip. Thin horizontal loop handles just below rim at maximum diameter. Black glazed interior, dull and f laky. Exterior decoration (rim to base): double horizontal bands, vertical squiggles, double horizontal bands, row of linked buds of alternating black and red color, three horizontal bands, zone of widely spaced long black rays resting on black horizontal line. Foot glazed black. Underside has central dot, three thin concentric circles and one thick, all black. Corinthian Conventionalizing skyphos: see Corinth VII, v, 54 and 70, but best comparisons for profile and decoration are the Conventionalizing kotylai nos. 129, 182, and 183, all dated to the third and fourth

FIG. 266.

Skyphos, P 1736 (Cat. 75).

FIG. 267.

Profile of skyphos P 1736 (Cat. 75).

quarters of the 6th century. Compare also examples from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 122, 133–134, nos. 75–76, 111, figs. 38–39, 84, 114, 120. Other examples of conventionalizing kotylai and skyphoi are P 585, P 587, P 664, and P 1735, all found within the Heroön. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 76. SKYPHOS P 1740 (G 19-100) (Figs. 268, 269) Discovered in pottery lots G 19:17 and 21, excavated June 11–17, 1980, in area G/1,18–19/1,18, at 333.270–332.850. H.: 0.082 m. RESTORED MAX. DIAM.: 0.081 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.078 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.041 m.

Mended from 15 fragments. Much of wall, most of rim, and both handles restored in painted plaster. Slight torus foot. Wall rises in f laring concave profile to midpoint of wall, where diameter is greatest. Wall recurves inward, then turns outward sharply at lip. Poorly preserved traces of black glaze on exterior, interior, and underside.

FIG. 268.

FIG. 269.

Skyphos, P 1740 (Cat. 76).

Profile of skyphos P 1740 (Cat. 76).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

217

Profile and decoration suggest late in range of Corinthian skyphoi. See Corinth VII, iii, 66–71, and compare no. 331, dated to 300 B.C. Fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 77. SKYPHOS P 488 (F 18-49) (Fig. 270) Discovered June 27, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. P. H.: 0.064 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.064 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.061 m.

Preserved are foot and lower wall of skyphos. Sharply defined torus ring foot, grooved beneath. Vertical incised ribbing on upper part of preserved wall. Below, two horizontal grooves and one just above foot. Dull black glaze overall. Similar ribbed skyphos, P 408, published in Hesperia 1979, 93 and pl. 34:d. Profile suggests date in second half of 4th century B.C. Compare also plain blackglazed examples from inside the Heroön: P 489, P 661, and P 1603. The base of a similar example was found just south of the Heroön, in area F 20: P 1556. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 271. Red-figure skyphos fragment, P 663 (Cat. 78).

FIG. 272. Side view of red-figure skyphos fragment P 663 (Cat. 78).

FIG. 270.

Skyphos, P 488 (Cat. 77).

78. RED FIGURE SKYPHOS FRAGMENT P 663 (G 19-75) (Figs. 271, 272) Discovered June 6, 1980, in pottery lot G 19:22, area G/9,20–19/1,20, at 333.52–332.29. MAX. P. H.: 0.034 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.039 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.051 m.

Rim and wall portion of small skyphos, mended from three fragments. No handle preserved, but one point of attachment visible on rim zone.

Slightly out-turned rim; wall curves gently outward and thickens below point of maximum convexity. None of base preserved. On exterior is stylized red-figure owl face and part of wing embellished with random dotting. To left of owl, trace of tree or foliage, probably olive branch. Black glaze dull and worn; reserved areas covered with red miltos, now f laked and worn. Interior glazed black. “Glaux” type Corinthian skyphos. For examples, see Corinth VII, iv, nos. 167–170; see also Johnson, 119–124. Generally datable to second and third quarters of 5th century B.C. Another glaux skyphos fragment was recovered within the Heroön: P 450. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

218

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

79. ONE-HANDLED CUP P 1659 (F 18-96) (Fig. 273) Discovered in pottery lot F 18:92, excavated May 19–23, 2000, in area F/1,6–18/5,10, at 332.186– 331.482. H.: 0.040 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.101 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.043 m.

Mended from 27 fragments, three non-joining fragments with pottery. Parts of rim, body, and handle are restored in painted plaster. False ring foot has concave underside with raised central disk. Wall f lares out and then curves up to rounded lip, which is slightly incurved. Single loop handle is set just below lip. Black-glazed interior (fired red-orange). Upper half of exterior similarly glazed, seemingly by dipping, while lower half is reserved, save for a few drops of glaze. Foot and underside reserved. Comparable to type 1 one-handled cups, dated from second quarter of the 5th century to early 4th century B.C. See Corinth XVIII, i, 36–39. Two more examples, P 532 and P 573, were found inside the area of Heroön in disturbed fill, and a third, P 1653, was found outside the Heroön to the northwest. Fine pink clay (Munsell 5YR 8/4).

FIG. 273.

One-handled cup, P 1659 (Cat. 79).

FIG. 274.

One-handled cup, P 442 (Cat. 80).

all. Comparable to Corinthian type 2 one-handled cups, generally datable to 4th and early 3rd centuries B.C. See Corinth XVIII, i, 37–38, and compare no. 442 from a late-4th-century context. Another example, P 1566, was found outside the Heroön to the northwest. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c. 81. ONE-HANDLED CUP P 446 (F 18-11) (Fig. 275) Discovered June 25, 1979, in area F/7,20–18/11,20, at 333.34–332.80. H.: 0.046 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.102 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.053 m.

Mended from five fragments. Part of wall and rim restored in painted plaster. Low ring foot. Concave underside with four shallow concentric grooves. Shallow convex bowl with slightly rounded lip. Horizontal triangular handle set just below lip and tilted above lip. Dull, uneven black glaze on interior and exterior. Underside reserved. Shape comparable to Attic black one-handled cups, such as Agora XII nos. 755 and 756, dated to ca. 400 B.C. Fine, powdery, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 6/6). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c.

80. ONE-HANDLED CUP P 442 (F 18-5) (Fig. 274) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. H.: 0.042 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.095 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.040 m.

Mended from 16 fragments. Low ring foot. Broad, low body with incurved rim. Horseshoe handle attached just below rim. Fugitive black glaze over-

FIG. 275.

One-handled cup, P 446 (Cat. 81).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

82. KANTHAROS P 445 (F 18-10) (Figs. 276, 277) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. H.: 0.083 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.093 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.059 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing are much of lip and a few small areas of body with one handle, now all restored in painted plaster. Lowstemmed foot has convex, then concave outer surface, then vertical grooved side. Underside is conical, with grooved band above slightly inclined resting surface. Deep cup combines concave upper wall and convex bowl below. Lower wall has one broad concave groove at level of handle attachment followed by two narrower concave grooves below. Preserved vertical strap handle has spur and is attached below rim and at top of lower wall. Uneven, streaky black glaze ranges from dull to lustrous. Interior fully glazed with traces of dripping at rim. Exterior fully glazed save for side of foot. Underside fully glazed save for reserved band with added red above resting surface. Boiotian in origin: compare Gallis, 419 and pl. 352:γ. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c.

83. KANTHAROS P 1737 (G 19-97) (Figs. 278, 279) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:5, excavated May 16–19, 1980, area G/5,6–19/5,6, at 333.090– 333.030. RESTORED H.: 0.085 m. RESTORED MAX. DIAM.: 0.085 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.077 m. RESTORED DIAM. (BASE): 0.051 m.

Mended from 26 fragments. Parts of rim, handles, wall, and base restored in painted plaster. Thin, f lared ring foot. Convex wall. Inset f lared rim with slight convex curve. Vertical, angled strap handle joined at rim and shoulder. Poorly preserved dull black glaze all over save underside. Argive. See Cat. 26, from the construction fill of the Heroön, for parallels from other sites. Another kantharos, P 659, comes from disturbed fill within the Heroön and appears to have a more advanced shape; compare also Cat. 231, from the North Pit Deposit; as well as P 490 and P 1741, both from just north of the Heroön. Fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2).

FIG. 278.

Kantharos, P 1737 (Cat. 83).

FIG. 279.

Profile of kantharos P 1737 (Cat. 83).

FIG. 276. Kantharos, P 445 (Cat. 82).

FIG. 277.

Profile of kantharos, P 445 (Cat. 82).

219

220

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

84. STEMLESS CUP P 1739 (G 19-99) (Figs. 280, 281) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:21, from area G/1,9–19/7,17, at 333.150–332.870. H.: 0.050 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.105 m. RESTORED DIAM. (BASE): 0.054 m.

Mended from 19 fragments. Parts of base, wall, rim, and one handle restored in painted plaster. Short disk foot with concave underside. Squat, convex body. At shoulder, rising horizontal loop handle. Inset f lared lip. Original decoration unclear since black glaze is very poorly preserved. Black bands seem to accentuate top and bottom of lip exterior. Traces of glaze also around handle and inside of rim. Shape is comparable to Attic small stemless cups of 5th century B.C., especially Class of Agora P 10359 (Agora XII, 99) dated to first half of 5th century. Also comparable to Archaic Argive cups: Cook, 45 (from the Agamemnoneion at Mycenae); Caskey and Amandry, 195, and no. 195 (Argive Heraion). The examples from both sites are called skyphoi. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

85. STEMLESS CUP P 1570 (F 18-81) (Fig. 282) Discovered June 25, 1997, in area F/3–19/12, at 332.555. H.: 0.031 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.091 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.044 m.

Mended from 10 fragments. Parts of rim, wall, and one handle missing, as well as all of second handle. Splayed ring foot with nipple on underside. Sharply f laring convex wall rises to vertical rounded lip. Handle attached at rim. Badly f laking black glaze on interior and exterior. Possible bands of added color below rim on exterior. Floor of interior reserved with concentric glaze rings and traces of added red/pink. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4).

FIG. 282.

Stemless cup, P 1570 (Cat. 85).

86. CUP-SKYPHOS WITH GRAFFITI P 546 (G 19-31) (Figs. 283–288) Discovered June 9, 1980, in area G/11–19/17, at 333.17. H.: 0.086 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.170 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.103 m. FIG. 280. Stemless cup, P 1739 (Cat. 84).

FIG. 281.

Profile of stemless cup P 1739 (Cat. 84).

Mended from 10 fragments. Much of rim and wall, as well as one whole handle and part of second, missing and restored in painted plaster. Torus ring foot with fillet at join with wall. Incised line above and below fillet at junction of wall and foot. Wall has generous convex curve. Slightly inset, concave lip. Traces of black glaze, fired reddish in places, on exterior and interior. Fillet on foot glazed black, rest of outside of foot glazed red. Inner side of foot glazed black, underside red with central black dot, thick black ring, and two thin reserved rings. Cup-skyphos. Two graffiti preserved on same side of vase exterior.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 283. Cup-skyphos with graffiti, P 546 (Cat. 86).

FIG. 284.

221

Profile of cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86).

FIG. 285. Graffito just above foot of cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86).

FIG. 286. Graffito at level of handles on cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86).

FIG. 287. Drawing of graffiti on cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86).

FIG. 288. Drawing of graffiti on cup-skyphos P 546 (Cat. 86).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

222

1.

Just above foot, upside down:

Δ̣ΙϜΑ̣ΙΔ̣Α̣Σ It is difficult to distinguish between alpha and delta, but perhaps the letters are to be interpreted as a personal name, ΔιϜαΐδας. (So taken in LGPN, ΙΙΙ.Α, 125). 2. In handle zone, retrograde, but upright with respect to vase. Incomplete: ]ΙΒΡΟΣΝΙΚΑΣ̣Α[ . ]ΜΑΝΕ[ ]ιβρος νικάσ̣α[ς] μ’ ἀνέ[θηκε ]ibros having been victorious dedicated me.

Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6). Hesperia 1980, 65 and pl. 25:a and b. 87. MUG P 499 (F 18-64) (Fig. 289) Discovered June 28–July 4, 1979, in area F/9,11– 18/11,14, at 332.83–332.30. H.: 0.070 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.091 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.064 m.

88. COLUMN KRATER P 1695 (F 18-125) (Figs. 290, 291) Discovered in pottery lots F 18:2 (base) and 3 (rest of krater), excavated June 15–July 2, 1979, area F/1,20–18/1,20, at 333.390–332.470. H.: 0.250 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.235 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.119 m.

Mended from about 80 fragments. Parts of rim, one handle plate, one handle, body, and base are missing, now restored in painted plaster. Base has molded double torus foot. Wall rises in convex curve to maximum diameter at shoulder, then curves back inward. Offset neck is concave. Sharply defined rim has convex upper surface slightly downturned, and concave side surface tapering in toward the neck. The handles consist of two columns each rising from shoulder to rectangular handle plates at rim. Flaking black glaze

Mended from 12 fragments. Missing are parts of wall, rim, and much of handle. Flat resting surface. Wall rises with slight double curve, convex to concave, to rounded lip. Broad strap handle attached at rim; point of attachment on body not preserved. Some paring marks. Dull brown glaze overall. Laconian, or a local imitation. The shape is comparable to examples of 5th-century date found at Corinth: Williams, “Corinth 1978,” 140–142. Fine, light reddish-brown clay (Munsell 5YR 6/4). FIG. 290.

FIG. 289.

Column krater, P 1695 (Cat. 88).

Mug, P 499 (Cat. 87).

FIG. 291. Profile of column krater P 1695 (Cat. 88).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

originally covered the entire vessel inside and out. See discussion in Agora XII, 54–55, esp. n. 4, and cf. no. 58, dated to 500–480 B.C. Fine, pinkish-white clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2). 89. PEDESTAL KRATER P 577a-b (G 19-55) (Figs. 292, 293) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:2, excavated May 1–12, 1980, in area G/1,12–19/1,20, at 333.62– 332.94. P. H.: 0.099 m. EST. DIAM. (BASE): 0.142 m.

Two large joining fragments. Beveled ring foot consists of vertical face above slight splayed face. Wall of broad pedestal rises away from foot in concave curve, in the middle of which is a horizontal raised ring. Both fragments broken away at top, where parts of the concave f loor of the bowl are preserved. Floor now has broken hole in middle. Traces of red glaze on exterior of concave wall, both above and below raised ring. Shape finds parallel in fragmentary examples from the Archaic deposit at Phlious: Biers, 405, nos. 15–17;

FIG. 292.

and appears related to Argive subgeometric pedestal kraters known from Mycenae. Compare also the miniature shape represented by Cat. 143–144, which may also be related. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6). 90. SMALL KRATER P 480 (F 19-6) (Figs. 294, 295) Discovered July 3, 1979, in area F/6,11–19/1,5, at 332.87–332.70. H.: 0.090 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.130 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.070 m.

Mended from many fragments. Missing are small parts of wall, restored in painted plaster. Low splayed ring foot with raised disk on underside. Wall of double curvature, with lower wall f laring to onset of handle and concave upper wall. Flat projecting rim. Vertical loop handles attached at point of maximum diameter, bent upward to join rim. Dull black glaze, much peeled, over interior. Exterior glazed but perhaps reserved for lower third of wall. Foot preserves traces of red on exterior, black on inner face. Underside appears reserved with trace of concentric circle. Small size is unsuitable for use as mixing bowl. For a krater

Pedestal krater, P 577a–b (Cat. 89).

FIG. 293. Profile of pedestal krater P 577a–b (Cat. 89).

223

FIG. 294.

Small krater, P 480 (Cat. 90).

FIG. 295.

Profile of small krater P 480 (Cat. 90).

224

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

of comparable size see Corinth XVIII, i, no. 48, which Pemberton suggests may have been used as a drinking cup. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 91. SMALL KRATER P 447 (F 18-12) (Fig. 296) Discovered June 29, 1979, in area F/15– 18/14, at 332.69. H.: 0.079 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.103 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.055 m.

Mended from 21 fragments. Flat resting surface set off slightly from wall by concave curve. Most of wall forms deep convex bowl rising to vertical inset rim with out-turned f lat lip. Rolled, upturned handles attached to shoulder and edge of lip, suggesting handle plates of a krater. Dull brownish-black glaze overall. Small size is unsuitable for use as mixing bowl. For a krater of comparable size see Corinth XVIII, i, no. 48, which Pemberton suggests may have been used as a drinking cup. See also Biers, 414, no. 45, for a similar shape from Phlious. Fine, pinkish-white clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2). Hesperia 1980, 195 and pl. 46:b.

FIG. 297. Round-mouthed oinochoe, P 443 (Cat. 92).

FIG. 298. Profile of round-mouthed oinochoe P 443 (Cat. 92).

FIG. 296.

Small krater, P 447 (Cat. 91).

92. ROUND-MOUTHED OINOCHOE P 443 (F 18-6) (Figs. 297, 298) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. H.: 0.0131 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.053 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.117 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.076 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing are small fragments from wall. Flat resting surface. Globular body with wide pumpkin ribbing at shoulder. Narrow neck and round f lared mouth.

Curved strap handle attached to rim and shoulder. Fugitive black glaze best preserved around mouth, on neck, and on upper part of body. Corinthian type C ribbed round-mouthed oinochoe, discussed in Corinth XIII, 138, where examples from North Cemetery are dated to last quarter of 5th century B.C. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 93. ROUND-MOUTHED OINOCHOE P 586 (G 19-64) (Fig. 299) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area G/14–19/18, at 333.22. P. H.: 0.143 m. MAX. P. DIAM. (RIM): 0.060 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.130 m.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 299. Round-mouthed oinochoe, P 586 (Cat. 93). FIG. 300.

Trefoil oinochoe, P 572 (Cat. 94).

Mended from numerous fragments. Three nonjoining fragments with pottery. Missing parts of body (especially lower part), neck, and mouth; all restored in plaster. Globular body, concave neck f laring to rim. Curved strap handle, attached at shoulder and rim, rises above rim. Narrow impressed ribs on shoulder. Handmade. In aryballos shape at least, such narrow impressed ribbing is characteristic of blisterware of late 5th to early 4th century B.C. See discussion in Corinth VII, iii, 147–148. Fine, soft, reddish-yellow clay fired partly grayblack on lower body (Munsell 5YR 6.5/8). 94. TREFOIL OINOCHOE P 572 (G 19-50) (Figs. 300–302) Discovered June 9, 1980, in area G/12–19/6, at 333.00 H. (TO RIM): 0.102 m. H (WITH HANDLE): 0.105 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.087 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.042 m.

Mended from many fragments. Missing parts of body, rim, and neck restored in painted plaster. Body globular except for f lat resting surface. Trefoil mouth. Handle rises slightly above rim. Unglazed, probably handmade. Traces of paring marks on body. Argive monochrome ware. See Caskey and Amandry, 202–204, and compare no. 279, from the Argive Heraion. Unglazed vessels of similar clay also on display in Argos Museum. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4).

FIG. 301. Profile of trefoil oinochoe P 572 (Cat. 94).

FIG. 302. Top view of trefoil oinochoe P 572 (Cat. 94).

225

226

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

95. TREFOIL OINOCHOE LID P 522 (G 19-7) (Fig. 303) Discovered May 6, 1980, in area G/10–19/6,7, at 333.22. MAX. L.: 0.047 m. MAX. W.: 0.042 m. MAX. H.: 0.013 m.

Handmade lid of small trefoil oinochoe. Lid formed from f lat piece of clay shaped and bent upward to conform to trefoil mouth, with short rectangular tab opposite trefoil for fitting against handle of oinochoe. Basket handle extends across middle of trefoil toward rectangular tab. No traces of glaze. Argive monochrome ware. See Caskey and Amandry, 202–204, and compare no. 313, from the Argive Heraion. Lid served for oinochoe of size comparable to Cat. 94. Fine, pinkish-white clay with some inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2). Hesperia 1981, 64 and pl. 24:f.

FIG. 303.

FIG. 304. Coarse trefoil oinochoe, P 570 (Cat. 96).

Trefoil oinochoe lid, P 522 (Cat. 95).

96. COARSE TREFOIL OINOCHOE P 570 (F 19-50) (Figs. 304, 305) Discovered May 5, 1980, in area F/8–19/12, at 332.82. H. (TO RIM): 0.297 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.300 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.257 m.

Mended from many fragments. Additional small fragments with pottery. Flattened resting surface and full, globular body. Curved strap handle, attached to shoulder and rim, rises slightly above rim. Thick, f lattened rim sloping down away from mouth. Paring marks around neck. Compare Cat. 35 from construction fill of Heroön. Coarse, reddish-brown clay (Munsell 5YR 5/4).

FIG. 305. Top view of coarse trefoil oinochoe P 570 (Cat. 96). 97. COARSE ROUND-MOUTHED OINOCHOE P 441 (F 18-3) (Fig. 306) Discovered June 27, 1979, in area F/11–18/6, at 332.57. H. (TO RIM): 0.172 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.198 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.114 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.161 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.071 m.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 306. Coarse round-mouthed oinochoe, P 441 (Cat. 97).

FIG. 307.

Jug, P 444 (Cat. 98).

FIG. 308.

Profile of jug P 444 (Cat. 98).

227

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing small parts of body, now restored in painted plaster. Slightly f lattened resting surface. Uneven, globular body with broad, contracting neck and f lared rim. Strap handle, attached at rim and middle of body, rises above rim. Another example from disturbed fill within the Heroön is P 495. Coarse, brown gritty clay with inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 4/4). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c. 98. JUG P 444 (F 18-7) (Figs. 307, 308) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/10–18/6, at 332.71. P. H.: 0.146 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.113 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.069 m.

Intact save for top of neck and rim, and some chips on body and handle. Flat resting surface. Tall, melon-shaped body with convex curve. Strap handle attached at neck and shoulder. Dull, peeling black glaze in mouth and on most of exterior, save for very bottom of wall (result of dipping?). Underside reserved. Shape is comparable to type B round-mouthed oinochoe of Classical date: Corinth XIII, 136–137. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c.

99. DINOS P 503 (F 19-12) (Figs. 309, 310) Discovered July 3, 1979, in area F/6,11–19/1,5, at 332.87–332.70. MAX. P. H.: 0.190 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.176 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.267 m.

Mended from many fragments. Missing lower part of vessel, now restored in plaster. Squat globular body rises to offset f lat rim. Crescent-shaped fingernail impressions on rim. On shoulder are narrow modeled ribs closed off by band of fingernail impressions. Below this, three horizontal grooves enclosing two more bands of fingernail

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

228

FIG. 309.

Dinos, P 503 (Cat. 99).

FIG. 311.

FIG. 310.

Top view of dinos P 503 (Cat. 99).

impressions. Molded handle attached to ribbed zone and rising onto rim. Handle formed by double roll of clay shaped into letter pi, bisected by double roll rising vertically to rim. Trace of a second handle on another fragment. Dull slip of varying thickness. Corinthian blisterware. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/4) with very dark bluish-gray slip (Munsell 10B 3/1). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:f. 100. LARGE JUG P 504 (F 19-13) (Fig. 311) Discovered July 2, 1979, in area F/6,11–19/1,5, at 332.87–332.70. MAX. P. H.: 0.154 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.147 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.131 m.

Partially mended from numerous fragments. Central part of body missing, now restored in plaster. Low, broad, splayed ring foot. Underside convex but f lattened at center. Large swelling

Large jug, P 504 (Cat. 100).

body. High, concave neck f lares slightly to rim f lattened and tilted to interior. Groove at inner edge of rim creates f lange to support lid (not preserved). Strap handle from just below rim to top of shoulder. Foot and underside reserved. Faint black glaze applied in band on inside of mouth at rim and on upper surface of rim. Most of exterior glazed but for reserved zones below rim and above foot. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 101. ALABASTRON P 524 (G 19-14) (Figs. 312–314) Discovered May 15, 1980, in area G/1–19/5, at 332.90. H.: 0.091 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.049 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.034 m.

Corinthian black-figure alabastron with faded black glaze and incised decoration. Depicted are two roosters facing each other on body opposite handle. Roosters have much incised detail, not all that neat. Eyes are circles and rough details for top of hens’ heads. Tails overlap on back side of vase. Filler ornament consists of spoke rosettes and blobs with incised crosses. On rounded resting surface, seven-petal rosette centered on central depression. Dots on vertical face of rim. Surface of rim has radial petals. Shoulder has 6 petals

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 312.

Alabastron, P 524 (Cat. 101).

FIG. 313. Three-quarter view of alabastron P 524 (Cat. 101).

opposite handle. For decoration, compare aryballos, Cat. 104. Late 7th-early 6th century B.C. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). Hesperia 1981, 65 and pl. 24:f. 102. ARYBALLOS P 500 (F 18-65) (Fig. 315) Discovered June 25, 1979, in pottery lot F 18:2, area F/1,20–18/1,20, at 333.34–332.80. P. H.: 0.041 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.056 m.

Preserved is most of upper half of body, with neck, mouth, and handle. Small, non-joining fragments with pottery. Blisterware. Flaring round mouth with strap handle from rim to shoulder. Globular upper body. Compare Corinth XVIII, i, nos. 475 and 476, ranging in date from third quarter of 5th century to third quarter of 4th century B.C. Fine brown clay with inclusions, gray-brown core (Munsell 7.5YR 5/2).

FIG. 314. Three-quarter view of alabastron P 524 (Cat. 101).

103. ARYBALLOS P 1602 (F 18-86) (Figs. 316, 317) Discovered May 4, 1998, in area F/11–18/19, at 332.843–332.694. P. H.: 0.061 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.062 m.

Mended from two fragments. Missing are most of rim and handle. Few traces of original black glaze decoration are preserved. Possible petals at shoulder, and thin concentric bands at bottom of body. In the middle zone of the body, incised outlines of three circles on side opposite handle.

FIG. 315.

Aryballos, P 500 (Cat. 102).

229

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

230

FIG. 318. FIG. 316.

Aryballos, P 436 (Cat. 104).

Aryballos, P 1602 (Cat. 103).

FIG. 317. Profile of aryballos P 1602 (Cat. 103).

Probably a warrior aryballos, a common type produced in late 7th and early 6th centuries B.C. See Corinth XIII, 113, for discussion and examples of the type. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 104. ARYBALLOS P 436 (G 18-10) (Fig. 318) Discovered May 22, 1979, in area G/11–18/19, at 332.85. H.: 0.055 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.049 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.033 m.

Mended from six fragments. Two small bits of body missing. Corinthian aryballos with slightly f lattened resting surface. Narrow neck. Rim surface is slightly concave. The handle curves in toward the vessel at a rather acute angle, and rises only very minimally above the surface of the rim. A small circular depression of 0.005 m. is stamped on the center of the bottom. Traces of black glazed decoration and incised lines. Top surface of rim decorated with radial tongues. Small dots around side of mouth. Radial tongues on body around neck. Body decorated with two facing roosters, oriented opposite the handle. Traces of a smaller figure (bird?) in the space between them, as well as a rosette. Rosettes above backs of roosters and between the roosters at the rear, under the handle. Fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). Hesperia 1980, 194 and pl. 43:e. 105. ARYBALLOS P 437 (G 18-11) (Fig. 319) Discovered May 23, 1979, in area G/11–18/18, at 333.40–332.58. P. H.: 0.053 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.058 m.

Rim and most of handle not preserved, now restored in painted plaster. Spherical body with slight f lattening of resting surface. Some traces of incised lines and spots of black glaze, but original decoration not discernible. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 319.

231

FIG. 320.

Aryballos, P 520 (Cat. 106).

FIG. 321.

Top view of aryballos P 520 (Cat. 106).

Aryballos, P 437 (Cat. 105).

106. ARYBALLOS P 520 (G 19-5) (Figs. 320, 321) Discovered May 7, 1980, in area G/11–19/7, at 333.03. H.: 0.051 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.055 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.038 m.

Mended from two fragments. Part of rim restored in painted plaster. Squat Corinthian aryballos. Poorly preserved black glaze. Radial petals around upper surface of rim, dots around vertical side of rim. Two incised rosettes on body around handle, and two incised palmettes oriented upward and downward on side opposite handle. Dot surrounded by radial dots or petals on resting surface. Crude incised ring around lower portion of body. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Hesperia 1981, 64 and pl. 24:f. 107. PALMETTE LEKYTHOS P 440 (F 18-2) (Figs. 322–324) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/11–18/13, at 332.67. P. H.: 0.051 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.044 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.040 m.

Missing upper neck, mouth, and most of handle, now restored in painted plaster. Low ring foot with nippled underside. Squat body and narrow neck. Groove at juncture of neck and shoulder. Uneven dull black glaze with reserved palmette.

FIG. 322.

Palmette lekythos, P 440 (Cat. 107).

232

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 325. Echinus bowl, P 1738 (Cat. 108). FIG. 323. Side view of palmette lekythos P 440 (Cat. 107).

FIG. 326.

FIG. 324. Profile of palmette lekythos P 440 (Cat. 107).

Underside and outside of foot reserved. Small squat shape comparable to Agora XII, no. 1137, dated to last decade of 5th century B.C. Fine, light brown clay (Munsell 7.5YR 6/4). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c. 108. ECHINUS BOWL P 1738 (G 19-98) (Figs. 325, 326) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:2, excavated May 1–12, 1980, in area G/1,12–19/1,20, at 333.620– 332.940. H.: 0.036 m. RESTORED MAX. DIAM.: 0.069 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.051 m. RESTORED DIAM. (BASE): 0.040 m.

Profile of echinus bowl P 1738 (Cat. 108).

Mended from four fragments. Two-thirds of shape restored in painted plaster. Almost vertical ring foot. Squat convex body rises to rounded, incurved lip. Lustrous but f laky black glaze everywhere but resting surface. Shape generally datable to 4th century B.C. in Attic and Corinthian pottery. See Agora XII, 132–138, and Corinth VII, iii, 29–33. Also comparable in shape is P 1259 from outside the Heroön to the west. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 109. ECHINUS BOWL P 1597 (F 19-83) (Fig. 327) Discovered June 18, 1997, as chance find in area F 19, elevation 333.25–332.53. H.: 0.026 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.091 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.046 m.

Mended from four fragments. Complete profile from rim to base is preserved, though less than a quarter of entire vessel. Disk foot with concave underside. Shallow convex wall rising to incurving rim. Glazed overall, though traces on underside are f leeting. Compare Attic shallow echinus

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 327.

233

Echinus bowl, P 1597 (Cat. 109). FIG. 329.

Saucer, P 1743 (Cat. 111).

FIG. 330.

Profile of saucer P 1743 (Cat. 111).

bowls of late 4th century B.C., e.g. Agora XXIX, no. 984. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 110. SHALLOW BOWL/SAUCER P 497 (F 18-57) (Fig. 328) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. H.: 0.046 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.168 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.054 m.

Mended from four fragments. A few non-joining fragments are with pottery. Ring foot. Nippled underside. Straight f lared wall. Flat rim angled downward toward exterior. Unevenly made. Faint spots of black glaze on interior, and traces of black glaze bands around rim and exterior wall. Gritty, reddish-yellow clay with inclusions (Munsell 5YR 7/6). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c.

FIG. 328.

Shallow bowl/saucer, P 497 (Cat. 110).

111. SAUCER P 1743 (F 19-95) (Figs. 329, 330) Discovered in pottery lots F 19:8 and G 19:21, excavated April 29–May 1, 1980, in area F/1,20– 19/6,18 and G/1,9–19/7,17, at 333.250–332.820. H.: 0.031 m.

RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.139 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.053 m.

Mended from seven fragments. Two-thirds of body and part of foot restored in painted plaster. Shallow Corinthian saucer with slight convex wall and ring foot. Dull glaze fired orange-brown overall. Traces of incised rings, perhaps accidental, on exterior. Compare Corinth XVIII, i, no. 129, dated to third quarter of 4th century B.C. Fine. very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 112. SMALL BOWL WITH GRAFFITO P 1723 (F 17-16) (Figs. 331–333) Discovered June 12–14, 2001, in area F/8,15– 17/12,16, at 332.697–332.043. H.: 0.047 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.118 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.053 m.

Mended from 12 fragments; six non-joining fragments with pottery. About half of vessel preserved. Ring foot. Deep bowl rises in steep convex curve to simple rounded lip. Two grooves below rim on exterior. Black glaze overall. For shape of bowl, compare Agora XII, no. 838, dated to 350–325 B.C. Traces of inscribed letters on exterior. On two joining fragments, traces of two letters that can be read as epsilon and perhaps nu, written upside down with respect to bowl and retrograde. After gap in wall, trace of two strokes of a triangular letter, then another triangular letter, though

234

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

113. LEKANIS P 494 (F 18-54) (Fig. 334) Discovered June 19–27, 1979, in area F/1,20– 18/1,20, at 333.34–332.47. H.: 0.061 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.149 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.081 m.

FIG. 331. Small bowl with graffito, P 1723 (Cat. 112).

FIG. 332. Drawing of small bowl with graffito P 1723 (Cat. 112).

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing are parts of wall and part of one handle. Low f laring ring foot. Deep convex wall curving in slightly to rolled rim offset by groove. No f lange for lid. Squared horizontal strap handles just below rim, f lanked on either side by raised nipple. Pink slip applied overall. Peeling red glaze on interior and upper part of exterior. Fine, light gray clay (Munsell 10YR 7/2). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c.

FIG. 334.

Lekanis, P 494 (Cat. 113).

114. SALTCELLAR P 449 (F 18-16) (Fig. 335) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/3,6–18/10,15, at 333.34–332.80. H.: 0.029 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.053 m. RESTORED DIAM. (BASE): 0.061 m.

FIG. 333. Profile of small bowl with graffito P 1723 (Cat. 112).

Mended from seven fragments. Much of base missing, now restored in painted plaster. Concave wall rises in continuous curve from splayed foot to rounded projecting lip. Interior of foot nearly vertical and underside recessed. Interior parabolic in cross section. Dull black glaze overall, very worn. Shape comparable to Attic concave saltcellars, e.g.

bottom stroke extends farther than the adjoining diagonal stroke. Delta or alpha? Fine, light reddish-brown clay (Munsell 5YR 6/4).

FIG. 335.

Saltcellar, P 449 (Cat. 114).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

Agora XII, no. 937, dated to third quarter of 4th century B.C. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Hesperia 1980, 195 and pl. 46:b. 115. SALTCELLAR P 529 (F 17-3) (Figs. 336, 337) Discovered May 13, 1980, in area F/6–17/14, at 332.92. H.: 0.022 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.057 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.041 m.

Intact. Echinus wall. Traces of dull black glaze on interior, a few spots on upper part of exterior. Resting surface very slightly recessed, almost f lat. Possibly 5th century B.C. For shape, compare Agora XII, nos. 899–920, esp. 904, dated to second quarter of 5th century. Fine red clay (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8). Similar: P 1663.

FIG. 336.

235

116. SQUAT PYXIS P 574 (G 19-52) (Fig. 338) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:13, excavated June 6–11, 1980, in area G/9,20–19/1,20, at 333.52– 332.47, with more discovered on June 27, 1983, in area G/11,13–19/1,8, at 332.968–332.568. H.: 0.032 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.075 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.075 m.

Mended from five fragments. Much of base and part of rim not preserved, now restored in painted plaster. Flat disk foot, projecting slightly beyond wall. Vertical, cylindrical wall. Flattened, out-turned lip. Interior and underside reserved. Outside filled with horizontal incised grooves with traces of bands of red-brown glaze. Shape recalls Argive squat pyxides found in a 6th-century deposit at the Argive Heraion: Caskey and Amandry, 201, nos. 248 and 249. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

Saltcellar, P 529 (Cat. 115).

FIG. 338.

Squat pyxis, P 574 (Cat. 116).

117. FLANGED PYXIS LID P 625 (G 19-49) (Figs. 339, 340) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area G/13–19/13,14, at 333.05. H.: 0.013 m. DIAM.: 0.063 m.

FIG. 337. Top view of saltcellar P 529 (Cat. 115).

Clay lid mended from seven fragments, complete except for few small gaps and central knob. Slightly convex upper surface, decorated with concentric rings of poorly preserved black glaze. Concave underside with inset f lange, diameter 0.051 m, for round pyxis of similar diameter. No glaze on underside. Shape and decoration consistent with f langed pyxis lids of the 6th century B.C. See Corinth VII, v, 52 and compare no. 91; see also

236

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 341. FIG. 339.

Flanged pyxis lid, P 625 (Cat. 117).

Plate fragment, P 496 (Cat. 118).

119. PLATE FRAGMENT P 1248 (E 19-5) (Fig. 342) Discovered May 26–31, 1983, in area E/10,19– 19/1,20, at 332.884–332.564. P. L.: 0.032 m. P. H.: 0.0103 m.

Fragment preserves part of foot and f loor of Attic fish plate. Underside is f lat and fully glazed. Trace of ring foot. Interior has central depression encircled by double reserved grooves. Cf. Agora XII, 148, 110–111, fig. 10, dated after 375 B.C.; also nos. 1072–1076, fig. 10, implying a date after 350 B.C. Fine, relatively hard, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 6/6). FIG. 340. Underside of flanged pyxis lid P 625 (Cat. 117).

Caskey and Amandry, 202, and compare no. 259, from a 6th-century deposit at the Argive Heraion. Fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 118. PLATE FRAGMENT P 496 (F 18-56) (Fig. 341) Discovered June 14–15, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.12. L.: 0.035 m. W.: 0.047 m. EST. DIAM. (FOOT): 0.060 m.

Fragment preserves base with f laring ring foot of shallow plate. Dull black glaze on interior; exterior and underside reserved. One nearly complete stamped palmette preserved on f loor. Fine pink clay (Munsell 5YR 7/4).

FIG. 342.

Plate fragment, P 1248 (Cat. 119).

120. PLATE FRAGMENT P 1555 (F 20-12) (Figs. 343, 344) Discovered May 27–30, 1997, in area F/1,10– 20/1,5, at 332.681–332.345. MAX. P. L.: 0.139 m. EST. DIAM.: 0.146 m.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 345. FIG. 343.

237

Coarse bowl, P 1563 (Cat. 121).

Plate fragment, P 1555 (Cat. 120).

from base, then rises with slight f lare to simple f lat rim. Lug handles attached below rim. Thick wall swells slightly between handle zone and rim. Wheelmade, yet surfaces are not even. No trace of slip or glaze. Some discoloration from firing or weathering. A similar coarse pot was found in a late Early Corinthian context in the Anaploga well at Corinth: Corinth VII, ii, 153 (An 278). Coarse, soft, light red clay with many large inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8). FIG. 344. Profile of plate fragment P 1555 (Cat. 120).

Mended from six fragments. Rim, f loor, and ring foot are all partially preserved. Black slip overall, though poorly preserved on rim. Rim is rolled, foot lightly f lared in profile. A shallow groove runs around the underside near the foot. Floor of plate swells in thickness toward center of underside. Profile and glazing suggest date in late 4th century B.C. Compare Agora XII, nos. 1059–1060. No preserved traces of decoration on f loor of plate. Fine clay, varying from pink to very pale brown (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4 to 10YR 8/4).

122. CHYTRA P 501 (F 18-66) (Fig. 346) Discovered June 28, 1979, in area F/10–18/13, at 332.63. MAX. P. H.: 0.111 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.101 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.149 m.

Partially mended from many fragments. Rim, handle, and portions of body preserved. Squat globular wall rises to short f laring rim with bevel on exterior. Short strap handle from rim to shoul-

121. COARSE BOWL P 1563 (F 19-55) (Fig. 345) Discovered June 10, 1997, in area F/8–19/11, at 332.707. H.: 0.098 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.168 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.106 m.

Found in one piece, only one handle missing. Simple f lat resting surface. Bowl curves outward

FIG. 346.

Chytra, P 501 (Cat. 122).

238

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

der. Examples with similar profiles known from 4th-century contexts at the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth: Corinth XVIII, i, nos. 653 and 654. Gritty, grayish-brown to dark grayish-brown clay (Munsell 10YR 4.5/2). 123. COARSE LID P 483 (F 19-9) (Fig. 347) Discovered July 3, 1979, in area F/6,11–19/1,5, at 332.87–332.70. H.: 0.029 m. DIAM.: 0.064 m.

Intact. Small circular lid. Convex on top. Handle is pinched into high cone. Concave underside, with conical hollow under handle. Perhaps intended for a small chytra? See Corinth VII, iii, 129–130, and compare nos. 690 and 691. Two other coarse round lids were found in the disturbed fill overlying the Heroön: P 452 and P 481. Coarse brown clay with inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 5/4). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:c.

FIG. 348.

Coarse cup, P 569 (Cat. 124).

FIG. 349.

Profile of coarse cup P 569 (Cat. 124).

Mended from many fragments. Parts of wall, rim, and one handle missing. Two curved strap handles. Convex resting surface. High inset rim almost vertical. Undecorated. Uncertain function. Shape recalls Argive kantharos without base. Brittle, coarse, dark grayish-brown clay (Munsell 10YR 4/2) with yellowish-red core (Munsell 5YR 5/8).

FIG. 347.

Coarse lid, P 483 (Cat. 123).

124. COARSE CUP P 569 (F 19-49) (Figs. 348, 349) Discovered April 28, 1980, in area F/14–19/18, at 333.22. H.: 0.086 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.099 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.086 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.094 m.

125. COARSE KANTHAROS P 453 (G 18-12) (Fig. 350) Discovered May 22, 1979, in area G/7–18/16, at 333.40–332.58. H.: 0.064 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.066 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.038 m.

Mended from two fragments. Missing about onethird of upper wall with half of rim and both handles. Disk foot, f lat underside. Convex bowl with inset lip, slightly concave. Trace of vertical handle roots on wall below inset lip. Shape recalls fine Argive kantharos, though this vessel is crudely made. Possible traces of whitish pigment on exterior. Perhaps an example of Argive whiteslipped ware observed among miniatures from the Agamemnoneion at Mycenae: Cook, 49–50.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

239

127. LOPAS P 1264 (E 19-26) (Fig. 352) Discovered June 20, 1983, in area E/12–19/4, at 332.054. H.: 0.038 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.056 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.220 m. DIAM. (HANDLE): 0.013 m. TH. (BOTTOM): 0.004 m.

FIG. 350.

Coarse kantharos, P 453 (Cat. 125).

Coarse, light red clay with many large inclusions (Munsell 2.5YR 6/6). 126. COARSE BOWL P 451 (F 18-38) (Fig. 351) Discovered June 19–25, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.34–332.49. H.: 0.111 m. W.: 0.130 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM, INNER EDGE): 0.30 m.

Mended from many fragments. Preserved are one handle, less than one-quarter of rim and part of base. Shallow, rounded resting surface is sharply offset from short wall, slightly inverted. Flaring rim with interior f lange to receive lid. Raised horizontal loop handle, round in cross section, is attached to lower part of rim and rises against rim into a roughly triangular loop. Blackened by fire on underside and in places (especially on break near handle) on interior. Cf. Agora XII, 227–228, nos. 373–374, fig. 18, pl. 95. Brittle, gritty red cooking fabric (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6) with many, relatively large, f lat white inclusions.

Fragment of coarse bowl or mortarium preserving full profile. Shallow bowl with convex wall and simple rounded rim. Coarse clay, ranging in color from pale brown at surface to light red at core (Munsell 2.5Y 8/3 to 2.5YR 7/6), with many dark inclusions.

FIG. 352.

Lopas, P 1264 (Cat. 127).

128. BLACK-FIGURE POTTERY FRAGMENT P 623 (G 19-44) (Fig. 353) Discovered June 12, 1980, in area G/1,17–18/1,18, at 333.27–332.85. P. H.: 0.034 m. P. W.: 0.021 m. P. TH.: 0.002 m.

FIG. 351.

Coarse bowl, P 451 (Cat. 126).

Fragment of body of vessel with black-figure decoration on exterior showing bottom left part of a human figure moving right. Back foot and much of dress preserved. Dress decorated with incision

240

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 354. Black-figure cup fragment, P 660 (Cat. 129).

FIG. 353. Black-figure pottery fragment, P 623 (Cat. 128).

and dots of added red, with horizontal border. Above border, circles and two vertical incisions suggest perhaps a fold of drapery. Foot is simple and toes, not distinguished, overlap ground line. Thickness of ground line greater at left-hand edge of fragment. Another line below and parallel to ground line. Interior covered in dark brown/ black glaze. Attic, probably 6th c. B.C. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6).

130. BLACK-FIGURE POTTERY FRAGMENT P 1291 (G 19-81) (Fig. 355) Discovered June 21, 1983, in area G/1,13–19/1,8, at 332.880. P. H.: 0.028 m. P. W.: 0.033 m.

Fragment of body of Corinthian vessel with figural decoration on exterior: two thick dark lines at bottom, then a thicker band topped by an added red line, serving as ground line for an animal striding left, apparently a grazing goat/horse/cow. One front leg, part of a hind leg, and a bit of the underbelly are preserved. No incision or added

129. BLACK-FIGURE CUP FRAGMENT P 660 (G 19-72) (Fig. 354) Discovered May 1, 1980, in area G/1,12–19/1,20, at 333.62–332.94. MAX. P. H.: 0.041 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.072 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.125 m.

Mended from five fragments. Preserved are portions of rim and wall. Very worn black glaze on interior. Exterior decoration consists of black band at rim; below, fragmentary and badly worn zone of figured decoration depicting a cock, left, facing right, and another winged animal also facing right. Both have incised interior details. Below this zone, where wall curves inward, is black band, which may have served as ground line. Other non-joining fragments with pottery lot. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6). FIG. 355. Black-figure pottery fragment, P 1291 (Cat. 130).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

241

paint visible on the animal’s body. Crude blob rosettes with a few incised scratches fill the background. Interior unglazed. Fine, pale yellow clay (Munsell 5Y 7/3). 131. BLACK-FIGURE POTTERY FRAGMENT P 1292 (G 19-82) (Fig. 356) Discovered June 21, 1983, in area G/1,13–19/1,8, at 332.880. P. H.: 0.057 m. P. W.: 0.052 m.

Rim sherd of open vessel, apparently a globular bowl or cup with wide, everted rim. Base not preserved. On exterior, crudely drawn motifs resembling butterf ly and cross in black slip, with diagonal zigzags on rim. Black slip covers inside of rim. Fine, soft, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6).

FIG. 357. Black-figure pottery fragment, P 1658 (Cat. 132).

seems to be the face of a feline, perhaps a lion. Visible are parts of both eyes, one with a sharp canthus typical of felines; inner and outer parts of one ear; and perhaps traces of a mane to the left of the face. Judging by the orientation of the streaks on the interior, the head is shown cocked down on the right. Fine, pale yellow clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 133. MENDER BR 802 (G 19-35) (Figs. 358, 359) Discovered June 16, 1980, in area G/8–19/16, at 333.03. L.: 0.083 m. MAX. W.: 0.012 m. H. (PINS): 0.009 m.

Mender consists of two thin oval plates. Toward each end, both plates are pierced through by bronze rivets with small f lat heads on both sides.

FIG. 356. Black-figure pottery fragment, P 1292 (Cat. 131).

132. BLACK-FIGURE POTTERY FRAGMENT P 1658 (G 18-66) (Fig. 357) Discovered June 15–16, 2000, in area G/14,18– 18/17,20 and 19/1, at 332.699. MAX. P. L.: 0.036 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.022 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.003 m.

Corinthian black-figured body sherd from an open vessel. Streaked black glaze on interior. Black glaze and incised lines on exterior represent what

FIG. 358. Top view of mender, BR 802 (Cat. 133).

242

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

m. The folded end of the sheet creates a tubular socket 0.004 m. in diameter, into which the ends of a separately made handle would have been inserted. The edges of the sheet are now broken all around. Compare Isthmia VII, no. 115.

FIG. 359. Profile view of mender BR 802 (Cat. 133).

The plates are bowed outward away from each other at the center, leaving a gap between them of 0.005–0.010 m. Seemingly used to secure something between the two plates, perhaps the broken wall of a vessel. While the use of bronze to mend ceramics is attested, it is very rare outside of Etruria; lead is the usual material: see Rotroff 2011, 121; Guldager Bilde and Handberg, 462–464. 134. HANDLE ATTACHMENT BR 757 (F 19-11) (Fig. 360) Discovered July 2, 1979, in area F/7–19/3,4, at 332.87. P. L.: 0.031 m. P. H.: 0.022 m.

Bronze sheet is folded over and perforated twice for attachment with rivets to the wall of a vessel such as a situla. One rivet still intact. The space between the two halves of the sheet is 0.002

FIG. 360. Handle attachment, BR 757 (Cat. 134).

135. KYLIX HANDLE BR 809 (F 19-20) (Fig. 361) Discovered April 29, 1980, in area F/18,19–19/16, at 333.07. P. L.: 0.074 m. P. L. (HANDLE ONLY): 0.064 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.007 m.

Fragment of bronze handle of kylix with small part of body attached to handle root. Round in cross section, handle tapers away from body to a minimum thickness of 0.003 m. and breaks off just at point where handle curves back toward body. Compare Olynthus X, 204, no. 647, pl. 53.

FIG. 361.

Kylix handle, BR 809 (Cat. 135).

136. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 1717 (G 19-94) (Fig. 362) Discovered June 29, 2001, in area G/2–19/18, at 333.068. H.: 0.037 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.056 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.032 m.

Mended from 11 fragments; parts of rim, one handle, and wall missing. False ring foot with slightly concave underside featuring central raised disk. Wall rises in gentle convex curve to simple rounded lip. Black glazed interior. Pattern decoration on exterior features black continuous horizontal zigzag at rim, thin black line below, reserved band, then broad red band, then reserved band with fine black line, then broad black band, then reserved band. Black band at junction of foot and wall. Underside is decorated with black

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 362.

243

Miniature kotyle, P 1717 (Cat. 136).

band on concave part of underside, and at least one black circle on reserved central disk. Handles glazed black. Concerning date, horizontal zigzag was introduced to pattern kotylai in second half of 6th century B.C., continuing into middle of the 5th century. See discussion in Corinth XIII, 105 and 123, and compare no. 285-1, dated to first half of 5th century B.C. See also Corinth VII, v, 68, and compare no. 136, although not classified as miniature. For examples from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus see Barfoed 2009, 125, nos. 84–85. Other examples found within the Heroön are P 538 and P 576. Fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 137. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 580 (G 19-58) (Fig. 363) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:17, excavated June 11–13, 1980, in area G/1,18–19/1,18, at 333.27– 332.85. H.: 0.045 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.061 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.039 m.

Mended from three fragments. One-third of wall, two-thirds of base preserved. Handles missing. Small kotyle with slight splayed ring foot. Wall rises steeply with slight convex curve. Underside of foot has central dot and thin concentric circles of faded glaze, probably black, then thick black circle. Red band on inside of foot, with trace of superimposed black line. Resting surface reserved except for thin line of black glaze along outer edge. Outside of foot red. On wall above foot small dark black band, then rest of body covered with brown-black glaze. (Possible brown band near rim.) Inside glazed black. Miniature form of Corinthian Conventionalizing kotyle: see Corinth VII, v, 68, and for the profile compare no. 131, dated to the last quarter of the 6th century.

FIG. 363.

Miniature kotyle, P 580 (Cat. 137).

Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). Hesperia 1980, 65 and pl. 24:g. 138. MINIATURE KOTYLE P 582 (G 19-60) (Figs. 364, 365) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:5, excavated May 16–19, 1980, in area G/5,6–19/5,6, at 333.69– 333.03. H.: 0.049 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.070 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.036 m.

Mended from 11 fragments, one handle and part of body missing. False splayed ring foot with concave underside. Ref lex handle formed as strip of clay with ends attached to rim, center pinched

FIG. 364.

Miniature kotyle, P 582 (Cat. 138).

244

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 365. Interior of miniature kotyle P 582 (Cat. 138).

FIG. 366.

Miniature kantharos, P 1541 (Cat. 139).

out to form triangular shape. Exterior shows horizontal ribbing from paring of clay. No certain traces of glaze. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4) with gray core (Munsell 7.5YR 7/0). Hesperia 1980, 65 and pl. 24:g.

140. MINIATURE BOWL P 1569 (F 18-82) (Fig. 367) Discovered June 27, 1997, in area F/3–18/4, at 332.511. H.: 0.023 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.055 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.027 m.

139. MINIATURE KANTHAROS P 1541 (G 1985) (Fig. 366) Discovered August 27, 1991, in area G/11–19/7, at 332.90–332.80. H.: 0.056 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.057 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.031 m.

Mended from two fragments. Rim slightly chipped. Disk foot. Wall rises from foot in concave curve, then strong f lare with convex curve to slightly incurved rim. Nipple on f loor of bowl. Reddish-brown f laking glaze overall. See Corinth XIII, 148–149, for similar examples of Classical date. Numerous examples, now missing, were found in the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 156–157, nos. 193–195. Other examples from within the Heroön are P 482, P 1655 and P 1742, and from northwest of the Heroön come P 1571 and P 1654 (see Fig. 71). Three more examples of late-4th-century

Mended from nine fragments. Part of rim missing. Flared false ring foot with slightly concave underside. Two concentric incised circles on underside. Wall f lares with maximum diameter at shoulder, then curves inward sharply. Inset f lared rim. Vertical, angled strap handles attached at rim and shoulder. Black glaze overall, now appearing light brown and worn in areas. Argive miniature kantharos: see Caskey and Amandry, 196, no. 199 (Argive Heraion); Cook, 42–44 (Agamemnoneion at Mycenae); Biers, 406–407 (Phlious). Comparable examples from within the Heroön are P 526, P 575, P 581, P 583, P 588, and P 1313 (see Fig. 70). A miniature one-handled kantharos, Cat. 149, was found outside the Heroön to the northwest (cf. Cat. 25). Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 367.

Miniature bowl, P 1569 (Cat. 140).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

245

date come from outside the Heroön to the west: P 1245, P 1265, and P 1266. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 141. KRATERISKOS P 448 (F 18-13) (Fig. 368) Discovered June 28, 1979, in area F/11–18/12, at 332.64. H.: 0.016 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.030 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.018 m.

Mended from four fragments. Small chips missing. Disk foot. Wall rises in convex curve with no offset from foot. Low inset rim imitating neck and rim of krater. Two vertical handles pressed against wall just below rim to imitate column handles with handle plates. Dull black glaze overall. Compare Corinth XVIII, i, nos. 509–511, of late Archaic to Classical date; also Biers, 412, no. 39, from Phlious. Numerous examples, now missing, were found in the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 154–155, nos. 186–191. Other krateriskoi of this shape from the Heroön are P 523, P 527, P 530, P 537, P 578, P 1618, and P 1706 (see Fig. 72). Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

FIG. 368.

Krateriskos, P 448 (Cat. 141).

FIG. 369. Krateriskos, P 1605 (Cat. 142)

Inset f lared rim. Glazed black overall. Comparable is P 521, also from within the Heroön. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). 143. MINIATURE FOOTED CUP P 579 (G 19-57) (Figs. 370, 371) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:5, excavated May 16–19, 1980, in area G/5,6–19/5,6, at 333.09– 333.03. H.: 0.039 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.062 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.030 m.

Mended from two fragments, about one-third of wall and one handle missing. Partially restored in painted plaster. Strongly splayed false ring foot. Underside of foot slightly concave. Foot and wall form one continuous concave curve. Wall then rises in convex curve to simple rounded lip. Horizontal projecting lug handle at rim. No certain traces of glaze. Compare examples from

142. KRATERISKOS P 1605 (F 18-90) (Fig. 369) Discovered May 8, 1998, in area F/13–18/18, at 332.141–332.009. H.: 0.030 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.042 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0046 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.029 m.

Intact save for parts of rim and both handles. Disk foot with slight lip on upper side of foot and tapering profile. Recessed circular underside. Wall f lares out with slight convex curve to widest diameter at shoulder. Handles attached at shoulder.

FIG. 370.

Miniature footed cup, P 579 (Cat. 143).

246

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

above rim. Small pedestal foot flares out in simple curve. Underside very concave. Traces of heavy slip in areas. Another example, P 1543, also comes from within the area of the Heroön. Compare cups from Phlious votive deposit, attributed to local workshop of Phlious. Similar fabric observed in architectural terracottas from Phlious votive deposit. Gritty, very pale brown clay with many large inclusions (Munsell 10YR 7/4).

FIG. 371. Interior of miniature footed cup P 579 (Cat. 143).

Phlious votive deposit, attributed to local Phliasian workshop: Biers, 415–416, nos. 51–57. Perhaps related to shape of Cat. 89. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4).

145. KALATHISKOS P 528 (G 19-17) (Figs. 373, 374) Discovered May 7, 1980, in area G/7,8–19/5, at 333.08. H. (TO RIM): 0.022 m. P. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.026 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.047 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.026 m.

Mended from 11 fragments. About two-thirds of handle missing, and hole in base, now restored in painted plaster. Very slight disk foot. Wall f lares out, then rises with slight contraction to f laring rim. Arched basket handle originally attached at insides of rim. Traces of black glaze bands on inte-

144. MINIATURE FOOTED CUP P 1542 (G 19-86) (Fig. 372) Discovered August 27, 1991, in area G/11–19/7, at 332.90–332.80. H. (TO RIM): 0.047 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.051 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.057 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.022 m.

Intact footed cup, crude and handmade. Deep hemispherical body with undifferentiated rim. Three vertical strap handles pressed against rim, rising slightly

FIG. 372.

Miniature footed cup, P 1542 (Cat. 144).

FIG. 373.

Kalathiskos, P 528 (Cat. 145).

FIG. 374. Interior of kalathiskos P 528 (Cat. 145).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

rior and exterior. Underside reserved. Shape comparable to type 2 beveled kalathiskoi, although with basket handle. See Corinth XVIII, i, 22–25, and compare nos. 555 and 556, dated to 6th century B.C. Compare also an example from Phlious: Biers, 413, no. 41. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Hesperia 1981, 65 and pl. 24:f. 146. KALATHISKOS P 533 (F 19-26) (Figs. 375, 376) Discovered April 29, 1980, in area F/14–19/9, at 332.95. H.: 0.052 m. P. DIAM. (RIM): 0.093 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.058 m.

Mended from 12 fragments. False convex ring foot with concave underside. Juncture of base and wall

247

accented by incised groove. Sharp, concave, f laring wall ending in thick out-turned lip. Swelling of rim visible at one break suggests possible handle. Faint traces of brown-black glaze overall. Comparable kalathiskoi from Agamemnoneion at Mycenae: Cook, 46; also Argive Heraion: Caskey and Amandry, 195, nos. 190–193 Other examples seen in Argos Museum storerooms, including two examples with loop handles attached to rim. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). Hesperia 1981, 64 and pl. 24:d. 147. MINIATURE PLATE P 651 (G 19-68) (Figs. 377, 378) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:15, excavated June 10, 1980, in area G/11,16–19/16,18, at 333.32– 332.76. H.: 0.006 m. DIAM.: 0.038 m.

Small chip missing from side, otherwise intact. Low miniature plate with slightly concave resting

FIG. 377. FIG. 375.

Miniature plate, P 651 (Cat. 147).

Kalathiskos, P 533 (Cat. 146).

FIG. 376. Interior of kalathiskos P 533 (Cat. 146).

FIG. 378. Interior of miniature plate P 651 (Cat. 147).

248

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

surface. Slight wall rises to projecting rounded lip. Exterior reserved. Narrow red band on rim, followed by broad red band on wall. On f loor, three concentric red circles. Compare a larger version of the shape with similar decoration, dated to the first half of the 5th century, from Stele Shrine A in Corinth: Corinth VII, v, no. 342. Similar miniature vases, identified as saucers, were found in the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus but are now missing: Barfoed 2009, 159– 160, nos. 204–207. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 8/4). 148. MINIATURE PHIALE P 662 (G 19-74) (Figs. 379, 380) Discovered in pottery lot G 19:17, excavated June 11, 1980, in area G/1,18–19/1,18, at 333.27– 332.85. H.: 0.019 m. P. DIAM. (RIM): 0.052 m.

Mended from five fragments. Most of rim and small part of wall not preserved. Flat resting surface with slight thickening at center. Corresponding swelling on interior, probably very worn omphalos. Squat, convex wall. Rounded lip with slight projection. Traces of dull red wash on interior. Classical. See Corinth XVIII, i, 31–34, and compare no. 426. Compare also Corinth VII, v, nos. 291 and 292, dated to the second half of the 5th century. Similar examples, now missing, were found in the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 161, nos. 211–213. Fine, soft, very pale brown clay with some inclusions (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 380. Interior of miniature phiale P 662 (Cat. 148). 149. MINIATURE ONE-HANDLED KANTHAROS P 1567 (F 18-78) (Fig. 381) Discovered June 20, 1997, in area F/1–18/17, at 332.634.

Mended from two fragments. Missing handle, parts of lip and upper wall. Rather worn black glaze inside and out. Low ring foot with interior nipple. Concave underside. Body f lares sharply outward. Short but sharp shoulder. Offset upper wall f lares slightly. Traces of handle attachment at lip and shoulder. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6).

FIG. 381. Miniature one-handled kantharos, P 1567 (Cat. 149). FIG. 379.

Miniature phiale, P 662 (Cat. 148).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

150. MINIATURE KOTHON P 1267 (E 19-34) (Figs. 382, 383) Discovered June 20, 1983, in area E/13–19/2, at 332.224. H.: 0.019 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.042 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.0193 m.

Mended from many fragments. Complete except for very small fragments of body and most of handle. Flat bottom with visible string marks. Large nipple on interior f loor. Wall rises in double curve from concave to convex. Overhanging rim sloping inward. One triangular projection with two small, broken lumps of clay remains from attachment of handle, perhaps a horizontal ribbon handle with horn-like projections at either end. Glazed overall, except possibly under handle. Dull, thinly applied glaze, black to dark red-brown in color. Compare Corinth XV, iii, 337, nos. 2037–2038, pl. 73, dated to second half of 6th century B.C.; see also Agora XII, no. 1387, dated to late 7th century. Similar examples, now missing, were found in the

FIG. 382.

Miniature kothon, P 1267 (Cat. 150).

FIG. 383. Interior of miniature kothon P 1267 (Cat. 150).

249

Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 164, nos. 220–221. Fine, hard, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 7/3). 151. PERIRRHANTERION FRAGMENTS P 547 a–h (F 19-43) (Figs. 384–388) Discovered April 24–May 1, 1980, in pottery lots F 19: 6–8 and 19, in area F/1,20–19/6,20, at 333.89– 332.77. Frag. a Frag. b Frag. c Frag. d P. L.: 0.128 m. 0.165 m. 0.155 m. 0.070 m. P. W.: 0.082 m. 0.068 m. 0.075 m. 0.068 m. P. TH.: 0.039 m. 0.041 m. 0.034 m. 0.026 m.

P. L.: P. W.: P. TH.:

Frag. e 0.072 m. 0.057 m. 0.027 m.

Frag. f 0.131 m. 0.081 m. 0.046 m.

Frag. g 0.056 m. 0.075 m. 0.034 m.

Frag. h 0.078 m. 0.067 m. 0.040 m.

Eight fragments of rim of large open vessel, probably perirrhanterion. Fragments (c) and (g) join, as do fragments (a) and (f ). Rim has f lat upper surface and overhanging lip with molded profile. Full profile preserved on fragment (f ): two convex bands, a f lat tainia, then another convex band. Fragments (a), (b), (c), (g), and (h) also preserve parts of molded profile. Fragments (a) and (f ) preserve inside edge of rim, where it joins body of perirrhanterion. Fragments (d) and (e) preserve only inside edge of rim. From curvature of rim, original diameter of perirrhanterion can

FIG. 384. Perirrhanterion fragments, P 547a–h (Cat. 151).

250

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 385. Perirrhanterion fragments with inscription P 547a and f (Cat. 151).

FIG. 386. Drawing of perirrhanterion fragments with inscription P 547a and f (Cat. 151).

be estimated at 0.77 m. Upper surface of rim has clean, pinkish-white slip (Munsell 7.5YR 8/2). Fragments (a) and (f ) bear part of an incised inscription: ]ΚΙΠΠΟΕ[. The letters are roughly incised, with stray tails added to the second pi and the omicron as a result of slips of the writing implement. The first five letters are likely to represent the end of a personal name, e.g. Leukippos, in the genitive; the omicron serves for the diphthong - ου. The epsilon then belongs to a new word. The most economical restoration is a simple statement of ownership, -]κίππου ε[ἰμί ], “I belong to -kippos.” In the setting of the Heroön, or in the Sanctuary of Zeus in general, one might expect the hero or the god to be the owner, however. A more likely possibility is that the inscription records the victory of the dedicator of the basin: [ὁ δεῖνος ὁ -]κίππου ἐ[νίκησε], “So-and-so son of -kippos was victorious.” Alternatively, it may record the name of the maker, ἐ[ποίησε]. Coarse, pale red clay with numerous large inclusions (Munsell 7.5R 7/4). Hesperia 1981, 64 and 24:b. 152. PERIRRHANTERION COLUMN SHAFT FRAGMENT AT 83a (F 18-35) (Fig. 389) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. P. H.: 0.252 m. MAX. P. DIAM.: 0.235 m. P. TH.: 0.022 m.

Mended from numerous smaller fragments and now partially restored in painted plaster. A second,

FIG. 387. Rim of perirrhanterion fragments P 547a and f (Cat. 151).

FIG. 388. Underside of rim of perirrhanterion fragments P 547a and f (Cat. 151).

FIG. 389. Perirrhanterion column shaft fragment, AT 83a (Cat. 152).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

251

non-joining part of same shaft, AT 83b (G18-32), discovered June 3, 1980, in G/12–18/15, at 332.67. Part of hollow shaft shaped on exterior to resemble Doric column shaft. Original ends of shaft not preserved, although just before break at one end, shaft begins to f lare outward. Twelve f lutes preserved of an estimated original 24. Coarse clay with gray core (Munsell 7.5YR 6.5/0). Exterior slipped with fine, smooth, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2) discolored in one area (Munsell 5YR 8/1). Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 46:d (fragment AT 83a). 153. PERIRRHANTERION BASE FRAGMENT P 486 (F 18-47) (Figs. 390, 391) Discovered in pottery lot F 18:2, excavated June 19–25, 1979, in area F/1,20–18/1,20, at 333.34– 332.80. MAX. P. L.: 0.132 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.174 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.033 m. EST. DIAM. (INNER CORE OF SHAFT): 0.186 m. EST. DIAM. (BASE): at least 0.426 m.

Mended from four fragments. Small, non-joining pieces with pottery. Section of perirrhanterion base preserving part of the sloping outer wall of the base. At outer edge of wall is trace of the side wall of base. At inner edge of wall, fragment begins to curve upward for junction with perirrhanterion shaft. Also preserved is inner surface of hollow core of shaft. Underside of fragment is concave. Upper surface of wall is decorated with grooved and rounded relief bands, one group of three at outer edge of wall, and a single close to

FIG. 391. Profile and upper surface of perirrhanterion base fragment P 486 (Cat. 153).

inner edge. Upper surface also slipped, and traces of black glaze are visible. Cat. 154 perhaps from same perirrhanterion. Shape and decoration comparable to 5th-century examples from Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth: Corinth XVIII, i, 75–77, and see esp. nos. 665 and 666. Coarse, very pale brown to yellow clay with large inclusions (Munsell 10YR 8/5). 154. PERIRRHANTERION BASE FRAGMENT P 531 (F 19-24) (Figs. 392–394) Discovered April 28, 1980, in pottery lot F 19:7, area F/1,20–19/6,20, at 333.89–333.02. MAX. P. L.: 0.080 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.095 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.034 m.

FIG. 390. Perirrhanterion base fragment, P 486 (Cat. 153).

Perhaps from same perirrhanterion as Cat. 153, but does not join. Section of perirrhanterion base preserving part of the sloping outer wall of the base. At outer edge of wall is trace of the side wall of base. Underside of fragment is concave. Group of three grooved and rounded relief bands on upper surface near outer edge. Upper surface seems slipped. No certain traces of black glaze. See Cat. 153 for parallels.

252

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 392. Perirrhanterion base fragment, P 531 (Cat. 154).

FIG. 394. Profile and upper surface of perirrhanterion base fragment P 531 (Cat. 154).

FIG. 393. Perirrhanterion base fragment P 531 (Cat. 154).

Coarse, very pale brown to yellow clay with large inclusions (Munsell 10YR 8/5). 155. PERIRRHANTERION RIM FRAGMENT P 487 (F 18-48) (Fig. 395) Discovered June 28, 1979, in pottery lot F 18:2, area F/1,20–18/1,20, at 333.34–332.80. MAX. P. L.: 0.106 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.079 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.048 m.

Preserved is single fragment of projecting rim of perirrhanterion, broken away at both sides and bottom. Vertical face of rim consists of beveled fascia above straight fascia, above large cyma reversa. Bottom of cyma reversa marks

FIG. 395. Perirrhanterion rim fragment, P 487 (Cat. 155).

lower edge of vertical face of rim, which then jogs inward to rejoin wall of perirrhanterion. Thick groove sets off bottom of cyma reversa from rest of underside of rim. Upper surface of rim is broad and f lat. Inner edge of rim preserves start of concave slope of bowl. Broken sides of fragment reveal how rim was formed: outer surfaces of rim were wrapped around a central core of clay. Surfaces slipped, and vertical face and underside of rim preserve traces of black glaze. Coarse pink clay with heavy inclusions in core (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

253

156. PERIRRHANTERION RIM FRAGMENT P 1272 (E 19-35) (Figs. 396–399) Discovered June 7, 1983, in area E/18–19/11, at 332.607. MAX. P. L.: 0.420 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.112 m. MAX. P. H.: 0.059 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.926 m.

Mended from six fragments. Section of projecting rim of perirrhanterion. Full profile of vertical face of rim preserved: half-round at upper edge, then broad relief band, then f lat fillet, then two thin bands, then fillet, then broad relief band. Bottom of vertical face of rim overhangs, so that underside jogs upward and inward before rejoining wall of perirrhanterion. Traces of red on upper fillet of vertical face. Creamy buff slip on upper surface of rim. (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 399. Profile of perirrhanterion rim fragment P 1272 (Cat. 156).

Rim profile very similar to Cat. 151. Coarse pink clay with large inclusions (Munsell 5YR 8/4). 157. PERIRRHANTERION RIM FRAGMENT P 1662 (F 18-123) (Fig. 400) Discovered May 11, 2000, in area F/1,3–18/10, at 332.485–332.266. MAX. P. H.: 0.121 m. MAX. P. L.: 0.480 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.153 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.708 m.

FIG. 396. Top of perirrhanterion rim fragment, P 1272 (Cat. 156).

Part of bowl and rim of basin, perhaps perirrhanterion. Mended from three fragments. Convex curve with thickening profile toward rim. Flat rim with sharp bevel on exterior, slight bevel on interior. Traces of slip on exterior; better preserved on rim and interior. No trace of glaze. Coarse pink clay with inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 397. Underside of rim of perirrhanterion fragment P 1272 (Cat. 156).

FIG. 398. Perirrhanterion rim fragment P 1272 (Cat. 156).

FIG. 400. Perirrhanterion rim fragment, P 1662 (Cat. 157).

254

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

158. STONE BASE A 158 (F 18-61) (Fig. 401) Discovered June 19–25, 1979, in area of F 18 (area of Layer), at 333.34–332.80. P. H.: 0.115 m. DIAM.: 0.235 m.

Fragment of rough block of soft yellow poros limestone is broken away at top and through center. A roughly circular, f lat surface projects ca. 0.05 m. from one side of the stone, which may have served as a base for a column or other support. The irregular contours of the rest of the block suggest that it was designed to be embedded in the ground. FIG. 402.

FIG. 401.

Stone figurine, SS 3 (Cat. 159).

Stone base, A 158 (Cat. 158).

159. STONE FIGURINE SS 3 (F 19-5) (Figs. 402–406) Discovered July 2, 1979, in area F/16–19/5, at 332.90. P. H.: 0.050 m. MAX. W.: 0.029 m. MAX. TH.: 0.022 m.

Fragment of a figurine preserving upper body of a human figure holding a smaller figure at chest. Surfaces are extremely worn, obscuring much of the original detail. Larger figure seems female, with long hair, as indicated by a horizontal incised line at shoulder level along the back. Left side of head may be damaged, but large circular depression may represent left ear exposed high on head. Left arm hangs stiff ly at side. Right arm is bent to support the second, smaller figure. On back, incised lines separate arms from torso. An additional set of vertical carvings on the back creates a thicker, rectangular area below the hairline. This

FIG. 403. Drawing of stone figurine, SS 3 (Cat. 159).

FIG. 404. Left side of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

255

160. TERRACOTTA FIGURINE TC 117 (G 19-13) (Figs. 407, 408) Discovered May 7, 1980, in area G/11,12–19/8, at 333.17. P. H.: 0.064 m. MAX. W.: 0.036 m. max. Th.: 0.033 m.

Mended from two fragments. A third, non-joining, handmade fragment possibly belongs. Figurine of male sitting upright with legs stretched out in front. Figure’s lower legs and left arm not preserved. Left arm originally extended away from body. Right arm is bent and reaches up to touch lower right edge of face. Body rather FIG. 405. Right side of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159).

FIG. 406. Back of stone figurine SS 3 (Cat. 159).

feature may represent the back of a chair, in which case the figurine should be restored as seated. The shape of the smaller figure suggests a large head facing right at the larger figure’s breast. The larger figure’s right arm embraces smaller figure’s torso. A small, round, modeled area between head and torso may represent smaller figure’s arm, while a modeled, L-shaped area to right of smaller figure may represent legs, bent at the knees. If larger figure is female and smaller figure is a child, then this kourotrophic scheme may be intended to represent Hypsipyle holding Opheltes. Archaic-Classical? Sugary, white porous stone (Munsell 10YR 8/1). Hesperia 1980, 194 and pl. 44:e.

FIG. 407.

Terracotta figurine, TC 117 (Cat. 160).

FIG. 408. Right side of terracotta figurine TC 117 (Cat. 160).

256

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

plump, though lower torso slightly pinched in from behind. Some modeling at rump to suggest buttocks. The formation of the head is curious. The back of the head is a rounded stump of clay rising from the torso. To this stump has been attached a somewhat larger, f lattened piece of clay, to which features of face have been added: Mouth is an attached strip of clay. Eyes consist of two dots of clay. A larger lump forms a snout-like nose with two vertical impressions to represent nostrils. Hair is shown as vertical and slanted cuts in head, beginning on forehead and continuing onto rounded back of head. No sign of slip or glaze. Possibly a representation of the baby Opheltes. The pose recalls that of a child seated on the ground, as seen more clearly in the bronze figurine, Cat. 271 (see further discussion ad loc). The simplistic treatment of the facial features and the use of a separate, f lat piece of clay have given rise to the opinion in previous publications that the figure is holding a mask up to his face. The fact that the delineation of the hair cuts across both the f lat piece and the stump behind suggests, however, that the f lat piece represents the figure’s face itself, just rendered in a very crude fashion. The figure thus holds his hand up to his chin or mouth, a gesture frequently shown in representations of children. Its origins may lie in Egypt, where the image is not only common but also part of the hieroglyph for youth: HadzisteliouPrice, 95. Parallels among Greek figurines include a late Archaic terracotta figurine from Megara Hyblaea (Hadzisteliou-Price, 96, 100); 5th-century examples from Rhodes (Hadzisteliou-Price, 99), Athens (Kerameikos XV, no. 183), and Thebes (Kabirenheiligtum V, no. 281); and later figurines of Harpokrates (Hadzisteliou-Price, 101). None of these examples, however, comes close to the Nemea figurine in its extreme crudeness. This property may suggest an Archaic date, but unskilled hands of any other period as well could have produced such a work. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2). Hesperia 1981, 65 and pl. 25:g; Guide, 29 and fig. 8; Miller 2002, 241 and fig. 4 (color); Guide2, 37 and fig. 18 (color).

161. HORSE FIGURINE TC 115 (G 19-2) (Figs. 409, 410) Discovered May 5, 1980, in area G/8–19/14, at 333.23. MAX. P. L.: 0.062 m. MAX. P. H.: 0.028 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.021 m.

Fragment of horse figurine. Missing are parts of all four legs, tail, and top of head. Handmade with crudely formed features. No trace of slip or glaze. Fine, reddish-yellow clay with few inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6).

FIG. 409.

Side of horse figurine, TC 115 (Cat. 161).

FIG. 410.

Top of horse figurine TC 115 (Cat. 161).

162. HEAD OF ANIMAL FIGURINE TC 120 (G 19-23) (Figs. 411, 412) Discovered June 10, 1980, in area G/15–19/3, at 332.66. MAX. P. H.: 0.026 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.016 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.017 m.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

257

163. LIMB OF ANIMAL FIGURINE TC 125 (F 19-40) (Fig. 413) Discovered June 13, 1980, in area F/7–19/17, at 333.04. P. L.: 0.044 m. W.: 0.014 m. TH.: 0.009 m.

Fragment of leg, probably from large horse figurine. Traces of paring. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

FIG. 411. Head of animal figurine, TC 120 (Cat. 162).

FIG. 413. Limb of animal figurine, TC 125 (Cat. 163).

FIG. 412. Right side of head of animal figurine TC 120 (Cat. 162).

Figurine fragment preserving head and part of neck of animal, perhaps a bull. Conical, beak-like muzzle, broken at extremity. Broken projections at side of head may be traces of horns. Handmade. Traces of paring on muzzle. No traces of slip. Traces of two black glaze bands around neck, intersected by vertical band on proper right side of neck. Another band runs between projections at top of head, bisected by a band that comes up back of neck and down front of head to muzzle. For similar scheme of glazing compare Corinth XII, nos. 34 and 35, both identified as dogs and dated to the Archaic period. Fine, very pale brown clay with small inclusions (Munsell 10YR 7/3).

164. MALE FIGURINE TC 116 (G 19-10) (Figs. 414–416) Discovered May 16, 1980, in area G/8–19/5, at 332.98. P. H.: 0.043 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.023 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.009 m.

Fragment of male figurine missing most of legs and arms. Handmade. Figure wears conical hat resembling pilos. Face is distinguished only by a long beak-like nose pinched from the clay. Back of the head detailed with five vertical rolls of clay representing locks of hair reaching down to the neck. Torso has slight curvature, so that upper torso shifts slightly to the proper right side. Stubs of limbs are worn, but break of right arm suggests that it was originally extended forward. Left arm seems to have been extended away from body, whether to side or forward is unclear. Legs are not held together, as if figure was intended to be

258

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

mounted. Traces of white slip. Identification as Hermes proposed in Hesperia 1981, 65, on the basis of the pilos, but the hat is a common attribute in representation of males, both divine and mortal, child and adult alike: Corinth XVIII, iv, 73. Fine, reddish-yellow clay with some small inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6). Hesperia 1981, 65 and pl. 25:f.

FIG. 414. Male figurine, TC 116 (Cat. 164).

165. TERRACOTTA LEG TC 118 (G 19-16) (Fig. 417) Discovered May 16, 1980, in area G/7,8–19/5,6, at 332.98. H.: 0.051 m. MAX. W.: 0.015 m. MAX. TH.: 0.014 m.

Roughly modeled clay leg, intact. Foot shaped crudely as lump at angle to leg. No sign of attachment holes, though upper surface of leg has square damaged area where a projecting stump with suspension hole may have once been. If so, limb could have been made for an articulated doll. Molds for such legs with projecting bosses were found in the Potters’ Quarter at Corinth: Corinth XV, i, nos. 69 and 70. Otherwise, perhaps a freestanding votive, or else glued onto some figure. No traces of slip or glaze. Some blackening from fire. Fine, reddish-yellow clay with some small inclusions (Munsell 5YR 7/6).

FIG. 415. Right side of male figurine TC 116 (Cat. 164).

FIG. 417.

FIG. 416. Back of male figurine TC 116 (Cat. 164).

Terracotta leg, TC 118 (Cat. 165).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

166. FEMALE FIGURINE TC 121 (G 19-27) (Figs. 418, 419) Discovered June 10, 1980, in area G/15–19/17, at 333.21. MAX. P. H.: 0.048 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.033 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.018 m.

Fragment of female figurine preserving upper torso, head, and some of proper right arm. Left arm broken off at shoulder. Figure wears chiton with high belt under breasts, himation over left

259

shoulder. Raised area at left shoulder may be remains of left hand grasping himation. Features of face slightly worn. Hair pulled back behind head with central braid on crown. Slight ridge at top of head may represent a headdress or veil. Moldmade. Rear of figure fairly f lat and undetailed. No slip. Traces of black on chiton may be glaze or encrustation. Traces of burning on rear of figurine. Hesperia 1981, 65, identifies figurine as Demeter type, but could also represent a female votary. High-belted chiton and hairstyle suggest date in late 4th century B.C. or later. Fine, reddish-yellow clay with some small inclusions (Munsell 5YR 6.5/6). Hesperia 1981, 65 and pl. 25:e. 167. HORSE AND RIDER FIGURINE TC 126 a–b (F 19-42) (Fig. 420) Discovered April 28, 1980, in area F/6–19/10, at 333.18 m. MAX. P. H.: MAX. P. L.: MAX. P. TH.:

FIG. 418. Female figurine, TC 121 (Cat. 166).

FIG. 419. Right side of female figurine TC 121 (Cat. 166).

Frag. a 0.062 m. 0.054 m. 0.016 m.

Frag. b 0.036 m. 0.011 m. 0.009 m.

Fragment (a) intact, fragment (b) mended from three fragments. Fragment (a) preserves most of torso, front right leg, and parts of neck and rear right leg of horse. Also preserved are legs, torso, and parts of both arms of separately made rider figure. Fragment (b) preserves part of another leg

FIG. 420. Horse and rider figurine, TC 126a–b (Cat. 167).

260

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

of horse. All features very crudely shaped. Rider’s limbs are f lattened from being pressed against body and neck of horse. For similarly formed horse and rider figurines compare Corinth XII, nos. 23 and 25, of Archaic date. Fine, very pale brown clay with small inclusions (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 168. TORSO OF ANIMAL FIGURINE TC 104 (F 18-20) (Fig. 421) Discovered June 28–29, 1979, in area F 18, at 333.34–332.49. P. L.: 0.052 m. H. (BODY): 0.015 m.

FIG. 422. Top of torso of animal figurine, TC 119 (Cat. 169).

Preserved is body of quadruped with elongated torso. Missing all four legs and head. Fine clay, reddish-yellow to very pale brown at core (Munsell 5YR 7/6 to 10YR 7.3).

FIG. 423. Side of torso of animal figurine TC 119 (Cat. 169).

FIG. 421. Torso of animal figurine, TC 104 (Cat. 168).

169. TORSO OF ANIMAL FIGURINE TC 119 (G 19-22) (Figs. 422, 423) Discovered June 9, 1980, in area G/15–19/3, at 332.87. P. L.: 0.040 m. P. W.: 0.021 m. P. H.: 0.018 m.

170. HORSE AND RIDER FIGURINE TC 122 (G 19-33) (Fig. 424) Discovered May 14, 1980, in area G 19, at 333.14– 333.07. P. L.: 0.029 m. P. W.: 0.022 m. P. H.: 0.027 m.

Fragment of horse and rider figurine. Preserved are horse’s neck and start of head. On back of neck,

Fragment of figurine of quadruped, missing legs, head, and possibly tail. Slight curve to simply shaped body. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6). Similar: TC 180, TC 291. FIG. 424. Horse and rider figurine, TC 122 (Cat. 170).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 425.

261

Kerykeion, IL 324 (Cat. 171).

clay is pinched thin to represent mane. Bottom of fragment widens to make transition to body, now missing. Four strips of attached clay pressed f lat against upper and lower neck on both sides of mane are all that remain of attached rider. Fine clay, ranging from pink to very pale brown (Munsell 7.5YR 8/3 to 10YR 8/4). 171. KERYKEION IL 324 (F 18-1) (Fig. 425) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/11–18/19, at 332.77. L.: 0.579 m. MAX. W.: 0.091 m. MAX. TH. (SHAFT): 0.01 m.

An iron kerykeion (caduceus) with long, slightly tapering shaft, square in section. Head formed by long iron strip attached perpendicularly to shaft and hammered into an open-ended, figure-eight conformation. The ends of this conformation are f latter in section and rounded at the tips, suggesting two snake heads; traces of incised circles may indicate their eyes. One head is damaged. Very corroded. Illustrations of the kerykeion or caduceus in art exhibit a range of possibilities for the termination of the staff; for the most recent survey, see HalmTisserant and Siebert, 728–730. Close parallels to the shape of Cat. 171 include four actual bronze kerykeia of the 5th century B.C. from South Italy and Sicily: Crome, 117–119, nos. 1–4. Ranging in length from 0.46 to 0.75 m., all of them bear inscriptions that suggest that they were used by the official heralds of various poleis. The Nemea kerykeion lacks an inscription but may also constitute a dedication by a herald. Alternatively, it may have been chosen as an offering in the Heroön because of its role as an attribute of Hermes in his chthonic capacity and may have served either as an attachment for a statue or, what is more probable, as a freestanding votive. In addition to the

examples of votive kerykeia discussed by HalmTisserant and Siebert, there is a miniature votive bronze kerykeion ending in ram heads that was found in a deposit of votive bronzes from a Hellenistic house in Eretria: Kassapoglou, 250. Various forms of the device also appear on numerous terracotta votive plaques from the Sanctuary of Despoina at Lykosoura: see Kourouniotes, 67–70 and figs. 70–73. Hesperia 1980, 196 and pl. 47:b. 172. STRIGIL BR 729 (F 18-4) (Fig. 426) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/11–18/15, at 332.78. L.: 0.249 m. MAX. W.: 0.023 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Made from single strip of bronze of varying widths, to form handle and blade of strigil of common Classical type. Handle well preserved. Handle is f lat in section and extends away from spoon, then bends up and returns toward back of spoon. First part of handle extending away from blade has concave outline on both sides, varying in width from 0.015 m. to 0.012 m. and back to 0.015 m. At bend in handle, width jogs inward and then tapers to 0.007 m., which remains constant for most of the return of the handle. End of handle, however,

FIG. 426.

Strigil, BR 729 (Cat. 172).

262

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

bends twice more at right angles to form a jog. Width expands back to 0.015 m. over course of this, then tapers to a pointed tip. Blade, which is concave in section and very fragile, has been twisted to one side at its midpoint, and parts of its sides are missing. For comparanda, see Olynthus X, 172–180, esp. no. 518, pl. 32. Guide2, 46 and fig. 26 (color). 173. HORSE BIT IL 386 (F 19-46) (Fig. 427) Discovered April 29, 1980, in area F/18–19/17, at 333.16. MAX. L. (ACROSS REIN HOLDERS): 0.175 m. W. (ACROSS BIT): 0.137 m. MAX. TH.: 0.020 m.

Corroded iron horse bit mended with loops restored to varying degrees in epoxy. Bit consists of mouthpiece, two rein holders, and end pieces of a Type VIII horse bit (see discussion in Isthmia VII, 99–100, and compare no. 334) datable to the period from 450 to 340 B.C. Mouthpiece formed of two thick iron segments connected by interlocking loops that act as tongue depressor. Outer ends of mouthpiece have thinner segments capped by round heads. Two rein holders have S-curve shape with hoops at each end and at center. Center hoops of rein holders were originally attached to the thinner segments of the mouthpiece and held in place by the round heads of the mouthpiece. Still attached to two of the four end hoops of the rein holders are pieces formed of two hoops joined at right angles. Originally there would have been four of these pieces, one for each end hoop of the rein holders. Reins would have passed through the free hoops of these pieces. Miller 2002, 246 and fig. 5 (color).

FIG. 427.

Horse bit, IL 386 (Cat. 173).

174. JAVELIN POINT IL 389 (G 19-12) (Fig. 428) Discovered May 16, 1980, in area G/5–19/5, at 333.06. P. L.: 0.058 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.012 m.

Iron javelin point is pyramidal in shape. Attached to wide end is thin tang, 0.019 m. long and 0.004 m. thick, for insertion into javelin. Corroded, with slight damage to both ends. For the identification of points of this shape as javelin points, see Miller 2004, 69.

FIG. 428.

Javelin point, IL 389 (Cat. 174).

175. JAVELIN POINT IL 390 (G 19-20) (Fig. 429) Discovered June 10, 1980, in area G/13–19/18, at 333.27. P. L.: 0.058 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.011 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.011 m.

Iron point, pyramidal in shape. No trace of tang on wide end, but point is heavily corroded and may be damaged at both ends. For the identification of points of this shape as javelin points, see Miller 2004, 69. Similar: IL 328, IL 374, IL 381, IL 395, IL 481, IL 482.

FIG. 429. Javelin point, IL 390 (Cat. 175).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

263

176. STATUE FRAGMENT BR 807 (F 19-17) (Fig. 430) Discovered April 28, 1980, in area F/6–19/14, at 333.12. L.: 0.165 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.020 m.

Twisted shaft of hammered bronze tapers to a point. The thicker end is partly damaged but preserves a protruding tang that may have been used for attachment. Shaft is roughly oval in cross section, although hammering has created several facets along the length of it. On one side, four incised striations extend about 0.06 m. down the length of the piece from the thicker end. On the opposite side, a narrower striation extends 0.11 m. from the same end. Previous publications have identified this piece as representing a horn from a statue of a goat: e.g. Hesperia 1981, 64. There are more parallels, however, for its identification as a separately cast lock of hair from the statue of a human or divine figure. Compare examples from Olympia, generally dated to the Late Archaic and Early Classical periods: OF IX, 12–18.

FIG. 430.

FIG. 431. Polyhedron, BR 734 (Cat. 177). 178. HINGED BOX BR 1087 (E 19-9) (Fig. 432, 433) Discovered May 25, 1983, in area E/20–19/11, at 332.817. L.: 0.035 m. W.: 0.027 m. TH.: 0.009 m.

Hinged box composed of two bronze rectangular pieces attached at one short end by a bronze pin. One piece is made from a small rectangular sheet of bronze with the two long edges and one short edge folded up to form sides. The fourth edge is rolled into a tubular hinge for the bronze pin. In the middle of the sheet are three small holes, about 0.02 m. in diameter, arranged in an isosceles triangle such that the hole at the peak of the triangle is near the hinge and the two other holes are parallel to the short ends of

Statue fragment, BR 807 (Cat. 176).

177. POLYHEDRON BR 734 (F 18-34) (Fig. 431) Discovered June 25, 1979, in area F/20–18/20, at 332.95. H.: 0.051 m. W.: 0.049 m.

Large hollow object resembling a six-sided cube with eight triangular bevels at the corners. In each of two opposing sides of the object is a circular opening, 0.024 m. in diameter, as if to allow a rod or pole to pass through it. FIG. 432. Exterior view of hinged box, BR 1087 (Cat. 178).

264

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 433. Interior view of hinged box BR 1087 (Cat. 178).

FIG. 434. Hinged box fragment, BR 1533 (Cat. 179).

the piece. Aligned with these two holes are two rectangular notches in the long, up-folded sides. The other piece of the box is another bronze sheet that has been similarly folded up on its two long edges and one short edge. The long edges are perforated near the unfolded short end, and through these holes passes the bronze pin, which also passes through the hinge of the other piece, thus allowing the two pieces to fold and unfold. The pin is held in place by small heads at each end. Near the opposite short end of the piece, at about the midpoint between the long sides, another small hole has been made through which passes a bronze cotter pin that secures a small bronze ring 0.006 m. in diameter. The ends of the pin are splayed against the other side of the bronze sheet. In this position the small ring could be grasped for opening and closing the small box. For a discussion of comparanda and possible function, see Chapter 1 and Isthmia VII, 135–136 (no. 524). Hesperia 1984, 174 and pl. 34:b.

side are missing. As in Cat. 178, a small rectangular notch is seen on the preserved long side. The three holes are arranged differently, however. The hole at the peak of the triangle lies near the center of the sheet and the two base holes are arranged near the hinge end and parallel to it. Also preserved is the bronze hinge pin, which lacks the two small heads that would have held it in place. Missing is the other half of the box that would have been secured to the hinge with the pin.

179. HINGED BOX FRAGMENT BR 1533 (G 18-56) (Fig. 434) Discovered June 3, 2000, in area G/17–18/16, at 332.896–332.400 (layer). L.: 0.024 m. W.: 0.023 m. TH.: 0.009 m.

Two pieces of a smaller hinged box similar in construction to Cat. 178. Preserved is one-half of the box with the rolled hinge and three holes arranged in an isosceles triangle. Of the three upfolded sides, one long side and half of the short

180. SPEARHEAD IL 357 (F 18-70) (Fig. 435) Discovered August 1, 1979, in area F/20–18/16, at 332.83. P. L.: 0.172 m. MAX. W.: 0.025 m. MAX. DIAM. (SOCKET): 0.020 m.

Slightly corroded iron spearhead is largely intact. Two-sided leaf-shaped blade has slight midrib. Socket for shaft of spear formed by bending iron into hollow cone. Edge of socket is broken away and missing. Shape conforms to Baitinger’s Form A 5 for a throwing spear, attested at Olympia from contexts of mid-7th century through 5th century B.C. date: See OF XXIX, 46–47, and compare no. 659.

FIG. 435.

Spearhead, IL 357 (Cat. 180).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

181. SPEARHEAD IL 682 (F 18-93) (Fig. 436) Discovered May 5, 1998, in area F/14–18/14, at 332.728–332.479. MAX. P. L.: 0.122 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.045 m. MAX. DIAM. (SOCKET): 0.015 m.

Mended from seven fragments, with two non-joining fragments kept with pottery lot. Iron is heavily corroded, and the point of the spearhead is missing along with parts of its preserved length. Two-sided blade has midrib at socket end of blade. Blade f lares sharply away from socket, then begins leaf-shaped curve toward missing point. Socket for shaft of spear formed by bending iron into hollow cone. End of socket may be broken and part missing. Thick nodule on side of socket may simply be the result of corrosion. Shape conforms to Baitinger’s Form A 5 for a throwing spear, attested at Olympia from contexts of mid-7th century through 5th century B.C. date: See OF XXIX, 46–47, and compare e.g. no. 663.

FIG. 436.

Spearhead, IL 682 (Cat. 181).

FIG. 437. Side view of spearhead, IL 385 (Cat. 182).

FIG. 438.

Top view of spearhead IL 385 (Cat. 182).

183. ARROWHEAD IL 488 (G 19-78) (Fig. 439) Discovered June 20–22, 1983, in area G/1,13– 19/1,8, at ca. 332.880. P. L.: 0.047 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.018 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.007 m.

Leaf-shaped blade resembles large arrowhead with small part of projecting tang preserved at broader end. Very badly corroded iron. For a general discussion of the type, see OF XXIX, 8–11, and compare for the shape OF XXIX, 95, no. 7, although this example is of bronze, and 99–100, nos. 48–50, of iron. Similar: IL 330, IL 332, IL 483.

182. SPEARHEAD IL 385 (F 19-45) (Fig. 437, 438) Discovered June 26, 1980, in area F/7–19/6, at 332.65. P. L.: 0.240 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.032 m. MAX. DIAM. (SOCKET): 0.021 m.

Heavily corroded iron spearhead mended from two fragments. Point of the spearhead is freshly broken and missing. Slender, leaf-shaped blade without midrib. Socket for shaft of spear formed by bending iron into hollow cone. Shape conforms to Baitinger’s Form A 6 for a throwing spear, attested at Olympia from contexts of mid7th century through 5th century B.C. Date: See OF XXIX, 46–47, and compare e.g. no. 727. Similar: IL 310, IL 380.

265

FIG. 439.

Arrowhead, IL 488 (Cat. 183).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

266

184. SPEAR BUTT IL 384 (F 19-41) (Fig. 440) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area F/1–19/6, at 332.700. L.: 0.091 m. MAX. W.: 0.027 m. TH.: 0.003–0.005 m.

Formed from iron sheet folded around into cone with pointed end. Ends of sheet meet at pointed end but only describe a semi-circle at other, open end. Six small fragments of same object too difficult to mend were placed with pottery lot. Similar: IL 631.

m. is pierced through loom weight about 0.02 m. from top. Shape is comparable to Profile X conical loom weights of the second half of the 4th century B.C. from Corinth: for the development of the profile, see Corinth XII, 148–161, and compare e.g. no. 1167. Fine, reddish-yellow wash (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) over fine, pale brown clay (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2). 186. SPINDLE WHORL TC 124 (G 19-36) (Figs. 442, 443) Discovered April 30, 1980, in area F/14–19/15, at 333.04. H.: 0.032 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.047 m.

Flat resting surface f lares out slightly, then becomes truncated cone with f lat upper surface. Central bore measures 0.007 m. in diameter. Comparable in shape to Corinth XII, no. 1218, FIG. 440.

Spear butt, IL 384 (Cat. 184).

185. LOOM WEIGHT TC 123 (G 19-34) (Fig. 441) Discovered June 16, 1980, in area G/7–19/16, at 333.14. H.: 0.083 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.055 m.

Flat, circular resting surface. Body f lares outward from resting surface to point of maximum diameter, about 0.01 m. from bottom, then tapers inward to rounded point. Hole with diameter 0.005

FIG. 441.

Loom weight, TC 123 (Cat. 185).

FIG. 442. Side view of spindle whorl, TC 124 (Cat. 186).

FIG. 443. Top view of spindle whorl TC 124 (Cat. 186).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

267

dated to the Archaic period, although the clay is different. Coarse, gritty red clay (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8). 187. SICKLE BLADE IL 329 (F 18-40) (Fig. 444) Discovered June 27, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. P. L.: 0.074 m. MAX. W.: 0.016 m. TH.: 0.005 m.

Short blade of corroded iron increases in width toward rounded, curved end. Curved end is slightly bent in one spot but seems intact. Other end with shorter width has broken area, perhaps for an original projecting tang. For a survey of sickles found in Greek sanctuaries, see Kron, esp. 195– 215, and compare in particular the sickle blades from Rheneia, figs. 19a–b.

FIG. 445. Sickle blade, IL 333 (Cat. 188). 189. WHETSTONE FRAGMENT ST 509 (F 1922) (Fig. 446) Discovered May 1, 1980, in area F/5–19/12, at 333.07. L.: 0.260 m. W.: 0.169 m. MAX. TH.: 0.066 m.

Stone with two broad surfaces on opposites sides, one smooth and slightly concave, the other rough and convex. Broken at one end.

FIG. 444.

Sickle blade, IL 329 (Cat. 187).

188. SICKLE BLADE IL 333 (F 18-44) (Fig. 445) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.77. P. L.: 0.135 m. MAX. W.: 0.04 m. TH.: 0.003 m.

Large curved blade of corroded iron, narrower at one end. Broken away at broad end. Inner, concave edge of blade was originally sharp. Two circular holes along outer, convex edge, near tapering end of blade, for attachment of handle. For a survey of sickles found in Greek sanctuaries, see Kron, esp. 195–215, and compare in particular the sickle blades from Rheneia, figs. 19a–b.

FIG. 446.

Whetstone fragment, ST 509 (Cat. 189).

190. LAMP L 56 (F 18-8) (Fig. 447) Discovered June 27, 1979, in area F/11,12– 18/14,15, at 332.60. H.: 0.023 m. DIAM.: 0.076 m.

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing fragments of base and nozzle now restored in plaster. Raised base, slightly concave, with incised circle. Curving side wall with inward-sloping grooved rim. Narrow u-shaped bar handle. Thick nozzle. Dull brown-black glaze, now worn in places, covers all of lamp save reserved underside of foot. Comparable to Attic Type 24 A lamps

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

268

base. Comparable to Attic lamps of Type 21 B and C, as well as to Type IV lamps from Corinth, all datable to the 5th century B.C. and early 4th. See Agora IV, 46–49, and Corinth IV, ii, 39–42. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 192. LAMP L 58 (F 18-14) (Fig. 449) Discovered June 25, 1979, in area F/7,20–18/11,20, at 333.34–332.49. H.: 0.018 m. DIAM.: 0.071 m.

FIG. 447.

Lamp, L 56 (Cat. 190).

and Type V lamps from Corinth, datable to the 5th century B.C. See Agora IV, 63, and compare n. 243; also Corinth IV, ii, 42. Fine pink clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4). 191. LAMP L 57 (F 18-9) (Fig. 448) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. H.: 0.024 m. DIAM.: 0.066 m.

Mended from five fragments. Missing small part of base, about half of side wall, entire nozzle, and all but roots of f lat band handle. Slight raised base with inset circular area on underside. Side wall curves inward to rim. Dull black glaze all over, now worn and peeling. Comparable to Attic lamps of Type 21 B and C, as well as to Type IV lamps from Corinth, all datable to the 5th century B.C. and early 4th. See Agora IV, 46–49, and Corinth IV, ii, 39–42. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

Mended from five fragments. Missing is more than half of side wall, entire nozzle, and most of handle. Slight raised base, concave underneath. Curving side walls slope inward. Roots of f lat band handle preserved. Dull black glaze, chipped and peeling, covers all but reserved underside of

FIG. 449.

Lamp, L 58 (Cat. 192).

193. LAMP L 76 (G 19-21) (Fig. 450) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area G/16,17–19/12, at 333.19. H.: 0020 m. DIAM.: 0.082 m. FIG. 448.

Lamp, L 57 (Cat. 191).

Mended from numerous fragments. Missing small part of rim, now restored in plaster, and all but

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 450.

Lamp, L 76 (Cat. 193).

roots of f lat band handle. Concave resting surface, barely articulated from rest of lamp. Side wall curves inward to rim. Wide oval nozzle intrudes into shoulder area. Fleeting dull brownblack glaze over entire lamp. Comparable to Attic lamps of Type 21 A and early Type IV lamps from Corinth, datable from the end of the 6th century down to 480 B.C. See Agora IV, 44–45, and compare no. 161; also Corinth IV, ii, 39–42. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2-3). 194. LAMP L 77 (G 19-25) (Fig. 451) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area G/17–19/13, at 333.19. H. (BODY): 0.021 m. H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.036 m. DIAM.: 0.078 m.

Found with coin C 1639. Mended from nine fragments. Missing parts of base, side wall, rim, and entire nozzle, all now restored in plaster. Concave resting surface. Raised band handle. Curving side wall ends in nearly horizontal rim. Dull, f leeting brown glaze over all surfaces, and possible traces of added red decoration, including rings near rim and outside edge of resting surface. Comparable to Attic lamps of Type 21 A and early Type IV lamps from Corinth, datable from the end of the 6th century down to 480 B.C. See Agora IV, 44–45, and compare no. 160; also Corinth IV, ii, 39–42. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/2).

FIG. 451.

269

Lamp, L 77 (Cat. 194).

195. LAMP L 78 (F 19-23) (Fig. 452) Discovered April 30, 1980, in area F/14–19/15, at 333.04. H.: 0.034 m. DIAM.: 0.055 m. L. (WITH NOZZLE): 0.080 m.

Mended from two fragments. Missing most of handle save roots and small part of nozzle. Dull black glaze. Slightly raised base. Flat band handle, long f lat spout. Side wall is convex and slopes inward to thick, rolled rim. Comparable to Attic lamps of Type 30 B, datable from the mid-4th century into the first quarter of the 3rd century B.C. See Agora IV, 97-98, and compare no. 420. Compare also Lampes d’Argos, no. 69. Fine, pinkish-gray clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/2).

FIG. 452.

Lamp, L 78 (Cat. 195).

270

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

196. LAMP STAND L 184 (E 19-31) (Fig. 453) Discovered June 10, 1983, in area E/13–19/4, at 332.444. H.: 0.0153 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.060 m. MIN. DIAM. (STEM): 0.007 m.

Columnar stand, part of edge of base broken away, and top of stem broken all around. Flaring base with roughly squared edge, now very battered. Hollowed underside with visible marks from removal of clay. Concave columnar shaft, tapering upward. Three rings of a lightly incised spiral wind around center of column, and possible fugitive traces of paint were noted before cleaning. Top of stand is smooth and slightly indented. Closest parallel is Rudolph, 224–225, no. 68, fig. 13, pl. 31, from Mycenae. Fine, powdery, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 7/4).

FIG. 454. Grinding stone fragment, ST 423 (Cat. 197). 198. GRINDING STONE FRAGMENT ST 424 (F 18-28) (Fig. 455) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. MAX. P. L.: 0.163 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.120 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.053 m.

Coarse stone is roughly rectangular in shape, broken on one short and one long side. Rest of stone is worked into rounded shape. Plain, f lat grinding surface. Conforms to Archaic and Classical handstones, for which see Runnels, 119, and compare fig. 24.

FIG. 453. Lamp stand, L 184 (Cat. 196).

197. GRINDING STONE FRAGMENT ST 423 (F 18-27) (Fig. 454) Discovered June 25, 1979, in area F/8,16–18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. MAX. P. L.: 0.215 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.17 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.065 m.

Coarse stone is roughly elliptical in shape but broken across the wider end. Plain grinding surface is slightly convex with a raised lip at the short end. Rest of stone is roughly worked into rounded shape. Conforms to Archaic and Classical handstones, for which see Runnels, 119, and compare fig. 24.

FIG. 455. Grinding stone fragment, ST 424 (Cat. 198).

199. GRINDING STONE FRAGMENT ST 425 (F 18-29) (Fig. 456) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16– 18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. MAX. P. L.: 0.130 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.130 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.060 m.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

271

201. HOOP IL 331 (F 18-42) (Fig. 458) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/10–18/17, at 332.81. DIAM. (EXT.): 0.050 m. TH.: 0.006 m.

Iron hoop, round in cross section, very corroded. Similar: IL 391, IL 437.

FIG. 456. Grinding stone fragment, ST 425 (Cat. 199).

Coarse stone is roughly elliptical in shape, broken on the wider end and also along one of the curved sides. Grinding surface is plain and f lat. Rest of stone is roughly worked into rounded shape. Conforms to Archaic and Classical handstones, for which see Runnels, 119, and compare fig. 24. 200. GRINDING STONE FRAGMENT ST 435 (F 18-60) (Fig. 457) Discovered June 26, 1979, in area F/8,16– 18/12,20, at 332.84–332.47. MAX. P. L.: 0.130 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.130 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.060 m.

Coarse stone broken on two opposite edges. Remaining preserved edges are slightly curved, so that original shape may have been elliptical. Grinding surface is plain and f lat. Rest of stone is roughly worked into shallow, rounded shape. Conforms to Archaic and Classical handstones, for which see Runnels, 119, and compare fig. 24.

FIG. 457. Grinding stone fragment, ST 435 (Cat. 200).

FIG. 458.

Hoop, IL 331 (Cat. 201).

202. NAIL IL 684 (G 18-51) (Fig. 459) Discovered June 22, 1998, in area G/3–18/17, at 332.803–332.582. P. L.: 0.032 m. P. W.: 0.014 m. MAX. P. TH. (SHAFT): 0.005 m.

Iron nail shaft is rectangular in section. Head is f lat on underside, rounded and somewhat pyramidal on top. Part of the head is broken off, and nail is slightly bent, but otherwise well preserved. Similar: IL 632, IL 671, IL 674, IL 848, IL 863, IL 878, IL 893, IL 920, IL 916.

FIG. 459.

Nail, IL 684 (Cat. 202).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

272

203. PIN IL 655 (F 18-88) (Fig. 460) Discovered May 5, 1998, in area F/13–18/19, at 332.661. P. L.: 0.077 m. TH. (SHAFT): 0.003 m. TH. (BEAD): 0.008 m.

Original length of iron pin not reserved. Shaft is round in cross section. A single cylindrical bead is set on the shaft 0.009 m. from the end. Similar: IL 618.

FIG. 462.

Rod fragment, IL 387 (Cat. 205).

206. COLLAR IL 670 (F 19-84) (Fig. 463) Discovered May 19, 1998, in area F/19–19/15, at 333.136–332.835. W.: 0.023 m. TH.: 0.002 m. EST. DIAM.: 0.030 m.

Wide iron ring collar mended from three fragments. Broken across its width and bent open. Small fragment missing from width of collar. FIG. 460.

Pin, IL 655 (Cat. 203).

204. ROLL-TOP PIN IL 345 (F 18-58) (Fig. 461) Discovered June 29, 1979, in area F/11–18/13, at 332.560 m. P. L.: 0.126 m. TH.: 0.01 m.

One end may be broken away. Iron shaft is square in section, with other end bent back in a loop against the shaft and f lattened. Similar: IL 886.

FIG. 463.

Collar, IL 670 (Cat. 206).

207. WIRE IL 683 (G 18-50) (Fig. 464) Discovered June 19, 1998, in area G/13–18/17, at 332.908–332.907. MAX. P. L.: 0.027 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.013 m. TH.: 0.002 m. FIG. 461.

Roll-top pin, IL 345 (Cat. 204).

205. ROD FRAGMENT IL 387 (F 19-47) (Fig. 462) Discovered May 5, 1980, in area F/8–19/14, at 332.830. L.: 0.296 m. W.: 0.008–0.009 m. TH.: 0.008–0.009 m.

Long iron rod, roughly square in section, possibly intact. Slight indications of tapering in the final 3 mm. of each end. Similar: IL 383, IL 388.

FIG. 464.

Wire, IL 683 (Cat. 207).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

273

Preserved length of iron wire is bent into shape of hook, suggesting a fish hook, but wire is of uniform thickness and lacks any feature such as barb or eye. Both ends terminate in points, but unclear if these are the original ends. 208. STRIP BR 867 (G 19-41) (Fig. 465) Discovered May 6, 1980, in area G/3,4–19/7,8, at 333.21. P. L.: 0.031 m. P. W.: 0.011 m. TH.: 0.001 m.

Rectangular thin strip of bronze. At one end, attachment hole. At other end, strip bent back a short way onto itself. A short section of strip at this end has a row of small, circular perforations along edges. Bent section also has smaller width. No sign of incised decoration. Possibly intact: edges, though worn, are clear. Similar to Cat. 242. From Olynthus, similar bronze strips with attachment holes have been identified as reinforcements: see Olynthus X, 301– 309. Other examples of bronze strips but without holes or perforations preserved: BR 694–696, BR 698, BR 1347, BR 1363, BR 1365, BR 1380.

FIG. 466.

Flat hoop, IL 382 (Cat. 209).

210. HOOP BR 810 (F 19-29) (Fig. 467) Discovered May 5, 1980, in area F/10–19/19, at 333.09. DIAM. (OUTER): 0.014 m. DIAM. (INNER): 0.009 m. TH.: 0.003 m.

Small bronze hoop, circular in section, too small for finger. Undecorated. Compare the numerous bronze hoops (called “rings” by Robinson), some of which clearly served as handles, from Olynthus: Olynthus X, 229–243, nos. 817–964, pls. 61–63. Similar: BR 697, BR 703.

FIG. 465.

Strip, BR 867 (Cat. 208).

209. FLAT HOOP IL 382 (F 19-33) (Fig. 466) Discovered June 4, 1980, in area F/3–19/5, at 332.830. TH.: 0.007 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.039 m. DIAM. (HOLE): 0012 m.

Iron hoop, f lat in section, with irregular circumference, perhaps due to corrosion.

FIG. 467.

Hoop, BR 810 (Cat. 210).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

274

211. PEG IL 392 (G 19-43) (Figs. 468) Discovered May 12, 1980, in area G/2–19/16, at 333.170. L.: 0.104 m. MAX. W.: 0.023 m. MAX. TH.: 0.018 m.

Iron. Rectangular in cross section, tapering slightly with slight curve. At thick end, very small knot-like projection, perhaps just encrustation or corrosion.

FIG. 470.

FIG. 468.

Peg, IL 392 (Cat. 211).

212. INGOT IL 366 (G 19-4) (Fig. 469) Discovered May 7, 1980, in area G/1-19/1,2, at 332.90. L.: 0.064 m. W.: 0.010 m. TH.: 0.007 m.

Flat hoop, BR 806 (Cat. 213).

214. TACK BR 811 (F 19-34) (Fig. 471) Discovered June 6, 1980, in area F/1–19/12, at 332.82. DIAM. (HEAD): 0.009 m. TH. (HEAD): 0.004 m. P. L.: 0.011 m.

Small bronze tack with f lat head and plain shaft, probably broken at end. Similar: BR 700, BR 701.

Peg-shaped lead ingot, rectangular in cross section, with slight curve. Bent in middle. Similar: IL 368, IL 653, IL 667, IL 673, IL 823, IL 846, IL 847.

FIG. 469.

Ingot, IL 366 (Cat. 212). FIG. 471.

213. FLAT HOOP BR 806 (F 17-7) (Fig. 470) Discovered May 15, 1980, in area F/16–17/5, at 332.59. MAX. DIAM. (OUTER): 0.076 m. MAX. DIAM. (INNER): 0.046 m. MAX. TH.: 0.004 m.

Plain bronze hoop. Flat in section. Both outer and inner circumference irregular.

Tack, BR 811 (Cat. 214).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

275

215. NAIL HEAD BR 1113 (E 19-18) (Fig. 472) Discovered June 1, 1983, in area E/13–19/15, at 332.534. MAX. DIAM. (HEAD): 0.023 m. P. H.: 0.015 m. MAX. TH. (SHAFT): 0.013 m. MIN. TH. (SHAFT): 0.010 m.

217. PIN BR 1039 (F 16-8) (Fig. 474) Discovered June 25, 1982, in area F/16–16/5, at 331.51. MAX. DIAM. (HEAD): 0.004 m. MAX. DIAM. (SHAFT): 0.004 m. MIN. DIAM. (SHAFT): 0.002 m. L.: 0.174 m.

Fragment preserves head and part of shaft of large bronze nail. Head is irregularly round in area; in profile, it has an inverted conical shape. Shaft is roughly oval in cross section. Similar but smaller: BR 1088.

Complete rod or pin of bronze mended from six fragments. Shaft is thickest in middle, tapers toward ends, but thickens again at both ends.

FIG. 474.

FIG. 472.

Nail head, BR 1113 (Cat. 215).

216. NAIL BR 1361 (F 20-4) (Fig. 473) Discovered May 16, 1997, in area F/5–20/13, at 332.667. L.: 0.012 m. DIAM. (HEAD): 0.006 m. TH. (SHAFT): 0.001 m.

Bronze nail appears completely preserved, though end of shaft is slightly bent. Head is round in shape and convex in profile. Shaft tapers slightly away from head and is square in cross section. Similar: BR 1362, BR 1364.

Pin, BR 1039 (Cat. 217).

218. PERFORATED DISC BR 1545 (F 18-124) (Fig. 475) Discovered July 8, 2000, in area F/18–18/10, at 332.788. DIAM.: 0.010 m. MAX. TH.: 0.001 m.

Flat, round piece of bronze has a perforation of 0.002 m. diam. at center. Part of circumference is worn, and disc is bent slightly across its diameter. Compare, from Olynthus, similar discs, which Robinson suggests may have been used in construction for decorative or utilitarian purposes: Olynthus X, 278–279, no. 1208, pl. 77. Similar: BR 680, BR 756, BR 1520.

FIG. 475. Perforated disc, BR 1545 (Cat. 218). FIG. 473.

Nail, BR 1361 (Cat. 216).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

276

219. NEEDLE BR 1532 (F 18-102) (Fig. 476) Discovered May 19, 2000, in area F/6–18/4, at 332.237. L. (BENT): 0.114 m. L. (UNBENT): 0.116 m. MAX. TH.: 0.004 m.

221. STYLUS BR 1537 (F 18-105) (Fig. 478) Discovered May 31, 2000, in area F/6–18/3, at 331.542. L.: 0.089 m. MAX. W.: 0.007 m. MAX. TH.: 0.002 m.

Bronze needle is broken at end with thread hole, otherwise intact. Slender shaft is oval in cross section and tapers to a point at one end. The other end swells slightly to maximum width and ends in two sides of thread hole. Shaft is bent slightly about one-third of way from thread hole. Similar: BR 1115, BR 1451, BR 1475, BR 1481.

Save for slight bend in shaft, bronze stylus is in excellent condition. Stylus has f lat, triangular end that tapers down to shaft. Shaft is twisted into spiral for a length of 0.052 m. before straightening out again and tapering to sharp point. Compare Isthmia VII, no. 387, dated to the Archaic period, and Corinth XII, no. 1352, though this is of very late date and its identification as a stylus is questioned. A similar object, BR 566, from the area of the Early Hellenistic Stadium, is identified as a spatula: Nemea II, 112 and fig. 201. Similar: BR 1557.

FIG. 476.

Needle, BR 1532 (Cat. 219).

220. STRIP IL 325 (F 18-24) (Fig. 477) Discovered June 13, 1979, on surface in area F 18, at 333.120. L.: 0.069 m. W.: 0.004 m.

Twisted lead strip broadens at one end. Edges of the broad end are folded over as if to secure an object. Similar: IL 312, IL 858.

FIG. 478.

Stylus, BR 1537 (Cat. 221).

222. WIRE BR 1104 (E 19-32) (Fig. 479) Discovered June 10, 1983, in area E/12–19/3, at 332.454. L.: 0.098 m. MAX. TH.: 0.003 m.

Mended from three fragments, bronze wire is bent in angular S-curve. One end freshly broken; other end tapers slightly, perhaps ref lecting an ancient break. Round in section. Similar: BR 796.

FIG. 477.

Strip, IL 325 (Cat. 220).

FIG. 479.

Wire, BR 1104 (Cat. 222).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

277

223. MORTARIUM/BOWL FRAGMENT P 1714 (G 14-33) (Figs. 480–482) Discovered July 2, 2001, in area G/20–14/6, at 330.587. H.: 0.082 m. EST. DIAM. (RIM): 0.292 m. EST. DIAM. (BASE): 0.214 m.

Single fragment of bowl or mortar preserving complete profile, save for spout or hand-grips, if a mortar. Low beveled disk foot. Straight f lared wall rises to f lat rim angled downward to exterior. Comparable to Corinthian type 1 mortars of 5th century B.C. See Corinth VII, iii, 109–110. May however be just a low coarse bowl. Compare e.g. Corinth XVIII, i, no. 643. Another fragmentary example, Cat. 126, was found in later fill overlying the Heroön. Coarse, pale brown clay with large inclusions (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2).

FIG. 482. Bottom of mortarium/bowl fragment P 1714 (Cat. 223).

224. CHAIN BR 693 (H 14-26) (Fig. 483) Discovered Jun 14, 1979, in area H/10–14/10, at 330.551. MAX. P. L.: 0.150 m. AVG. W. (LINK): 0.007 m.

Segments of bronze chain constructed of interlocking, s-shaped links. One end of each link is bent into simple loop while other end forms a tighter loop and is wrapped twice around the stem of the link. Utilitarian function.

FIG. 480. Mortarium/bowl fragment, P 1714 (Cat. 223).

FIG. 483.

FIG. 481. Profile of mortarium/bowl fragment P 1714 (Cat. 223).

Chain, BR 693 (Cat. 224).

278

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

225. SKYPHOS P 1709 (G14-20) (Fig. 484) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/12–14/9, at 331.017–330.988. H.: 0.071 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.093 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.055 m.

Mended from 22 fragments; parts of rim, wall, and all of one handle missing, restored in painted plaster. Small torus ring foot. Wall rises steeply with slight convex curve to maximum diameter at handles. Horizontal loop handle. Wall curves inward slightly to simple lip. Traces of original black glaze on interior near rim and on exterior upper part including handle. Traces of two horizontal lines below handle zone. Belongs to class of semi-glazed skyphos with heavy foot. See Corinth XIII, 134, and compare e.g. no. 337-3, mid-5th century B.C. Compare also Cat. 71, from within the Heroön. Fine pink clay with tiny inclusions (Munsell 7.5YR 7/4).

FIG. 485. Trefoil oinochoe, BR 1594 (Cat. 226).

FIG. 486. Top of trefoil oinochoe BR 1594 (Cat. 226).

FIG. 484.

Skyphos, P 1709 (Cat. 225).

226. TREFOIL OINOCHOE BR 1594 (G 14-21) (Figs. 485–487) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/12–14/8, at 331.136–331.057. H.: 0.133 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.113 m. DIAM. (RESTING SURFACE): 0.065 m.

Mended from five fragments. Bronze trefoil oinochoe found intact save for part of the join between wall and base, now restored. Well preserved except for crumpling near base. Globular body with a simple f lat resting surface for base. Concave neck rises from shoulder to trefoil mouth. Handle, round in cross section, rises from below shoulder to rim of trefoil mouth. Juncture of handle and rim forms a thumb rest that is decorated with

FIG. 487. Profile and handle detail of trefoil oinochoe BR 1594 (Cat. 226).

incised palmette and tendrils. Holes at juncture seem to have occurred during manufacture, probably as air holes during casting. Handle, body, and neck/mouth were made separately and welded together. Comparable to Weber’s Type II B class of bronze oinochoe, which he dates to the first half

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

of the 5th century B.C., mostly the second quarter: Weber, 105–110. The incised palmette is without parallel among his examples and may represent a reminiscence of earlier, Archaic oinochoai, on which the palmette was a frequent ornament: see Weber, 63–70, 115. Hesperia 2015, 322 and fig. 59:b. 227. TREFOIL OLPE P 1716 (G 14-22) (Figs. 488, 489) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/12–14/8, at 330.917–330.876. RESTORED H. (WITH HANDLE): 0.190 m. MAX. DIAM.: 0.093 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.059 m.

Mended from 51 fragments; most of neck and mouth, as well as parts of wall and base, restored in plaster. Some non-joining fragments with pottery. Unclear whether wheel-made. Low ridge around neck. Slight disk foot is beveled away from wall, f laring out slightly as a result. High convex wall has maximum diameter above midpoint of body but below shoulder. High handle, formed of two rolled strips of clay, rises from shoulder, arches, then descends to attachment at mouth. Trace of mouth at end of handle suggests trefoil shape. No certain traces of glaze on vessel. Shape is consistent with early trefoil olpe, particularly in presence of low ridge around neck and slight disk foot, which date vessel to second half of 6th century B.C. See discussion in Corinth VII, iii, 50–51, and compare no. 199, dated to 550 B.C. Fine, f laky, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 228. KOTYLE P 1711 (G 14-24) (Fig. 490) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/12–14/9, at 330.914–330.833. H.: 0.064 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.096 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.056 m.

Mended from 29 fragments, two non-joining fragments preserving one handle are with pottery. Missing parts of rim and wall are restored in plaster. Short splayed ring foot. Wall rises steeply with gentle convex curve to maximum diameter at handles, then curves in slightly to simple rounded lip. Horizontal loop handles set just below lip. Glaze decoration is faintly preserved. Interior glazed black, as well as upper three-quarters of exterior, including handles. Bottom of wall reserved

FIG. 488. Trefoil olpe, P 1716 (Cat. 227).

FIG. 489. Profile of trefoil olpe P 1716 (Cat. 227).

FIG. 490.

Kotyle, P 1711 (Cat. 228).

279

280

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

and decorated with fine black rays. Red line above reserved zone. Black line at junction of wall and foot. Inside of foot glazed red. Underside is reserved and decorated with concentric black circles. Shape and decoration consistent with Corinthian group iii black glazed kotylai, as described in Corinth XIII, 106–108. Compare e.g. no. 252-2, dated to fourth quarter of 6th century B.C. Compare also examples from the Rawson Deposit to the east of the Sanctuary of Zeus: Barfoed 2009, 105–106, nos. 15, 19. Fine, very pale brown clay (Munsell 10YR 8/3). 229. KOTYLE P 1712 (G 14-25) (Fig. 491) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/11,12–14/8,9, at 330.852–330.791. H.: 0.071 m. RESTORED DIAM. (RIM): 0.101 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.059 m.

Mended from 44 fragments. Missing parts of rim, wall, and most of one handle now restored in plaster. Slender splayed ring foot. Wall curves gently upward from base to rim. Two horizontal loop handles set just below lip. Glaze is very poorly preserved, almost nonexistent. Traces of black glaze all over interior, as well as on handles and most of exterior. Bottom of wall may be reserved for a zone of fine rays, but this is not certain. Traces of glaze on underside of foot (unclear if meant to be red or black). Underside of base is reserved and decorated with concentric black (?) circles around central dot. Underside also set apart from foot by a groove. Corinthian kotyle has shape close to that of Cat. 228 and may indeed be of the same type.

FIG. 491.

Kotyle, P 1712 (Cat. 229).

Note: stubs of missing handle are very worn, suggesting long exposure after original break. Fine, light brown clay (Munsell 7.5YR 6/4). 230. STEMLESS CUP P 1710 (G 14-23) (Figs. 492, 493) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/12–14/9, at 330.914–330.833. H.: 0.073 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.140 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.059 m.

Mended from 41 fragments, one non-joining body fragment with pottery. Parts of rim and wall missing, restored in painted plaster. Slight disk foot separated from wall by incised groove. Wall curves out sharply to form shallow bowl, with maximum diameter at shoulder. Inset straight f lared rim rises from just above shoulder. Upward tilting horizontal loop handles at shoulder. Outer edge and underside of disk foot reserved. Dull, streaky black glaze applied as follows. Exterior of bowl below shoulder glazed black. Shoulder reserved and decorated with row of crude black leaves with points tilted right. Outside of handles glazed black, but inside and handle panels reserved. Rim reserved save for black glaze lines along upper edge and at junction of rim and shoulder. Interior glazed black save for reserved line just below lip and reserved central disk at bottom decorated with concentric black circles. Shape and decoration consistent with Stibbe’s

FIG. 492.

Stemless cup, P 1710 (Cat. 230).

FIG. 493.

Profile of stemless cup P 1710 (Cat. 230).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

Subgroup Ec of Laconian cups with low basemolding of the second half of the 6th century B.C.: Stibbe, 66–69. Examples imported to Argos include one from a late Archaic grave at Ayia Sotira (Argos Museum, inv. MA 6012): see Aslamantzidou-Kostourou, 191–193 and pl. 79b. A second example comes from another excavated grave (Argos Museum, inv. MA 6081): BarakariGleni, 193–194, fig. 15, and pl. 86a–b. Fine, pink to reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/5). 231. KANTHAROS P 1713 (G 14-30) (Fig. 494) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/11,12–14/8,9, at 330.794–330.738. H.: 0.083 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.084 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.055 m.

Mended from 49 fragments. Four non-joining fragments, including three of rim, with pottery. Missing are parts of rim and wall, restored in painted plaster. Flared ring foot. Underside convex with central nipple. Wall curves gently upward to maximum diameter at shoulder, then curves inward. Slightly convex inset rim. Two bent strap handles extend horizontally from top of rim, then bend sharply to rejoin vessel at shoulder. Completely glazed, save for underside, with streaky dull black glaze. Argive. See Cat. 26, from the construction fill of the Heroön, for parallels from other sites. Compare also Cat. 83, from the debris within the Heroön; as well as P 490 and P 1741, both from just north of the Heroön. P 659, from disturbed fill within the Heroön, appears to have a more advanced shape. Fine, very pale brown clay with some tiny inclusions (Munsell 10YR 8/3).

FIG. 494.

Kantharos, P 1713 (Cat. 231).

281

232. BLADE? IL 887 (G 14-26) (Fig. 495) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/11,12–14/8,9, at 330.797. MAX. P. L.: 0.049 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.009 m. MAX. P. H.: 0.012 m.

Corroded iron object resembling a long, slender blade. Two-sided with central rib running down the length of both sides. One end tapers to a point, the tip of which is missing. Other end thickens to a socket-like end, round in cross section. Unclear whether more of the object is missing at this end. No certain parallel found in publications. Very similar to Cat. 233.

FIG. 495.

Blade?, IL 887 (Cat. 232).

233. BLADE? IL 888 (G 14-27) (Fig. 496) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/11,12–14/8,9, at 330.775. MAX. P. L.: 0.034 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.014 m. MAX. P. H.: 0.012 m.

Corroded iron object very similar to Cat. 232. Object resembles a long, slender, tapering blade with two sides, a central rib running down the length of each side. One end widens and thickens

FIG. 496.

Blade?, IL 888 (Cat. 233).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

282

to a socket-like end that is round in cross section. This end is solid, and it is unclear whether the object is broken at this end. The other end of the object is broken off. No certain published parallel. 234. ROD IL 889 (G 14-28) (Fig. 497) Discovered June 29, 2001, in pit deposit in area G/11,12–14/8,9, at 330.775.

MAX. P. L.: MAX. P. TH.:

Frag. a 0.013 m. 0.005 m.

Frag. b 0.027 m. 0.005 m.

Frag. c 0.008 m. 0.002 m.

Three slender fragments of iron rod. Corrosion makes it uncertain whether the fragments join. All three, however, are round in cross section and taper across their length. Thickest fragment, (a), may preserve an original end that is hammered f lat. Smallest fragment, (c), may preserve an original pointed end.

FIG. 497.

Rod, IL 889 (Cat. 234).

235. SILVER STATER OF AIGINA C 5067 (G 14-17) (Figs. 498, 499) Discovered July 2, 2001, in area G/14–14/10, at 330.962.

Silver stater of Aigina with sea turtle on obverse, incuse square divided into five compartments on reverse. Type dates to 510–485 B.C. Compare Nemea III, Cat. 371–376.

FIG. 498. Silver stater of Aigina, obverse, C 5067 (Cat. 235).

FIG. 499. Silver stater of Aigina, reverse, C 5067 (Cat. 235). 236. RING GJ 147 (G 14-6) (Fig. 500) Discovered June 8, 2001, in area G/10–14/19, at 331.349. DIAM.: 0.022 m. MAX. W. (BEZEL): 0.006 m. TH. (BAND): 0.002 m.

Silver ring has thin, rounded band and f lat, oval bezel. Band is completely cut through on side opposite bezel. Worn bezel features an incised mark resembling a rho. Another, triangular, mark on bezel may represent another letter or figure, but may also be the result of damage. Ring otherwise well preserved. Shape consistent with Type II rings from Olynthus; see Olynthus X, 147–155 and compare no. 474, pl. 27.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

283

238. WIRE IL 868 (G 16-53) (Fig. 502) Discovered June 5, 2001, in area G/20–16/11, at 330.732. P. L.: 0.029 m. EST. L. (UNCOILED): 0.073 m. TH.: 0.003 m.

Lead wire, round in cross section, coiled in a loop.

FIG. 500.

Ring, GJ 147 (Cat. 236).

237. MENDER IL 867 (G 16-52) (Fig. 501) Discovered June 5, 2001, in area G/5–16/5, at 331.716. L.: 0.032 m. W.: 0.014 m. TH.: 0.008 m.

Lead mender consisting of two, long, parallel, rounded strips connected at both ends by short, transverse bits of lead. Mender found still enclosing two joining sherds of an Attic black-glazed vessel. See Rotroff 2011, 121; Guldager Bilde and Handberg, 462–464.

FIG. 502.

Wire, IL 868 (Cat. 238).

239. ARROWHEAD BR 1542 (F 18-110) (Fig. 503) Discovered June 20, 2000, in area F/9–18/3, at 331.856. L.: 0.017 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.005 m. MAX. P. H.: 0.005 m.

Four-sided bronze arrowhead ending in sharp point, now preserved in three fragments. Largest fragment represents the bulk of the arrowhead,

FIG. 501.

Mender, IL 867 (Cat. 237).

FIG. 503.

Arrowhead, BR 1542 (Cat. 239).

284

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

preserving the point, most of the four sides, and most of the tubular socket at its other end. The edges of the four sides are raised to form sharply defined ridges. The surfaces of the sides have deteriorated toward the socket end, but one side has the remains of an oval hole. The smaller fragments preserve the socket end of one of the four ridges of the arrowhead. 240. ARROWHEAD BR 1543 (F 18-111) (Fig. 504) Discovered June 21, 2000, in area F/7–18/4, at 331.755. L.: 0.017 m. W.: 0.007 m. TH.: 0.007 m.

Four-sided bronze arrowhead ending in sharp point, now preserved in two fragments. Larger fragment preserves the bulk of the arrowhead, from point to the opposite end, which forms a tubular socket. A second, tiny fragment is also preserved, but where it joins the other fragment is not clear. One side of the arrowhead has an indentation at the socket end, and the side opposite has a small hole in the middle. The edges of the arrowhead are raised from the sides they join.

FIG. 505. Tool (pick?), IL 845 (Cat. 241).

Iron tool consisting of shaft and beak-like head, all in one piece. Shaft is round in cross section and tapers toward head, which projects from the shaft at a right angle. Head is square in cross section and bends slightly back toward the shaft before ending in a point. Surface of tool is rough from corrosion. 242. STRIP BR 1538 (F 18-106) (Fig. 506) Discovered June 12, 2000, in area F/11–18/4, at 332.364. L. (BENT): 0.049 m. L. (UNBENT): 0.050 m. W.: 0.010 m. MAX. TH.: 0.001 m.

Mended from five fragments. Long, narrow, rectangular bronze sheet, of which only one corner is not preserved. Close to each of the two short ends is a small hole, perhaps for fastening. See Cat. 208 for similar examples. Compare also Olynthus X, 306, no. 1336, pl. 89. FIG. 504.

Arrowhead, BR 1543 (Cat. 240).

241. TOOL (PICK?) IL 845 (F 18-109) (Fig. 505) Discovered June 12, 2000, in area F/12–18/2, at 332.189. L. (SHAFT): 0.255 m. W. (HEAD): 0.102 m. MAX. TH.: 0.027 m.

FIG. 506.

Strip, BR 1538 (Cat. 242).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

285

243. MUG P 904 (G 14-5) (Fig. 507) Discovered July 5, 1982, in area G/5–14/5, at 331.409. MAX. P. H.: 0.066 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.072 m. MAX. P. W. (WITH HANDLE): 0.091 m. MAX. TH.: 0.004 m.

Laconian mug, mended from many fragments. Three-quarters of vessel preserved. Low disk foot, convex body, out-turned lip. Curved strap handle attached at lip and midpoint of body. Glazed overall, fired black to brown. Fine, soft, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6) Hesperia 1983, pl. 19:e.

FIG. 508.

Chert core, ST 837 (Cat. 244).

246. CHERT BLADE ST 618 (F 16-1) Discovered June 25, 1982, in area F/17–16/7, at 331.88. P. L.: 0.035 m. W.: 0.015 m. TH.: 0.005 m.

Pinkish chert. Blade segment is perhaps complete. Retouched along both edges. FIG. 507.

Mug, P 904 (Cat. 243).

244. CHERT CORE ST 837 (G 16-44) (Fig. 508) Discovered May 17, 2001, in area G/18–16/3, at 331.602. MAX. L.: 0.029 m. MAX. W.: 0.020 m. MAX. TH.: 0.015 m.

Chert core mottled with shades of pink and purple. Largest surface is smooth and slightly convex. Remaining surfaces have been worked by chipping, resulting in several sharp edges. Similar: ST 814, ST 848.

247. ANTEFIX FROM EARLY TEMPLE OF ZEUS AT 82 (H 14-23) (Fig. 509) Discovered June 15, 1979, in area H/8–14/4, at 330.791. MAX. P. L.: 0.175 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.170 m. MAX. H. (WITH ANTHEMION): 0.113 m.

Mold-made antefix of red clay with many white inclusions, turned blue from burning  mainly on

245. CHERT FLAKE ST 406 (H 14-21) Discovered June 14, 1979, in area H 14, at 331.000. MAX. P. L.: 0.019 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.014 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.004 m.

Fragment of chert blade, broken at both ends. Brownish-red stone with white veins. Used as cutting tool. Similar: ST 421, ST 433, ST 434, ST 619, ST 632, ST 633, ST 639, ST 640, ST 839, ST 847.

FIG. 509. Antefix from Early Temple of Zeus, AT 82 (Cat. 247).

286

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

front face and upper surface. Intact front section, except right face broken off and upper and lower surfaces of left volute chipped. Tile had projecting volutes on right and left upper and front surfaces and palmette on central peak. Incised design with an impressed rosette on the upper surfaces of the gable ca. 0.001 m. from the front face. No traces of stucco or paint. Compare the fragment of another antefix, AT 85, found in J 14. Coarse red clay (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8). Hesperia 1980, 190 and pls. 39:b and 40:e; Guide2, 51, Fig. 28 (color). 248. WEDGE IL 669 (G 18-34) (Fig. 510) Discovered June 10, 1998, in area G/13–18/12, at 332.113. L.: 0.068 m. MAX. W.: 0.012 m. MAX. TH.: 0.009 m.

Lead wedge, slightly curved, with one pointed and one curved end. Similar: IL 666, 668.

FIG. 510.

Wedge, IL 669 (Cat. 248).

249. PEG IL 672 (G 18-33) (Fig. 511) Discovered June 10, 1998, in area G/9–18/11, at 332.500. L.: 0.028 m. MAX. W.: 0.015 m. MAX. TH.: 0.007 m.

Lead peg, slightly curved, battered on underside, with very slight taper to one end. Various marks and cuttings on surfaces. Similar: IL 364, 365.

FIG. 511.

Peg, IL 672 (Cat. 249).

250. KRATER P 539 (G 18-30) (Fig. 512–514) Discovered May 19, 1980, in foundation trench of Early Hellenistic Heroön, in area G/12–18/17, at 332.75–332.55. H.: 0.215 m. DIAM. (BASE): 0.128 m. DIAM. (RIM): 0.226 m.

Found upright and intact with Cat. 251 serving as lid, but fell apart when excavated. Now mended from many fragments, and small parts of wall and rim restored in painted plaster. Stemless bell krater with f laring ring foot. Convex underside. Body bulges in convex curve to a point about halfway up the vase, then tapers with slight concave curve. Horizontal rolled handles tilted upward. Strongly out-turned rim curled back toward base. Wheelmade. Sloppy red-brown glaze, worn away in places, covers exterior and all but bottom of interior. Underside reserved, though resting surface of foot is glazed. The stemless bell krater shape appears in Laconian ware in the middle of the 7th century B.C. and continues into the 5th century both in black glaze and with simple linear decoration: see Pelagatti and Stibbe. Close parallels for the shape of the Nemea vase are the late-6th- and 5th-century examples from Olympia, which Stibbe consider to be an Elean product inspired by the Laconian shape: Pelagatti and Stibbe, 20, 22–23, nos. 7, 8, and 11. Stibbe is also aware of the example from Nemea, which he suggests is another possible 5th-century vase inspired by the Laconian shape: Pelagatti and Stibbe, 20 n. 33. The shape does continue later, however, both at Olympia (McPhee, 130) and at Corinth (McPhee, 121–126), where they were produced from early in

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

287

the 4th century until late in that century, perhaps even into the 3rd. In McPhee’s opinion (121 n. 51), the profile of the Nemea vase seems 4th century in date. Moreover, there are a few examples of the shape from a 3rd-century kiln context in Argos: Daux, 647 and fig. 19; McPhee, 131. These vases differ from ours in having a more f lared lip and handles that curl strongly inward. Our vase is certainly not Corinthian, but without a firmer grasp of the development of the shape elsewhere in the Peloponnese, it is difficult to assign it a certain provenance or date. Fine, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6). Hesperia 1981, 63 and pl. 23:b; Guide 2, 36 and fig. 17 (color). FIG. 512.

Krater, P 539 (Cat. 250).

251. STONE SLAB ST 520 (G 18-29) (Fig. 515) Discovered May 29, 1980, in foundation trench of Early Hellenistic Heroön, in area G/12–18/17, at 332.81. L.: 0.248 m. W.: 0.214 m. TH.: 0.060 m.

Flat, trapezoidal, but apparently unworked stone slab found resting like lid on top of Cat. 250. Upper surface (as found) has various natural indentations. Bottom surface has gradual curve, reducing thickness of slab on one side. Four sides of slab are rough and pocked, but one side is fairly vertical. Yellow poros limestone conglomerate. Hesperia 1981, 63 and pl. 23:a; Guide2, 36 and fig. 17 (color). FIG. 513. Interior of krater P 539 (Cat. 250).

FIG. 514. Profile of krater P 539 (Cat. 250).

FIG. 515.

Stone slab, ST 520 (Cat. 251).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

288

252. BEAD GL 16 (G 18-26) (Fig. 516) Discovered June 4, 1980, in area G/16,17– 18/11,12, at 332.21. DIAM.: 0010 m. H.: 0.006 m.

254. STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLE P 525 (G 19-15) (Figs. 518, 519) Discovered May 26, 1980, in area G 19, at 333.02 (bottom of layer). P. L.: 0.106 m.

Plain bead of dark blue glass with domed upper surface and f lat, slightly concave underside.

Fragment of amphora handle of Rhodian type. Part of rounded neck attached to handle, which extends away from neck at slightly above horizontal, then turns downward at sharp angle before breaking off. On upper surface of handle is rectangular stamped impression with raised letters faintly preserved in one line across stamp: Α̣Γ̣[..]ΟΚΛ̣ΕΥΣ.

FIG. 516.

Bead, GL 16 (Cat. 252).

This may be restored as the Koine genitive form of Agathokles, the name of an amphora manufacturer attested on Rhodian amphora stamps of ca. 205–176 B.C. See Grace, 228, no. 51; Jöhrens, 63, no. 162, and 272, no. AS 17. Very pale brown wash (Munsell 10YR 8/4) over coarse, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 7.5YR 7/6).

253. FOOT OF VESSEL GL 37 (G 19-77) (Fig. 517) Discovered June 28, 1983, in area G/11,13–19/1–8, at 332.968–332.568. P. W.: 0.021 m. P. H.: 0.010 m.

One small fragment of the foot of a molded glass vessel. Glass is clear with reddish tint or patina and is full of small bubbles, some of which pit the surface. Very little of the f loor and none of the walls of the vessel are preserved. FIG. 518. Stamped amphora handle, P 525 (Cat. 254).

FIG. 517.

Foot of vessel, GL 37 (Cat. 253). FIG. 519. Detail of stamp on amphora handle P 525 (Cat. 254).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

289

255. STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLE P 624 (G 19-45) (Figs. 520, 521) Discovered June 10, 1980, in area G/11,20– 19/1,20, at 333.52–332.47. P. H.: 0.077 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.037 m. MAX. P. TH.: 0.026 m.

Curving amphora handle becomes thicker and wider toward one end. Oval in cross section. Possibly Knidian. On outside of curve, near wider end, is an impressed oval stamp with raised letters The stamp measures 0.032 m. long by 0.014 m. wide and is now worn. The letters, only some of which are legible, appear arranged in two rows along the upper and lower borders of the stamp. There is space between the two rows for another row of text, which may now be completely worn away: ca. 3–4 ]Ι̣Ε̣[--ΤΟΥ Κν̣[ίδιον---

In the first row there is space for three or four letters, then follow what may be an iota and epsilon, followed by an uncertain number of illegible letters. In the second row, the first four letters are clear. There follows a vertical stroke and then a diagonal stroke, which may or may not be curved, rising from the lower edge of the stamp to the right. It is possible to recognize in these strokes a backward nu, which occasionally appears in the spelling of the ethnic Κνίδιον (compare, e.g. Jöhrens, 134, nos. 397 and 398). This ethnic appears frequently on Knidian stamps, along with the names of an eponymous official and the maker of the amphora: Jefremow, 25–26. It is then possi-

FIG. 520. Stamped amphora handle, P 624 (Cat. 255).

FIG. 521. Detail of stamp on amphora handle P 624 (Cat. 255).

ble to see in ΤΟΥ the end of a personal name in the genitive case. Coarse, light red clay (Munsell 2.5YR 6/8) with tiny inclusions. 256. WORKED STONE FRAGMENT ST 410 (H 14-12) (Fig. 522) Discovered June 12, 1979, in area H/7–14/19, at 330.951. MAX. P. L.: 0.160 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.106 m.

Hard whitish-gray stone with glass-like black inclusions. One surface has parallel diagonal rows of tool marks. Side and top surfaces are unbroken and picked.

FIG. 522. Worked stone fragment, ST 410 (Cat. 256).

290

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

257. CROWN MOLDING FRAGMENT A 416 (G 18-40) (Fig. 523) Discovered June 4, 1998, in area G/15–18/12, at 332.359. MAX. P. H.: 0.083 m. MAX. P. L.: 0.130 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.092 m.

Fragment of cavetto crown molding, broken all around. Three surfaces, the two adjoining at a right angle and a cavetto, still preserved. Cavetto: max. P. W. 0.080 m.; max. P. H. 0.078 m. Also preserved is thin fascia at base of cavetto, 0.010 m. in height. Top has relieving surface, of which only 0.025 m. has been preserved. Traces of white plaster and red color still visible.

FIG. 524. Clamp cover, bottom side, IL 860 (Cat. 258).

with the clamp impression has been f lattened, perhaps in connection with the cover’s removal. Similar: IL 890. 259. SHEET FRAGMENT IL 313 (H 14-16) (Fig. 525) Discovered June 14, 1979, in area H/4–14/19 at 331.111. MAX. L.: 0.059 m. MAX. W.: 0.041 m. TH.: 0.002 m.

Thin sheet of lead, now triangular in shape, with the two sides curled and bent back on themselves. Base of triangle may be broken away, and midway along the edge is what could be the remains of a square perforation in the sheet. FIG. 523. Crown molding fragment, A 416 (Cat. 257).

258. CLAMP COVER IL 860 (G 16-37) (Fig. 524) Discovered May 15, 2001, in area G/16–16/13, at 331.794. L.: 0.153 m. MAX. W.: 0.022 m. MAX. TH.: 0.008 m.

Complete but bent lead clamp cover. Poured strip of lead is smooth on one side. Other side preserves impression of a narrow band 0.005 m. wide, presumably representing the top of the clamp around which the lead was poured as a cover. Along the two long sides of the lead cover are two partially preserved, thin, splayed lips of lead, indicating where the lead overf lowed from the clamp bedding. From this the width of the clamp bedding can be measured as 0.013 m. Length of clamp measures 0.15 m. A rectangular area of the side

FIG. 525. Sheet fragment, IL 313 (Cat. 259).

260. DISC IL 314 (H 14-18) (Fig. 526) Discovered June 14, 1979, in area H/3–14/20 at 331.211. MAX. DIAM.: 0.021 m. TH.: 0.003 m.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

291

262. FLAKE BR 1409 (G 18-36) (Fig. 528) Discovered June 3, 1998, in area G/13–18/13, at 332.240. MAX. L.: 0.025 m. MAX. W.: 0.019 m.

Small f lake of bronze mended from two fragments. Slightly curved, with one finished edge. Similar: BR 1411.

FIG. 526.

Disc, IL 314 (Cat. 260).

Lead disc approximately hexagonal in shape, with one small pierced hole near two tiny holes. All surfaces smooth, the top more so than the bottom. Cast or cut in this shape. 261. FILLER IL 861 (G 16-42) (Fig. 527) Discovered May 16, 2001, in area G/20–16/10, at 331.669. P. L.: 0.064 m. P. W.: 0.040 m. P. TH.: 0.007 m.

FIG. 528.

Flake, BR 1409 (Cat. 262).

Roughly rectangular, thick sheet of lead has numerous folded and chiseled striations on both main surfaces. One edge has been folded up onto one of the surfaces. Complete but bent from excavation process and close to breaking in two. Similar: IL 651, IL 652, IL 854, IL 862.

263. PIN BR 1563 (G 16-27) (Fig. 529) Discovered May 10, 2001, in area G/16–16/11, at 331.977. L. (UNBENT): 0.052 m. MAX. TH.: 0.004 m.

FIG. 527.

FIG. 529.

Filler, IL 861 (Cat. 261).

Small bronze pin now bent nearly 180 degrees. One end tapers to simple point. The other end, as preserved, has been partly split away and twisted into tight loop.

Pin, BR 1563 (Cat. 263).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

292

264. BEAD BR 1410 (G 18-37) (Fig. 530) Discovered June 5, 1998, in area G/13–18/12, at 332.218. DIAM.: 0.005 m. H.: 0.003 m.

Bronze bead, originally hollow, partially crushed in on itself and pitted with corrosion. Perhaps part of some larger ornament? FIG. 532.

Knife, IL 341 (Cat. 266).

Iron knife with blade (mended) and handle. Blade curves to a point on its lower surface. Narrow handle with finger guard. End of handle slightly bent.

FIG. 530.

Bead, BR 1410 (Cat. 264).

265. TOOL IL 340 (H 14-42) (Fig. 531) Discovered June 11, 1979, in area H/8–14/10, at 331.174 m. MAX. L.: 0.130 m. MAX. W.: 0.014 m. MAX. TH.: 0.009 m.

Long fragment of iron implement, badly corroded. Ends broken and damaged. Uncertain function.

FIG. 531.

267. LEKANE P 1626 (G 17-4) (Fig. 533) Discovered May 14, 1998, in area G/16,17– 17/19,20, at 332.800–332.650. H.: 0.175 m. MAX. DIAM. (RIM): 0.488 m. MIN. DIAM. (RIM): 0.462 m. (restored)

Mended from 64 joining fragments. One handle, 10% of rim, and 70% of base missing and restored in plaster. Low ring base and f laring, slightly convex wall. Flat rim, 0.023–0.025 m. wide. Two shallow horizontal grooves, lower one set 0.06 m. below rim, mark point of attachment of horizontal loop handles, the top of which extends to underside of rim. Vessel is warped and discolored gray in firing. Traces of black-glaze horizontal band on interior and on top of rim. For warping, cf. Thompson, 243, B 40, Figs. 23 and 122. Late 4th–early 3rd century B.C. Fine red clay with small white inclusions and voids (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6).

Tool, IL 340 (Cat. 265).

266. KNIFE IL 341 (H 14-43) (Fig. 532) Discovered June 12, 1979, in area H/17–14/2, at 330.811. L.: 0.262 m. MAX. W. (HANDLE): 0.018 m. MAX. W. (BLADE): 0.033 m. TH. (BLADE): 0.004 m.

FIG. 533.

Lekane, P 1626 (Cat. 267).

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

268. STAMPED STONE ST 796 (G 18-48) (Fig. 534) Discovered June 9, 1998, in area G/17–18/11, at 331.794. MAX. P. L.: 0.105 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.095 m. TH.: 0.045 m.

Rectangular stone slab partially preserved, with circular pattern, 0.065 m. diameter, made with some reddish pigment, on one surface. Perhaps used for paving/f looring?

293

other tool. Compare IL 15 in Hesperia 1976, 184 and pl. 32:b; also IL 377 in Hesperia 1981, 50 and pl. 14:a. 270. STAMPED AMPHORA HANDLE P 434 (H 14-11) (Fig. 536) Discovered June 13, 1979, in area H/12–14/10, at 330.650. MAX. L. (WALL): 0.063 m. MAX. W. (WALL): 0.060 m. MAX. L. (HANDLE): 0.074 m. MAX. TH. (HANDLE): 0.023 m. L. (STAMP): 0.035 m. W. (STAMP): 0.010 m.

Fragment of Koan transport amphora handle attached to wall. Double handle has unevenly impressed rectangular stamp on upper surface with raised border. Illegible traces of letters are visible in a single row along one-half of stamp. Curvature of handle suggests date in 3rd century B.C.; see Whitbread, 81–82 and pl. 4.15. Pale brown slip (Munsell 2.5Y 8/2) over coarse, reddish-yellow clay (Munsell 5YR 7/6).

FIG. 534.

Stamped stone, ST 796 (Cat. 268).

269. BAR IL 859 (G 16-18) (Fig. 535) Discovered May 7, 2001, in area G/19–16/13, at 332.234. P. L.: 0.046 m. P. W.: 0.012 m. P. TH.: 0.012 m.

Fragment of iron bar, roughly square in cross section, broken at both ends. Perhaps from chisel or

FIG. 536. Stamped amphora handle, P 434 (Cat. 270). 271. FIGURINE OF OPHELTES BR 671 (J 16-11) (frontispiece, Figs. 537–542) Discovered May 28, 1979, in area J/12–16/10, at 332.16. H.: 0.035 m. MAX. W.: 0.019 m. MAX. TH.: 0.025 m.

FIG. 535.

Bar, IL 859 (Cat. 269).

Small bronze figurine of a male child sitting upright. The right arm is raised to the side of the

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

294

FIG. 537.

Figurine of Opheltes, BR 671 (Cat. 271).

FIG. 539. Right three-quarter view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271).

FIG. 538. Left three-quarter view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271).

head: the forearm rises at a right angle to the upper arm and shoulder, the palm is f lat and facing forward, the thumb extended. The left arm, which bows rather awkwardly with no clear indication of the elbow, descends along the side of the body. The left hand grasps the outside of the left thigh, and the fingers, indicated by four deep incisions, are spread open. A deep, curving incision marks off the arm from the torso. The front of the torso is elaborated with a slight bulging at the pectoral muscles, those of the left side being the more emphasized; a rather large circular depression forms the navel. The pubic area is rendered with four deep incisions at the conjunc-

tion of the upper legs and lower abdomen. The left leg is folded and tucked under the right leg, which extends forward and bends at the knee to hang over the left leg. The feet are simply shaped with no articulation. The head is full and rather plump, being slightly heavier about the cheeks and narrower at the temples. The head sits atop the torso with no definition of the neck. The hair is rather long, thick, and plentiful, covering the ears but swept back at the cheeks to reveal their full plumpness, and gathered at the crown into an ample mass sitting atop the peak of the forehead. The eyes are widely set and bulging, the left one being slightly higher than the right. The nose is broad but ill-defined. The mouth is of indeterminate expression, formed by two wedge-shaped incisions whose narrow ends overlap at the center of the mouth while their deeper, wider ends form the down-turned corners of the mouth. There is a rather deep dimple in the chin. The backside preserves considerably less detail. The line of the hair falling over the shoulder and covering the neck is indicated by five crescent-shaped incisions. The left arm is marked off from the torso by a deep incision. A shallow vertical incision at the rump suggests the buttocks. The lower torso of the backside swells, giving the torso a slight pear shape hinting at plumpness.

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

FIG. 540. Left view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271).

On the bottom of the figurine is a circular protrusion, 0.0045 m. in diameter, 0.0035 m. long, presumably for attaching the figurine to some other object. Near the protrusion and running the length of the underside of the left thigh there is a straight and shallow incision. At slightly more than right angles to this incision there is a pair of straight, parallel incisions running near the protrusion at bottom and cutting slightly upwards and the across the incision that defines the buttocks. The representation of children in Greek art as seated on the ground or squatting can be traced back at least to the 6th century B.C., when contact with other cultures of the Mediterranean may have inspired the development of the image. Figurines of male children seated or squatting on the ground, often described in scholarship as temple boys, are particularly common in Greece and in the broader context of the Eastern Mediterranean: see discussion of the type in Hadzisteliou-Price, 95–111; Kabirenheiligtum V, 103–107; Beer, 21–29; and Corinth XVIII, iv, 68–73. The type is not restricted to ordinary children, however, but can be used for divine figures as well, such as the child Dionysos or baby Herakles: Hadzisteliou-Price, 100–101. While the most common pose features the right leg bent at the knee and upright with the left leg bent and lying f lat on the ground, other variations are known. Examples with legs positioned similarly to those of the bronze figurine include a terracotta figurine from Cerveteri (Beer, 28 and fig. 6) as well as a marble statuette of the baby

295

FIG. 541. Right view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271).

FIG. 542. Back view of figurine of Opheltes BR 671 (Cat. 271).

Herakles wrestling with snakes, in the Capitoline Museum (Brendel, fig. 9). A distinctive element of the Nemea figurine is the upraised right arm and open hand, which may be intended to ref lect the narrative context of Opheltes in distress as a result of the snake’s attack (see discussion in Chapter 4, above). However, other figurines exist with one or both arms raised. Some examples come from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth, and Merker interprets the gesture as “reaching up” to an adult: Corinth XVIII, iv, 72.

296

CATA L O G U E O F A R T I F AC T S

The representation of small children becomes increasingly naturalistic from the 5th century B.C. onward. An important stylistic feature of the bronze figurine is its hairstyle, a swollen mass of hair at the crown; this feature, which may represent a topknot or braid, becomes common in the Hellenistic period and continues into the Roman period: Kerameikos XV, 105; cf. Corinth XVIII, iv, 189. Good parallels for both the hairstyle and the proportions of the Nemea figurine’s head are a fragmentary terracotta figurine from

the Athenian Kerameikos dated to the late 4th century (Kerameikos XV, no. 326) as well as a figurine of a standing boy from Corinth, of similar date (Corinth XVIII, iv, no. H326; for its date, see 194). Accordingly, our figurine may be Early Hellenistic, but a later date cannot be ruled out on style alone. The bronze is well preserved and virtually without patina. Hesperia 1980, 192 and pls. 42:a and b; Guide, 26 and fig. 7; Guide 2, 35 and fig. 16 (color).

APPENDIX B

TH E CURSE TA BLETS FROM THE HERO SHRINE

σμος and Latin defixio, the great majority contain binding spells or curses, by which someone tries to constrain in some way one or more victims. The spells are written down on some medium and then deposited in a location considered efficacious for the execution of the magic. By far the most common form of curse tablet is a sheet of lead, but the use of other media, such as wax and papyrus, is attested as well. The choice of lead can be explained in part by the fact that it was an ordinary medium of writing used, for instance, for private letters, just as papyrus and wax were. Another association, which Graf maintains is a secondary and later development, is a metaphorical one between the physical properties of the metal and the ideas of cold, death, and immobility.3 Lead was widely available, and in fact the lead for the Nemea curse tablets may well have come from the Sanctuary of Zeus itself. The metal was used as a building material for many of the structures there, and in the wake of demolition and rebuilding that took place beginning in the

Among the material recovered from within the Heroön were seven folded lead tablets, four of which turned out to bear legible inscribed curses (CT 1–4, below).1 Produced from the late 6th century B.C. through Late Antiquity, curse tablets constitute one of the most archaeologically conspicuous forms of magic practiced in ancient times, and examples have come from all around the Mediterranean world.2 As indicated by two common ancient terms for them, Greek κατάδε1  The other three (IL 369, IL 370, IL 373) are probably curse tablets as well: Hesperia 1981, 64–65. All of them have 1–2 nail holes (see discussion below), which lends support to this identification. When I examined them closely in 2003, I found faint but illegible traces of letters on two (IL 370, IL 373), and two may not have been completely opened (IL 369, IL 373). D. R. Jordan had the opportunity to examine CT 1–3 shortly after their discovery, and he lists them, with summary descriptions, in his catalogues of curse tablets: SGD, no. 57; NGCT, nos. 28 and 29. All of the tablets from the Heroön are currently housed in the Nemea Museum; CT 2 and 3 are on display in the exhibition hall. Most of the content of this appendix, with the exception of the text and epigraphic commentary on the smallest fragments of CT 4, has been published in Hesperia (see Bravo 2016). I wish to thank the editor of the journal and the two anonymous readers for suggesting many valuable improvements to the text. 2  For a more extensive intoduction to curse tablets see Gager, 3–24; Graf 1997, 118–174; Eidinow, 143–159. Gager counts over 1,500 known tablets, and the number grows as more are discovered through excavation.

On the use of lead for correspondence, see Jordan 2000 and the thorough discussion by Eidinow and Taylor. For the metaphorical associations of lead see Graf 1997, 133; cf. Faraone 1991, 7; Gager, 3. Several texts, from the 4th century B.C. on, explicitly draw upon this metaphor; see e.g. Graf 1997, 130, 132–133; Faraone 2005, 37 (citing DTA, no. 67); Eidinow, 154 (citing DTA, nos. 105, 106, 107). 3 

297

298

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

second half of the 4th century B.C., many scraps of lead were produced and discarded around the site. Excavations to the north of the Heroön, for example, recovered numerous scraps of the material (see Chapter 1 and Cat. 258–261). After a curse is inscribed on a lead tablet, it is usually rolled or folded, as was done to CT 1–4 here. What is more, many curse tablets, including CT 1 and 2, preserve a distinct pattern of holes resulting from being punctured afterward with nails. Gager sees this act as deriving from another analogy, that between the use of nails for fastening and the binding force of the curses.4 The constraints upon victims that the curse tablets invoke pertain to a wide range of human affairs. On a fundamental level, however, they are usually agonistic in nature, as Faraone has observed; the defigens always seeks to profit at the expense of one or more perceived opponents or rivals. The spheres in which this antagonistic magic is deployed include court cases, athletics, commerce, and love.5 The curse tablets from the Heroön are of the last variety. The texts of CT 1 and 2 are explicit, calling on one person to be turned away from another, and the appearance of similar words on the more fragmentary CT 3 and 4 suggests that they are erotic curses as well. The context of such curses can be likened to a typical love triangle, in which the individual who resorts to this kind of magic seeks to free or protect a love interest from the affections of a rival, real or potential. In fact the concern can be more wide-ranging, however, and the ambiguity surrounding the erotic contexts of the Nemea tablets will be explored below.6 All four of the curse tablets from the Heroön

originate from within the area of its Early Hellenistic enclosure wall (Fig. 543). One of them, CT 2, was found in one of several layers of earth filled with sacrificial and other ritual debris—such as burnt bone, ash, broken pottery, and votive remains—that had accumulated over the surface of the shrine.7 As described in Chapter 1, the accumulation continued throughout the period when the shrine was in use; moreover, as the presence of a small amount of material of Hellenistic and Roman date indicates, the debris remained exposed on the surface for centuries thereafter. Subsequently, the community of farmers who settled in the area of the Sanctuary beginning in the late 5th century A.D. dug farming trenches over the Heroön that resulted in layers containing Late Antique material mixed with churned-up material of earlier date. CT 1, 3, and 4 were recovered from these disturbed layers. With regard to the date of the tablets, therefore, the archaeological context provides no stratigraphical basis for determining whether they were written and deposited in the shrine during the centuries when it supported an active cult or at some later time before Late Antiquity.8 If instead we look to the internal evidence of the tablets themselves, we note that the letter forms on all four tablets are cursive, consistently featuring the lunate sigma, lunate epsilon, and lower-case omega. While these forms do appear already in the 4th century B.C., the complete absence from our texts of the earlier forms of these letters does suggest a more advanced date, and thus it is much more likely that the tablets were deposited after the Heroön went out of use.9 On the other hand,

Gager, 18. In some instances the tablets are found with the nails still in them. See also Graf 1997, 135, who notes that the act of nailing can also appear in the text of a curse (e.g. DT, no. 49). Eidinow, 149, suggests that the nailing of the tablet was a “ritual reinforcement” of the idea of control expressed by the verb of binding. 5  Faraone 1991, 10–17; Graf 1997, 152–161. More recently Eidinow has expressed unease with this characterization and the classification of the curses into different arenas of rivalry and competition; she proposes seeing the curses instead as responding to various socially constructed forms of risk: Eidinow, passim, esp. 11–25, 158–159, 229–241. 6  Love triangles: Faraone 1991, 13; but see also Jordan 1985 and Gager, 79–80, on the variety of amatory situations. In later periods spells to attract lovers also become more common. Eidinow, 210–216, discussing the difficulty with the classification of these curses in light of the widely varying

and often ambiguous situations involved, prefers to call them “relationship curses” instead. 7  The three illegible/uninscribed tablets (IL 369, IL 370, IL 373) were also found in these layers; their findspots too are indicated in Fig. 543. 8  This understanding of the stratigraphy corrects what was reported in the preliminary excavation reports of the Heroön. In those publications the deposits were regarded as closed deposits associated with the construction of the Early Hellenistic enclosure wall, and the curse tablets were thus dated on stratigraphic grounds to the late 4th century B.C.: Hesperia 1980, 196; Hesperia 1981, 64–65. CT 4 was discovered during processing of the context pottery and as a result its exact findspot is unknown. The area indicated in Fig. 543 represents the area of the excavated layer from which the tablet came. 9  Jordan, at SGD, 167, remarks that to his eyes the letter forms of CT 1 suggest a date late in the 4th century B.C., whereas

4 

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

FIG. 543.

299

State plan of the Heroön with Tomb of Opheltes and findspots of curse tablets indicated.

the relatively straightforward syntax of the curses finds fewer parallels in Imperial times.10 Thus a date in the Hellenistic period is on balance more likely, but a later date is not impossible. It should also be observed that, although all four tablets are written in the Doric dialect and share basic similarities in their syntax, vocabulary, and theme, it is those of CT 2 and 3 suit a date much later in the Hellenistic period; cf. NGCT, 13, 32, where he describes them all as “Hellenistic-Roman” in date. Dating by letter forms is of course inexact. See Wilhelm, 107; also Nemea II, 88–89, for a discussion of the early appearance of the cursive forms in the context of the graffiti in the Tunnel of the Early Hellenistic Stadium. 10  Gager, 5–6.

nevertheless apparent that different hands were at work in inscribing them. The larger, cruder letter forms of CT 3 and its orthographic peculiarities set it apart from the other three. In comparison to CT 2, CT 1 has smaller letter forms that are more neatly inscribed; and those of CT 4 show greater variation in size than the others. Hence, it is impossible to know how far apart in date the tablets are from one another. A catalogue of the four tablets follows. The editions of the texts and epigraphic commentary presented here are based on a personal study of the tablets conducted in summer 2002. Although CT 1 was published shortly after its discovery, it was done in the context of a preliminary excavation report and thus received only brief discussion.

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

300

Since then, some misreadings of the text have entered the scholarship and need correction. For these reasons, as well as in the interest of considering all the tablets from the Heroön together, I include it again here. CT 1. IL 327 (F 18-26) (Figs. 544–546) Discovered June 25, 1979, in area F/13–18/20, at 332.82. Frag. A

Frag. B

Frag. C

Frag. D

MAX. P. L. 0.022 m. 0.018 m. 0.024 m. 0.038 m. MAX. P. W. 0.034 m. 0.043 m. 0.057 m. 0.058 m. TH. 0.001 m. 0.001 m. 0.001 m. 0.001 m.

Bibliography: Editio princeps in Hesperia 1980, 196 (= SEG XXX 353 = SGD, no. 57). Translations in Guide, 28; Gager, no. 25; Versnel, 231 with n. 38; Guide 2, 37; Eidinow, 421–422 (with Greek text as well). The tablet is preserved in four fragments. Fragments A and B overlap side by side and contain the first two lines of text and part of line 3. The bottom edge of fragments A and B joins with the top edge of fragment C along one of the horizontal folds of the tablet. Fragment C contains the rest of line 3 through most of line 7. The top edge of fragment D joins with the bottom of fragment C along another fold of the tablet and contains the remainder of the text. After inscription, the lead tablet was folded three times in the following manner. The top portion was folded down and the bottom portion folded up to meet near the center of the tablet. Then the tablet was folded in half from top to bottom. Only part of the bottom portion of the tablet that was folded up is preserved. It has not been unfolded; instead it now adheres to the back of fragments A and B. A series of three holes, one each in fragments A, C, and D, marks the place where a nail pierced the folded tablet. The left edge of the tablet is fairly well preserved. The right edge appears to be preserved in the areas of lines 1, 8, and 9. The original top and bottom edges of the tablet are not preserved. The text is written with a fairly even left margin, but line lengths vary. The letter spacing is variable as well, and the average letter height is 0.002–0.003 m.

FIG. 544.

FIG. 545. folded.

Curse tablet, IL 327 (CT 1), folded.

Curse tablet IL 327 (CT 1), un-

Close inspection of the tablet has resulted in the following text. It essentially agrees with the editio princeps, although minor differences regarding the legibility of letters are noted in the epigraphic commentary. Ed. pr. also estimates blank letter

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

301

TRANSLATION I turn Euboula away from Aineas: from his face, from his eyes, from his mouth, from his chest, from his soul, from his belly, from his erect penis, from his anus, from all his body. I turn Euboula away from Aineas.

EPIGRAPHIC COMMENTARY 1. ἀποc{c}τρέφω: The sigma of ἀποcτρέφω is mistakenly repeated, although the second sigma is less decisively inscribed. Ed. pr. omits it. Parallels for this error of duplication exist in the papyri: Mayser, 216– 217; Gignac, 159. The phi of ἀποcτρέφω is partly obscured by cracks in the tablet but remains legible. Εὐβούλαν: Ed. pr. accentuates the name as a proparoxytone here and in line 10, but the final alpha must be long. 2. Of the final letter only the upper right diagonal is visible. Ed. pr.: ἀπὸ Αἰνέα, ἀπὸ τοῦ

FIG. 546. (CT 1).

Drawing of curse tablet IL 327

spaces (v) at the ends of lines 2, 5, and 6; since the text is not stoichedon, however, I have decided not to do so here.

TEXT ἀποc{c}τρέφω Εὐβούλαν ἀπὸ Αἰνέα, ἀπὸ τοῦ̣ προcώπο̣υ̣, ἀπὸ τῶν ὀ[φθαλμῶν, ἀπὸ τοῦ cτόμ[ατοc̣, ἀπὸ τῶν τιθθίν, ἀπὸ τᾶc ψυχᾶc, ἀπὸ̣ τᾶc γαcτρ̣ό̣c̣, ἀπ̣ὸ τ]οῦ [ψ]ωλ̣ί̣ου, ἀπὸ τοῦ πρωκ̣τοῦ̣, ἀφ᾿ ὅ̣λου τοῦ cώματοc̣. ἀποcτρέφω Εὐβούλαν ἀπ᾿ Αἰνέα.

1

5

10

3. A fold of the tablet runs across this line, consequently obscuring many of the letter strokes. The first six letters appear above the fold on fragment A; the remainder, below the fold on fragment C. The drawing of the bottom edge of Fragment A is a bit misleading in that enough of the first six letters is legible to make the reading certain. Of the seventh letter, the bottom half of a circular letter is preserved. The bottom half of a rising diagonal stroke is visible in the eighth letter position. On fragment A, two nicks in the same position may represent the top of the letter. The final omicron is only partially preserved. Ed. pr.: προσ̣ώ̣που̣, ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφ-

4. A round impression distorts the surface of the tablet in the area of letters 7 through 10. In the seventh letter position, the left diagonal and crossbar of an alpha can be made out. The next letter, a pi, occupies the center of the disturbed area. Of the tenth letter, the strokes of a tau are visible but hardly different from the surrounding cracks in the tablet. Ed. pr.: θαλμῶν, [ἀπὸ] τοῦ στόμα-

5. The third letter consists of two strokes: a lunate stroke and a slightly slanted stroke rising to

302

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

the right from near the top of the lunate stroke. Sigma or epsilon could have been intended. The final three letters are iota, alpha, and nu on the tablet, resulting in a problematic reading that will discussed below. Ed. pr.: τος, ἀπὸ τῶν τιθθίαν,

7. Another fold of the tablet runs through this line. The third letter appears as a vertical stroke followed by a reverse lunate stroke joined at the top. Of the 11th letter only the top of a vertical stroke with a half-circle to the right is visible; the rest of the letter is broken away at the fold of the tablet. The rest of the letters of the line are found below the tablet fold, on fragment D. The bottom half of the 12th letter is circular, and the bottom of a lunate stroke appears in the next position. Following the remains of the alpha in the 14th letter position are the lower parts of two vertical strokes, the left stroke curving inward slightly. Ed. pr.: ἀπὸ τᾶς γάσ̣τ̣ρ̣ο̣ς, ἀπὸ

8. The fold of the tablet has damaged the beginning of this line too. The area of the first letter is broken away. The fourth letter position is illegible. There follows an omega that is partly obscured by the bent and cracked surface of the tablet. The right half of the letter appears to droop lower than the left half. Of the following letter, only a vertical or diagonal stroke is clear on the left side of the letter space. A vertical stoke is visible in the seventh letter position, but the top of the letter is broken away. The final letter of the line is curious: Two curved strokes join at top and bottom like an omicron. Two curved strokes that join only at the bottom, like half of an omega, follow. Perhaps the author started spelling the word πρωκτοῦ with an omicron, realized the mistake, and then added the remaining strokes to convert the letter to an omega. Ed. pr.: τ]οῦ . . . . ., ἀπὸ τοῦ πρω-.

While the editio princeps prints five dotted letter spaces after the initial τ]οῦ in line 8, it also mentions, in n. 41, D. R. Jordan’s suggested reading of ψωλίου, with which I agree. 9. A tear in the tablet obscures the top of the first letter; visible are the bottoms of a left vertical stroke and a right descending diagonal stroke. An ascending diagonal stroke is visible in the fourth letter position. The next letter is partly inter-

rupted by a nail hole, but enough is present to read an alpha. Of the seventh letter, only the bottom left quarter is clear. Ed. pr.: κ̣τοῦ, ἀφ᾿ ὅλου τοῦ σώμα-

10. In the third letter position, the upper half of a lunate stroke is clear. Epsilon or sigma is possible. Ed. pr. prints an undotted sigma here.

DISCUSSION The curse expresses the wish of the defigens to drive apart two lovers, a woman named Euboula and a man named Aineas.11 The name Euboula is attested epigraphically in the Hellenistic period in Cyprus, Rhodes, Athens, Epiros, Macedonia, and Thrace; and in the Imperial period in Cyrenaica, Samos, Illyria, Sikyon, Thrace, and Ephesos.12 The name Aineas is widely attested in inscriptions of the Hellenistic period but much scarcer in those of the Imperial period, with occurrences at Andros, Brundisium, Thessalian Hypata and Larisa, a few cities of coastal Asia Minor, and perhaps Thera.13 The operative verb of the tablet, ἀποϲτρέφω, “turn away,” recurs in CT 2 and 4, and its semantic range will be discussed in the general discussion that follows the catalogue. The curse continues, starting in line 2, with a list of the parts of Aineas’ body away from which the defigens wants to turn Euboula.14 In line 5 I propose reading τῶν τιθθίν. The phrase must refer to Aineas’ chest or nipples. The Gager, 80, incorrectly reads the former as a male name and consequently refers to this tablet as an example of a man in pursuit of another man in a male same-sex love triangle. The situation is not inherently impossible, of course, and is documented in other curse tablets, as Gager himself notes. Versnel, 231 with n. 38, points out the mistake and gives the correct reading, which is followed by Eidinow, 222–223. 12  LGPN, I, 172; II, 164; III.A, 160; III.B, 150; IV, 129; V.A, 174 (s.v. Εὐβούλα). At III.A, 18 (s.v. Αἰνέας) and 160 (s.v. Εὐβούλα), the individuals of this tablet appear, but their identification as father and daughter is unfounded and almost certainly wrong. 13  LGPN, I, 18–19; II, 14; III.A, 18; III.B, 17; V.A, 12–13 (s.v. Αἰνέας). The exceptions in the Hellenistic period seem to be Macedonia and Thrace, where the name is not attested (although the variant Αἰνείας is: LGPN, IV, 11, [s.v.]) 14  Graf 1997, 154, mistakenly translates the start of the curse as a list of the parts of Euboula’s body (the text is also wrongly called Attic). 11 

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

regular word for “breast,” more often applied to a woman than a man, is ὁ τιτθός (LSJ, s.v.). The neuter diminutive is τιτθίον or τιτθίδιον, both of which are attested in comedy. There is also the feminine noun τιτθή, which has the more common meaning of “nurse” but can have the same meaning as τιτθός. The word expected here must be one of these or something related.15 Either we must assume that the writer has misspelled the word, intending τιθθίων, from τιθθίον (τιτθίον), which would bring the word into agreement with τῶν; or we must posit a feminine noun *τιθθία, represented here in the Doric genitive plural, and explain τῶν rather than τᾶν as the creeping inf luence of koine. The former explanation seems more likely. Of particular note is ψωλίου, line 8, the neuter diminutive form of the more common ψωλή (Doric ψωλά), which LSJ defines as membrum virile praeputio retracto, i.e. an uncircumcised penis in a state of arousal. It is attested in the comedies of Aristophanes (Lys. 143 and Av. 560), and it appears in a 5th-century graffito from Panticapaeum (SEG III 596). A masculine form, ψωλός, is attested as an insult applied to men in Aristophanes (Av. 507, Eq. 964, and Plut. 267) as well as in Diphilos fr. 39.16 On curse tablets the feminine form appears in DT 77, where it is paired with a reference to a woman’s vagina in what appears to be another erotic curse. The neuter form, however, appears only at Nemea, not only on this tablet but also on CT 2 and 3.17 The curse concludes with a restatement of the opening wish in ring composition. The emphasis that this device creates through repetition, particularly of the operative verb, qualifies the ending

The substitution of τιθθ- for τιτθ- is not unusual; on the interchange of voiceless stop and aspirate see Buck, 65. 16  On the usage of these words in comedy see Henderson, 110–111. The graffito from Panticapaeum was found inscribed on a vase recovered from a grave in 1883 and reads Παρθενίο κύων τὴν ψωλὴν δάκοι, “May Parthenios’ dog [bitch?] bite his erect penis.” 17  Another reference to the male genitals may appear in SGD, no. 58 (Delos, Late Hellenistic or Imperial), a curse against a thief. A list of body parts on Side B may include τὰ αἰδοῖα, albeit misspelled. For the Greek text and translation, see Eidinow, 422–423. I thank one of the anonymous Hesperia reviewers for drawing my attention to this text. 15 

303

of the text as an example of “emphatic summary” found in many curses.18 CT 2. IL 372 (G 19-38) (Figs. 547, 548) Discovered June 12, 1980, in area G/8–19/13, at 332.99. MAX. P. L.: 0.262 m. MAX. P. W.: 0.069 m. TH.: 0.001 m.

The text is inscribed as a column of short lines down a lengthy strip of lead. The strip was folded accordion-style at least four times, and nails (not preserved) were driven through the folded strip in at least three places, leaving 11 small puncture holes over its preserved surface. The original left edge of the curse tablet is preserved at the top of the tablet and again at lines 32–35. That the original strip of lead was of varying width is clear, however, from the varying line lengths of the text: Whereas the initial lines contain four to six letters, the line length expands to up to nine letters throughout the remainder of the text. The average letter height is 4 to 5 mm. The letter spacing is variable, and most of the lines droop toward the right edge of the tablet.

TEXT καταδίδεμι Διοδώρ̣ου τὰν̣ κεφαλὰν ἀποϲτραφῆμ̣εν ἀπ᾿ Ἀρ̣τεμιδώρ̣αϲ, τὸ μέ̣τ̣ωπον̣, τοὺϲ ὀφθαλμούϲ, τ]ὰ τα, τὸ ϲτόμα, τὸ γένεον, τὰ γυῖα. καταδίδμ[ι

1

5

10

15

18  Graf 1997, 122. The inconsistent use of elision, as seen in lines 2 and 11, is not uncommon: Mayser, 155–156.

304

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

FIG. 547. Curse tablet, IL 372 (CT 2), unfolded. τ̣ὰν ψυχὰ̣ν Διοδώρ]ο̣υ ἀποϲτρα̣φῆμεν ἀπ’ Ἀρτεμιδώραϲ, τάν γ̣αϲτέρα, τὸ ϲ]ῶμα, τὸ ψ̣ωλίον, τὰ ϲκ̣ έλη, τοὺϲ πόδαϲ. κ̣αταδίδεμι ΤΦΛΙΑ τὰν ἀγά̣παν μιϲῆϲαι . . [----] . ϹΩΤ . . . [----] vv Ϲ vv [----]

FIG. 548. Drawing of curse tablet IL 372 (CT 2).

20

25

30

35

TRANSLATION I bind the head of Diodoros to be turned away from Artemidora, his forehead, his eyes, his ears, his mouth, his chin, his arms. I bind the soul of Diodoros to be turned away from Artemidora, his belly, his body, his erect penis, his legs, his feet. I bind [his affection?], his love to hate [her?] . . . .

EPIGRAPHIC COMMENTARY 2. The final letter, iota, is faintly incised at the right edge of the tablet. 3. The initial delta is badly damaged, yet parts of all three strokes of the letter are visible. In the last letter position, a vertical stroke is clear. Parts

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

of a fainter curved stroke attached to the vertical can be seen at the very edge of the tablet. 4. Of the final letter one sees a vertical stroke connected to a descending diagonal stroke before the tablet breaks off. 7. Of the final letter can be seen a left vertical stroke and a curved stroke descending from the middle of the vertical stroke. 8. Only the left diagonal stroke of the final letter is visible. 9. A fold of the tablet runs through this line. Of the first letter can be seen a half-circle in the upper right of the letter space. The left edge of the tablet is broken away so that nothing else of the letter remains. 10. Again the left edge of the tablet is broken away, and only a half-circle in the upper right of the letter space remains. The final letter of the line is partly broken away at the right edge of the tablet. Almost directly below the preceding mu can be seen the bottom part of another vertical stroke. From near the bottom of the vertical stroke runs a horizontal stroke. A shorter, fainter horizontal stroke lies just above this. 11. At the left edge of the tablet is part of a horizontal stroke. It lies significantly low in the letter space, but the context suggests this is part of a tau. The final stroke of the last letter, nu, is partially damaged. 13. The first letter, alpha, is partially broken away, but the letter is still legible. 14. The first letter is missing because of the fraying of the left edge of the tablet and the presence of a nail hole. The third preserved letter is an alpha of an unusual form: the left diagonal and crossbar strokes are drawn in a single, rounded stroke, and the right diagonal stroke descends from the upper end of the crossbar. Similar renderings of the alpha appear in lines 27 and 31. 18. Of the initial letter, kappa, part of the left vertical stroke is missing. The eighth letter is drawn as a sigma, lacking the central horizontal stroke to complete the letter epsilon. An iota should be restored at the end of the line to complete the verb καταδίδεμι. There is not enough space at the beginning of the next line to expect it there. 19. The first letter space is partially broken away. In the upper right part of the space, a horizontal stroke is visible. A fold of the tablet runs through the end of this line and much of the next.

305

20. Part of the first letter is broken away; only a descending diagonal stroke is visible. 21. The first letter space is broken away. The missing letter belongs to the same name that occurs in lines 3 and 4, from which context we can supply a rho here. The second letter, omicron, is partly obscured by damage to the tablet. The last letter, rho, is written with a very large circular stroke almost as tall as the vertical stroke to its left. 22. Of the first letter only the lower part of a descending diagonal is clear in the bottom right part of the space. The prior occurrence of the verb ἀποϲτραφῆμεν in lines 4 to 6 secures an alpha here. 23. The left vertical stroke of pi in the first position is missing. 24. The final vertical stroke of the nu at the line’s end is partially broken away. 25. At the broken left edge of the tablet appears the right half of an upper horizontal stroke. A nail hole has removed the lower part of the tau in the eighth position, and the upper right quadrant of the following omicron is broken away. 26. The fraying of the left edge of the tablet and the presence of a nail hole have removed the first letter. The final letter of the line is written as a vertical stroke crossed in the middle by a horizontal stroke. At the right end of the horizontal is a curved mark like a check mark. 27. The left tip of the initial omega is broken away. 28. Of the initial letter, only the upper and lower ends of a curved letter are preserved. Sigma or epsilon is possible. 30. A fold of the tablet runs through this line. Of the initial letter, an ascending diagonal stroke is visible in the upper right of the letter space, and a descending diagonal stroke is clear in the lower right of the letter space. The final letter of the line, epsilon, is written lower than the rest, almost appearing in the following line. 32. Of the final letter, left and right diagonals joining at top are visible. The rest of the letter space is damaged. The possibilities are alpha, delta, and lambda. 33. At the right edge of the tablet, before a spot of corrosion, is part of a curved stroke. Sigma, epsilon, and phi are possibilities. 34. The fifth letter position is badly corroded. A faint mark may represent a descending diagonal stroke. In the sixth letter position a strong descending diagonal stroke is clear. At the end of this

306

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

stroke, just as the tablet breaks away, may be the start of an ascending diagonal stroke. There may have been more letters in the line. 35. Before the first clear letter, sigma, is a diagonal mark that may or may not be a letter stroke. The letter space after the tau is badly damaged, but two strokes are visible: a rising diagonal and a horizontal joined to it at the bottom end. Delta or alpha is possible. In the following letter space, a heavy diagonal stroke descending to the right is clear, and an ascending diagonal stroke is joined to it just above the bottom of the stroke. At the broken edge of the tablet is an impression that may represent a stroke of another letter. There may have been more letters in the line after the break. 36. Only one letter is visible, sigma, though it falls in about the third letter space. There may have been more letters in the line after the break.

DISCUSSION The curse on this tablet likewise seeks to separate two lovers, in this instance Diodoros and Artemidora. The name Diodoros is very common and amply attested in the Hellenistic period and later throughout the Greek world.19 So too is the name Artemidora, which appears in Hellenistic inscriptions of Andros, Astypalaia, Delos, Samos, Athens, Argos, Sicily, Boiotia, Thessaly, Tauris and coastal Asia Minor; and in Imperial inscriptions from Cyprus, Lesbos, Thasos, Akarnania, Illyria, Campania, Macedonia, Scythia Minor, Thrace, and coastal Asia Minor.20 The syntax of the tablet differs somewhat, however, from that of CT 1. Here the operative verb is καταδίδεμι, a variant spelling of καταδίδημι, which is an athematic form of Attic καταδῶ, “I bind.”21 This is one of the principal verbs of the Greek

binding spells of the Classical and Hellenistic periods and is the obvious root of the ancient term κατάδεσμος.22 In most instances it is used in an absolute sense with the victim’s name, body parts, faculties, and/or activities as direct objects, but occasionally the syntax is expanded to include the expression of a desired outcome. For instance, in NGCT 3 (Athens, Kerameikos, 4th century B.C.) the predicate is followed by a purpose clause, and in SGD 124 (Metapontum, 3rd century B.C.), a natural result clause. In our text the verb and its objects are paired with an object infinitive to express purpose (Smyth, 2008). The infinitive is ἀποϲτραφῆμεν, the Doric form of the aorist passive infinitive of ἀποϲτρέφω (Attic ἀποϲτραφῆναι). A parallel for this syntax may be found in DT, no. 68, a curse from Attica of the 4th century B.C., although the text is heavily restored.23 As the operative verb of our tablet, καταδίδεμι is repeated two more times, with ἀποϲτραφῆμεν again as object infinitive in ll. 21–22 and μιϲῆσαι in ll. 33–34. The text continues with a list, beginning with Diodoros’ head, of the 13 parts of his body to be turned away from Artemidora.24 Again the list is organized from top to bottom. In line 14, the text has ΟΑΤΑ where the context suggests a word for ears; this is either a misspelling, a dialectal variant of ὦτα, other known variants being οὔατα and ὤατα (see LSJ, ss.vv. οὖς, ὦας), or both. The erroneous substitution of an omicron for either omega or the diphthong ου has been observed in papyri: Mayser, 98–99, 116–117; Gignac, 211. The same noun appears in a list of body parts in SGD, no. 109; in other curse tablets, e.g. DT, no. 41 (Megara, Imperial Period), the word used for ears is ἀκοαί.25 In line 16, the substitution of ε for

Graf 1997, 121, 125. A related verb is καταδεσμεύω, which is used in SGD, no. 64 = Gager, no. 19 (Karystos, Euboia, 4th century B.C.); SGD, no. 161 = Gager, no. 34 (Egypt, Imperial); NGCT, nos. 24 (Attica, 4th century B.C.) and 40 (Pydna, 4th century B.C.). For the last two see also Jordan 1999, 115–116. The verb is also attested on tablets found at Corinth: Corinth XVIII, vi, 86–92, no. 118, with discussion of additional examples on p. 87. 23  DTA, no. 109 (Attica, 3rd c. B.C.) and possibly DT, no. 67 (Attica, 4th c. B.C.) also exhibit a comparable syntax. 24  One of the items in the list is “the body” itself, which may seem strange but is not without parallel. 25  For the text of SGD, no. 109, see Eidinow, 434–436. I thank one of the anonymous Hesperia reviewers for drawing my attention to this text. 22 

19  LGPN, I, 134; II, 118–119; III.A, 127; III.B, 117–118; IV, 100; V.A, 133–135 (s.v. Διόδωρος). 20  LGPN, I, 82; II, 65; III.A, 72; III.B, 67; IV, 49; V.A, 70 (s.v. Ἀρτεμιδώρα). 21  The interchange of eta and epsilon occurs in other curse tablets (see DT, Index VIII.A.1, s.v. Litterae mutantur) and frequently in papyri: Mayser, 64–66; Gignac, 242. The athematic form καταδίδημι appears in DTA, nos. 42 and 55, as well as in DT, no. 69 (Attica); DT, nos. 81 and 84 (Boiotia); SGD, no. 24 = Gager, no. 81 (Metapontum); and NGCT, no. 78 (Lilybaeum). All of these tablets are dated to the 4th through 2nd centuries B.C. A Boiotian form, καδδίδημι, is used in DTA, no. 74 (Attica, date not specifed).

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

ει seen in γένεον is a common phenomenon in both curse tablets and papyri.26 The curse concludes, so far as can be read, with another kind of emphatic coda. The operative verb is once more paired with a complementary infinitive, but now the focus shifts from body parts to emotions. If I am right to see τ φλία, “fondness, affection” (see LSJ s.v., 3) in the letters ΤΦΛΙΑ in line 31, then Diodoros’ affection and love are being bound to hate Artemidora. Both φιλία and ἀγάπη are rare nouns in separation spells, being more at home in spells to attract love.27 Likewise the verb μισῶ is rare among curses to separate lovers despite its relevance as an emotional response. It appears in DT, no. 198 (Cumae, Imperial Period), together with the noun μῖσος, in a curse to separate Valeria Quadratilla and Vitruvius Felix; and in the compound form ἀπομισῶ it is found in a curse from Rome that seeks to make Eros and Felicissima hate one another.28

FIG. 549.

Curse tablet, IL 367 (CT 3), unfolded.

FIG. 550.

Drawing of curse tablet IL 367 (CT 3).

307

CT 3. IL 367 (G 19-26) (Figs. 549, 550) Discovered May 7, 1980, in area G/10,11–19/12, at 333.18. MAX. P. L.: 0.090 m MAX. P. W.: 0.113 m TH.: 0.001 m

As preserved, the lead sheet upon which this text was inscribed is of very irregular shape, resembling a thick crescent or fan. Traces of original edges are visible, however, above and to the left of the first line of text, as well as to the left of lines 4 and 7. The bottom edge is preserved below the final three letters of line 8. Where preserved, these 26  DT, Index VIII.A.1, s.v. Syllabae corripiuntur; Mayser, 67– 71; Gignac, 257. 27  See e.g. DT, no. 271 (Hadrumetum, North Africa, 3rd century after Christ). For examples among the magical papyri see Versnel, 248–249. DT, no. 7 (Knidos, 2nd or 1st century B.C.), may preserve another instance of ἀγάπη but the conjecture is far from certain and the purpose of the curse is otherwise obscure. 28  The latter receives brief mention in SGD, no. 129, where it is dated to the 3rd century after Christ, and it is published by Bevilacqua, who also cites parallel examples of spells invoking hatred in the Greek magical papyri. The curse uses the term μίσηθρον, attested elsewhere, which appears to be a technical term for a spell to instill hatred: Bevilacqua, 292–293. Hatred appears as a desired outcome also in a spell from Egypt written on an ostrakon: see Gager, no. 35 (2nd century after Christ).

three edges are at right angles to one another. No trace of the original right edge is visible. The tablet was folded twice in an odd fashion. First, the tablet was folded over along a diagonal line from bottom left to upper right. Then it was folded along a vertical line with respect to the bottom of the tablet. No holes are visible to indicate the use of nails with the folded tablet. The odd folding of the tablet and anomalies in the inscribing of the text (see epigraphic commentary below) suggest that the original shape of the lead sheet may not have been completely rectangular.29 29  One of the anonymous reviewers comments that the shape is reminiscent of circular curse tablets found in Sicily (e.g. SGD, no. 99). Other published tablets have shapes that seem to imitate body parts: Eidinow, 154–155.

308

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

The preserved letters of the first two lines are oriented at right angles to the preserved edges of the tablet. Beginning with line 3, however, the text takes on a different orientation, descending at a slight angle from left to right. Moreover, in line 4, the author has interrupted the text with a space of about four letters immediately below where the tablet is now broken away. It is possible that the author was dealing with a sheet that was already broken away or damaged in the areas that are now not preserved. Line lengths and letter spacing are variable. The average letter height is 0.006 m. While lines 2 through 6 begin close to the left edge of the tablet, lines 1 and 7 are inset by one to two letter spaces. The only certain line length is that of line 5, with 12 letter positions; lines 4 and 6 may be complete as well.

TEXT v ΚΕΦ̣ [----] ΑΔΙΔ̣ [ . . . ] Δ̣ [----] . ϹΤΑ . . [ . . . ] v [----] ΑΝϹΨΥΧ vvvv Ρ̣ΟϹ̣ . ϹΑϹ καταδίδεμι τὸ {ϲ}ψωλίον̣ vv τ̣ὰ {ϲ}ϲκέλ̣η̣ [----] ] ΛΟΝΑ̣ΠΟ [ . ] . [----]

1

5

TRANSLATION . . . I bind his erect penis, his legs. . . .

EPIGRAPHIC COMMENTARY 1. Of the third letter, a circular stroke on the left side and a vertical stroke to the right are clear before the tablet breaks away. The vertical stroke descends slightly below the curved stroke, suggesting phi, though a badly written omicron is also possible. The strokes could also represent two letters: a lunate letter like sigma, and the start of another letter. 2. A left rising diagonal stroke is certain in the fourth position, as well as the start of a stroke from the bottom of the diagonal, before the break in the tablet. The letter may be delta or alpha. At the far right edge of the tablet appears a small, faintly

inscribed letter: delta, or perhaps a poorly written omicron. I have placed this letter at the end of line 2, judging by the distance between the letter and the end of line 4 below it. In light of the irregularities of the inscribing of the text, however, the end of line 3 is also possible. Moreover, given the question of the original shape of the lead tablet, it is uncertain whether the letter even belongs to a line of text from the left side of the tablet. 3. In the first letter position appear traces of a diagonal stroke rising to the right. In the fourth position is the lower part of a stroke intended either as a vertical or a diagonal rising right. Tau, rho, iota, gamma, psi, and upsilon are possibilities. To the right of this stroke is part of a descending stroke that crosses over a vertical or rising diagonal stroke. Chi is possible, though the descending stroke does not carry far beyond the rising stroke, and upsilon is also possible. If all three strokes are considered together as one letter, nu is possible. 4. The fourth letter seems to be a psi, though written in an odd fashion. Essentially the author has written an upsilon and then added a small vertical stroke rising from the left diagonal of the upsilon. As already noted, after the fifth letter there follows an area of uninscribed text of about four letter spaces. Traces of three letters follow, which I take to be the continuation of the line. Of these letters, the first seems to be a rho, though the vertical stroke is not completely clear. Of the final letter only a small part of a curved stroke is visible before the tablet breaks off. Sigma, phi, and epsilon are possible readings. 5. A descending diagonal stroke remains of the first letter. Of the final letter, the curve of a sigma or epsilon is clear. A faint mark is also visible that I take to be the middle horizontal of an epsilon. 6. The left vertical stroke of the initial mu is broken away. The sixth letter is a psi, though the central vertical stroke is obscured by a fold of the tablet. The next letter, omega, is poorly written, with a stray mark crossing from the central tip to the right tip of the letter. The final stroke of the nu in the final position is broken away. 7. Context suggests that the first letter is tau, although the vertical stroke meets the upper horizontal stroke at its left end, making the letter resemble a gamma. Of the seventh letter only the right descending stroke is clear. The tip of a vertical stroke is all that remains of the next letter, at which point the tablet breaks off.

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

309

8. Of the fourth preserved letter, the left and right diagonal strokes are certain. A very faint mark may represent a crossbar, making the letter an alpha. After the sixth letter there is a small gap in the tablet, about one letter space. Two marks that may be the tips of a descending diagonal stroke and an ascending diagonal stroke follow at the edge of the tablet.

DISCUSSION Although the text is more lacunose, the phrase καταδίδεμι τὸ {с}ψωλίον in ll. 5–6 and the listing of at

least one other part of the body suggest that we are dealing with another erotic curse, akin to CT 2. It is tempting, furthermore, to see the letters ΑΔΙΔ in line 2 as part of another instance of the verb καταδίδεμι. As the operative word of the curse, it is likely to have been repeated, as indeed it is in CT 2, and as ἀποϲτρέφω is repeated in CT 1 and 4. The writer of this tablet seems to have a tendency to add an extraneous sigma to the beginning of words that start with double consonants involving sigma. Thus in line 5, a sigma is added before psi (pi sigma); in line 7, if I am right in reading ϲκέλ ̣η ,̣ then an extra sigma appears before sigma kappa.30 Accordingly, I am tempted to take line 4 as another example so that the first five letters may represent τ]ὰν {с}ψυχ(άν), “the soul,” but the absence of any legible letter after the chi makes this reading uncertain.31 CT 4. IL 326 (F 18-25) (Figs. 551–553) Discovered June 25, 1979, in area F/10,14– 18/14,18, at 333.34–332.80. MAX. P. L.: see following discussion MAX. P. W.: 0.031 m. TH.: 0.001 m. A parallel for this phenomenon is found in a Ptolemaic papyrus: Mayser, 217. 31  One of the anonymous Hesperia reviewers suggests another possible reading: These letters may instead represent the end of the name of a demon or divine being, and the following spaces may mark the end of one curse and the start of another on the tablet. Ending a curse with such a name finds parallel, the reviewer points out, on a curse tablet from Kenchreai (see Faraone and Rife). The name Κόρη ερεσχιγαλ ζαβαρβαθουχ, which appears several times in a curse from Egypt (DT, no. 38), offers a similar-sounding ending, but I have been unable to find an attested name that ends in the exact letters here. 30 

FIG. 551.

Curse tablet, IL 326 (CT 4), folded.

Although it was found intact, the process of opening this brittle tablet unfortunately has left it in numerous fragments, over 30 of which contain traces of letters. The original shape of the tablet seems to have been a long strip with tapering, rounded ends. Although I have been unable to reconstruct in its entirety the original sequence of the fragments, it is clear that the tablet was rolled a number of times from left to right or right to left with respect to the text. Not only does the pattern of vertical folds indicate this, but also there are traces of horizontal impressions on some fragments created by the pressure of the rolling itself (see e.g. the bottom of Frag. P in Fig. 553). In a few instances, moreover, one roll of the tablet still adheres to the surface of another, so that one set of letters overlies another (see e.g. Frags. K and N in Fig. 553). There is no evidence that nails were driven through this tablet after it was rolled. The original shape of the tablet seems to have been a long strip with tapering, rounded ends (see fragments C and S+T+U). The tablet had at least 15 folded sections: fragment A, fragment B, fragment C (4 sections), fragment K (2 sections),

310

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

FIG. 552.

Curse tablet IL 326 (CT 4), select unfolded fragments.

fragment L, fragments M+N(top)+O, fragment N (bottom), fragment O, fragment S, fragment T, and fragment U. It is not clear how many other folded sections the remaining fragments together represent. A minimum estimate of the original length of the tablet is found by adding the maximum preserved lengths of the fragments just listed; this yields an estimated length of 0.186 m. To this should be added again the measurement of fragment K, as an estimate of the second, overlapping section of the tablet that is preserved (see commentary on fragment K). The estimated minimum length then becomes 0.221 m. The maximum width of the tablet is preserved on fragment K, 0.031 m. By these calculations, the original lead strip was over seven times as long as it was wide. The text is inscribed across the length of the tablet in at least five lines. The average letter height varies greatly among the fragments, ranging from 2–3 mm. on some to 5 mm. on others, and the letter spacing is not consistent. Perhaps the challenge posed to the inscriber by the varying width of the original lead strip may account for these inconsistencies. Given the state of the tablet, the text and epigraphic commentary that follow are organized by each of the legible fragments (or groups of fragments), after which appears a consideration of the text as a whole.

TEXT AND EPIGRAPHIC COMMENTARY Fragment A MAX. P. L.: 0.022 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.028 m.

Original upper and lower edges of tablet are preserved. Left and right edges preserve traces of folds. ] . ΕΝΕ [ ] ΝΕΙΚΟ [ ] v Λ vv [

1

1. At the broken left edge of the tablet appear parts of the right side of a circular letter. Theta, omicron, or phi is possible. 3. The only visible letter is lambda in the 2nd letter position.

Fragment B MAX. P. L.: 0.020 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.022 m.

The left edge is broken along a tablet fold. The upper and lower edges preserve traces of the original edges of the tablet. ] ΝΑΙ [ ] ΑΠΟΝΙ [ ] ΥϹΤΑ [ ] ΝΚΑΙ [

1

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

FIG. 553.

311

Drawing of fragments of curse tablet IL 326 (CT 4).

4. The bottom of the left vertical stroke of nu is broken away. Between the nu and the kappa is a slight gap, which may represent another letter space.

Fragment C MAX. P. L.: 0.054 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.026 m.

Fragment C preserves the original, slightly rounded, left edge of the tablet as well as the left margin of the text. It also preserves the original upper and lower edges of the tablet. From the left edge the tablet progressively widens.

ἀποϲτρέφω̣ ΠΟΛΑ [ ἀποϲτρέφω τα [ ϲθένεοϲ ἀποϲτ [ ϲ̣θ̣ένεοϲ ἀπο [ Ο . Α̣ . [ . . . ] . Θ̣ . [

1

5

1. A fold of the tablet obscures the ninth letter, of which the left side of an omega can be made out. After the fold there is insufficient space for another letter before the pi. 2. A fold in the tablet obscures the eighth letter, phi. Nevertheless, the left and right curves of the letter are visible on either side of the fold, and the

312

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

bottom of the center vertical stroke is clear on the right side of the fold. The right diagonal stroke of the final alpha is broken away. 4. The clearest part of the first letter is a diagonal stroke rising and touching the sigma above. Another stroke of what I take to be the letter sigma descends to the right from the first diagonal stroke. The eye is easily led astray here by surrounding cracks in the tablet. A fold of the tablet interrupts the second letter, which is clearly circular. Apart from theta, omicron or phi is possible. 5. A fold in the tablet prevents reading the second letter. In the third letter position, two diagonals and a crossing stroke seem to form an alpha, though a poorly written delta is another possibility. Another fold breaks through the fourth letter, and the bottom of the letter space is broken away. All that remains are the right end of a horizontal stroke and, descending from it, the upper part of a vertical stroke. The letter may be pi or tau. The remainder of this folded section of the tablet is broken away, revealing another section of the tablet that still adheres to the back of fragment C. Approximately two letter spaces are missing. In the next folded section of fragment C, one more letter space is broken away. The next discernible marks are a pair of vertical strokes. The bottom part of the letter space and the area between the strokes are not preserved. Of the next letter, a left diagonal stroke with parts of lower and middle horizontal strokes projecting from it can be seen. After a slight break, there is a tiny fragment that once was part of fragment C but is now detached. It preserves a stroke that appears to close off the right side of the letter. If the fragment is positioned correctly, then the closed letterform with a middle horizontal must be theta. The tiny fragment preserves the left side of another rounded letter. At the right edge appears a vertical stroke. The letter is either phi or an angular omicron. At the bottom of the tiny fragment, two vertical strokes are visible. These strokes appear to be stray marks.

Fragment D MAX. P. L.: 0.012 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.014 m.

Fragment E MAX. P. L.: 0.018 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.011 m. ].[ ]vΔv[

1

1. At the top edge of the fragment appears the bottom tip of an ascending stroke followed by most of a descending diagonal stroke. Lambda or alpha is possible. 2. The delta appears isolated in the center of the fragment.

Fragment F MAX. P. L.: 0.012 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.012 m. ] Κ̣Ο [ ] . ΝΘ [

1

1. Of the first letter can be seen a vertical stroke at the extreme left edge of the fragment. Part of a diagonal stroke rising from the lower part of the letter space follows. A third stroke descending away from the second is also clear. If the three strokes should be taken as one letterform, the letter may be kappa. Of the following letter, the bottom of the omicron is clearer than the top. 2. In the first letter position is seen the right half of a circular letter, either omicron or phi.

Fragment G

The upper edge of the fragment seems original. ] ΟϹΠΡ̣ [ ] Ϲ̣ΘΕ̣ [

1. The left side of the omicron is broken away. Of the final letter, the vertical stroke is clear. A mark at the top of the stroke may represent a very tight half circle, making the letter rho. R. S. Stroud suggests to me the possible restoration [ἀπ] οϲ⟨τ⟩ρ̣[έφω], understanding the pi as a mistake for tau. 2. The top of a lunate stroke is visible in the first letter space. Sigma or epsilon is possible. The third letter is curved on the left side and has a middle horizontal stroke. The right side of the letter is broken away, leaving epsilon and theta as possible readings. R. S. Stroud suggests to me here a possible instance of the name [Δαμο]ϲ ̣θέ [̣ νεοϲ].

1

MAX. P. L.: 0.012 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.007 m. ] Λ̣ . [

1

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

1. Two faint diagonal strokes may represent a lambda, followed by the bottom of a curved letter, either epsilon, theta, sigma or omicron.

bottom parts of the left diagonal and crossbar of an alpha.

Fragment K

Fragment H

MAX. P. L.: 0.019 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.031 m.

MAX. P. L.: 0.010 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.015 m. ]Α[ ] Ι̣ . [ ].Λ.[

313

1

2. Below line 1 are two marks that may represent a second line of letters. The first mark is a very short vertical stroke, like a very squat iota. The second mark is an elongated, wavy horizontal mark terminating in a short, descending vertical stroke. 3. The top of a vertical stroke is clear above the broken left edge of the fragment. A vertical mark that falls just at the right edge of the fragment may represent the stroke of a third letter.

Fragment K actually comprises two fragmentary, superimposed sections of the folded tablet. The smaller fragment contains traces of letters. To the back of this adheres the larger second fragment, which does not appear to have any letters. It does preserve a fold of the tablet along its left edge, however, and its upper and lower edges are original. ]Π[ ] ΑΠ [

1

1. The lower part of the pi is covered by encrustation. 2. The left diagonal stroke of the alpha is broken away, and the right stroke of the following pi is covered by encrustation.

Fragment I Fragments L + M + N (top) + O

MAX. P. L.: 0.008 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.009 m.

MAX. P. L.: 0.029 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.029 m.

The left edge preserves a fold of the tablet. ] . ΤΑ [ ]..[

1

1. In the first letter position, a diagonal stroke descends from the left edge of the fragment to join with the middle of a vertical stroke. Upsilon or nu is possible. Of the third letter, alpha, the right diagonal stroke is broken away. 2. Of the first letter, the top of a circular letter is clear above the broken edge of the fragment. Sigma, epsilon, omicron, and theta are possibilities. Of the second letter can be seen two strokes forming a peak and a horizontal stroke joining the strokes at bottom, like a delta. Since the bottom of the letter space is broken away, however, a theta with a peaked top cannot be ruled out.

Fragment J MAX. P. L.: 0.013 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.016 m.

Most of the surface is encrusted. ].Α[

1

1. Descending from the upper edge of the fragment is a long vertical stroke. There follow the

Fragment N comprises two sections of the folded tablet that are still stuck together. A small fragment of one section, here designated N (top), is superimposed upon a larger fragment of another section, N (bottom). Both sections bear traces of letters, though the letters of the larger fragment underneath are very faint. The superimposed section, N (top), joins with two other fragments: fragment M, which preserves a fold along its left edge, and fragment O, which preserves a fold along its right edge. Fragments M, N (top), and O together yield the width of one of the folded sections of the tablet. The left folded edge of fragment M, moreover, clearly joins with the right folded edge of fragment L, yielding a bit of text across all four fragments. All four fragments preserve the original upper edge of the tablet. ] . ΙΔΟ . ϹΑ [ ] . ΕΦΟ . ΤΟ . [ ] ΑϹΤ [?] ΕΡΑ . [ ]Α.[..].Ο[

1

1. Of the first letter, a curve open to the right is clear. The surface of the tablet is obscured in the center of the letter space, so it is not clear whether

314

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

the letter has a central horizontal stroke. Sigma and epsilon are the possible readings of the letter. The fourth letter, omicron, falls on fragment M. On fragment N (top), the fifth letter is partly concealed by encrustation; nevertheless, a descending diagonal stroke joining the middle of a right vertical or diagonal stroke is clear. The letter may be upsilon or nu. The next letter, sigma, is split between fragments N (top) and O. 2. In the first letter space, a diagonal stroke descends from the left edge of the fragment and joins the middle of a curved vertical or diagonal stroke. The letter may be upsilon, or, if an initial vertical stroke is broken away, nu. The fourth letter, omicron, falls on fragment M. In the next position, on fragment N (top), one can make out the left side of a curved letter. The rest of the letters fall on fragment O. Of the eighth letter, a vertical stroke and a stroke descending away from the top of it are clear before the fragment breaks off. Nu or mu is possible. 3. The left diagonal of alpha is broken away at the left edge of the fragment. No trace of a letter is visible on the small bit of fragment M that extends into the area of line 3. The next trace of the line appears on fragment O. The upper, middle, and lower ends of epsilon appear at the left edge of fragment O. It is possible that another letter is missing between this epsilon and the preceding tau of fragment L. The final letter begins with a vertical stroke and a diagonal stroke descending from it. Nu or mu is possible. 4. The left diagonal of alpha is broken away at the left edge of the fragment. In the second letter position seems to be part of a circular letter rendered in a very angular fashion. Sigma, omicron, epsilon, and theta are possibilities. After a gap of about two letter spaces, the next letter trace appears on fragment O. All that is visible is an upper horizontal stroke with a vertical stroke descending from it. Tau or pi is possible.

upper and lower edges of the tablet. The surfaces bear the impressions of other tablet folds that were pressed against them. The pressure of the folded sections of the tablet has rubbed out many letters, for only a few letters are visible across the center of the two fragments.

Fragments N (bottom) + P:

Fragment R

MAX. P. L.: 0.030 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.029 m.

The bottom section of fragment N (see commentary on previous fragments) is broken along tablet folds on both the left and right edges. The right edge clearly joins with fragment P, which also preserves tablet folds on both the left and right edges. Both fragments also preserve the original

] ΟϹΤΕΦ . Δ [

1

1. The first letter is certainly omicron, though the left part of the letter is broken away. The fifth letter, phi, appears on fragment P. A possible vertical stroke is all that we can make out in the sixth letter position. One possible restoration, suggested to me by R. S. Stroud, is another instance of our main verb: [ἀπ]οϲτ⟨ρ⟩έφω.̣

Fragment Q MAX. P. L.: 0.009 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.017 m.

The lower edge may be original. ]..[ ] ΜΑ [ ].Τ.[ ] Ε̣Α . [

1

1. Of the first letter, the lower tip of a descending diagonal or curved stroke appears at the upper edge of the fragment. Of the second letter, the lower part of a vertical stroke is visible. 2. The left vertical stroke of the mu is broken away. 3. From the left edge of the fragment descends a diagonal stroke that joins the middle of a right vertical or ascending diagonal stroke. Nu or upsilon is possible. At the right edge of the fragment, the lower end of an ascending diagonal stroke is all that remains of the third letter. 4. In the first letter position are the ends of the upper and middle strokes of epsilon. Of the third letter, the lower part of a vertical stroke is preserved.

MAX. P. L.: 0.006 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.009 m.

The left edge is broken along a tablet fold. ].Μ[ ].[

1

1. The end of a diagonal stroke appears at the left edge of the fragment.

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

2. Of the single preserved letter, two strokes joined at the top are certain. A third stroke rising from the bottom of the second stroke may be present where the fragment breaks away. If so, only nu or mu is possible.

Fragments S + T + U MAX. P. L.: 0.028 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.023 m.

The right edge of fragment S, the left and right edges of fragment T, and the left edge of fragment U break along folds of the tablet. From the broken edges it can be determined that the three fragments join in the sequence S, T, and U. Moreover, while the upper part of the right edge of fragment U is broken away, the bottom part seems to preserve the original, rounded right edge of the tablet, which is very similar to the rounded left edge of the tablet preserved on fragment C. The original lower edge of the tablet is partially preserved on fragments S and T. The tablet appears to contract in width toward the right end of the tablet. ] Δ̣αμο̣[] . Δαμο] Θ̣ . Ε . ΝΗ

1

1. Fragment S preserves in the initial letter position the corner formed by a vertical or diagonal stroke and a lower horizontal stroke. The third letter, mu, falls on fragment T. The tops of the two peaks of this letter are lost. In the next letter space there is a possible trace of the bottom of a circular letter such as sigma, theta, omicron, phi, epsilon, or omega. Nothing of this line is preserved on fragment U. 2. At the left edge of fragment S appears a descending diagonal stroke that joins the middle of the diagonal or vertical stroke. Nu or upsilon is possible. The third and fourth letters fall on fragment T. The right vertical stroke of the mu in the fourth position is lost at the right edge of the fragment. On fragment U can be seen the fifth letter, omicron. Given the trace of the original edge of the tablet, there is no space for another letter. 3. The first preserved letter of the line consists of a central horizontal stroke, a diagonal stroke rising from the left tip of the horizontal, and a reverse lunate stroke joined to the upper tip of the diagonal stroke and the right tip of the horizontal stroke. Delta or theta may have been intended. At the right edge of the fragment, the trace of a

315

circular letter is visible. Encrustation on fragment T obscures the remainder of the letter. After the third letter, there still remains space enough on fragment T for another letter, but encrustation on the surface makes it unclear whether any letter was in fact inscribed. The fifth and sixth letters fall on fragment U. Of the sixth letter, two vertical strokes are clear. Less clear is a horizontal crossbar that seems to extend beyond the right vertical. The letter marks the end of this line of the tablet.

Fragment V MAX. P. L.: 0.005 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.006 m.

The left edge of fragment V preserves a fold of the tablet. ]Φ[ ] Α̣ . [

1

2. At the bottom left corner of the fragment one sees the end of a horizontal stroke meeting the middle of a descending diagonal stroke. An alpha or a badly written theta is possible. Of the second letter, the top of a vertical stroke is visible.

Fragment W MAX. P. L.: 0.006 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.014 m.

Fragment W preserves a fold of the tablet down its center. ] Λ̣ . [ ]..[ ] Θ̣ .

1

1. At the left edge is preserved much of a descending diagonal stroke, presumably a lambda, since there is no trace of the crossbar of an alpha. At the right edge of the fragment is the left side of a circular letter. 2. From the left edge of the fragment spring an upper ascending stroke and a lower descending stroke. The upper stroke appears a little shorter, suggesting the remains of a kappa, though chi is also possible. The next letter is clearly circular, and there may be a trace of a middle horizontal stroke at the very edge of the fragment. 3. The first letter is broken away to the left, and encrustation conceals part of its right side. A horizontal stroke emerges from the left. Above this, a curve descends to the right, and another

316

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

stroke appears below the central horizontal stroke: a theta? Of the second letter, the left side of a circular letter is clear, as well as a middle horizontal stroke. The letter is either epsilon or theta.

Fragment X MAX. P. L.: 0.005 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.013 m.

Fragment X also preserves a tablet fold down its center. The upper edge, furthermore, appears original. ]..[ ] . Υ[ ]Α.[

1

1. The vertical stroke of the first letter is clear. Less certain is a mark that may represent an upper horizontal stroke. Part of an ascending diagonal stroke is all that remains of the second letter. 2. Encrustation obscures much of the first letter. All that is clear is an upper horizontal stroke. 3. Of the second letter, a left vertical stroke joins a descending diagonal stroke before the fragment breaks off. Nu or mu is possible.

Fragment Y MAX. P. L.: 0.004 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.010 m.

The upper edge is original. The right edge is broken along a fold of the tablet. ]Π.[ ]Ο[

1

1. The left vertical of the pi is broken away. The left side of a circular letter is visible in the next position.

Fragment Z MAX. P. L.: 0.010 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.008 m. ]Ο[ ] . Η̣[

1

2. Of the first letter can be seen two strokes, a vertical and a diagonal or two diagonals, joined at the top. The bottom and right side of the letter space are broken away. Next, two vertical strokes rise from the broken lower edge of the fragment; a faint mark may represent a horizontal crossbar, in which case the letter is eta.

Fragment AA MAX. P. L.: 0.010 m.; MAX. P. W.: 0.006 m. ]Δ[ ]Ι.[

1

1. The upper part of the delta is missing, but the letter is certain. 2. The left part of a circular letter remains in the second letter position.

DISCUSSION The nature of the curse on this tablet can be deduced from fragment C. The occurrences of ἀποϲτρέφω in the first and second lines, and possibly in the next two lines as well, recall the language of the erotic curse on CT 1, by which the defigens seeks to turn one lover away from another. The apparent length of the original text would suggest that here too we may be dealing with a curse that lists the parts of the body. Unfortunately the fragmentary nature of the tablet prevents us from recognizing any specific body parts with one possible exception: if no letter is missing in the middle of line 3 of the combined fragments L + M + N (top) + O, then we may read [γ]αϲτέρα, “belly,” as a possible restoration. This part of the body appears in both CT 1 (l. 7) and 2 (l. 25). The fortunate preservation of both ends of the tablet permits us to know the name of one of the lovers being cursed. The letters ϲθενεοϲ at the beginning of lines 3 and 4 of fragment C look suspiciously like the end of a male name in the genitive. At the other end of the tablet, on fragments S + T + U, appears the same sequence of letters, δαμο, at the ends of two consecutive lines. Taken together, the ends of the tablet yield the name Δαμοϲθένηϲ in the genitive.32 As for the name of the other lover, a trace of the name may be preserved in line 1 of fragment C after the verb ἀποϲτρέφω, where, on the analogy of the formula of CT 1, we might suppose the start of the name of the person to be turned away. The name Πόλα is attested in an inscription from The name is of course extremely common in the Hellenistic period, less so in the Imperial period: LGPN, I, 117; III.A, 113–114; III.B, 102; IV, 86 (s.v. Δαμοσθένης). In Attica and coastal Asia Minor only the Ionic spelling with eta, Δημοσθένης, is attested. 32 

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

Thasos of Imperial date, but otherwise there is no parallel for a name beginning with these letters.33 Alternatively, we may have an instance of aphaeresis after ἀποϲτρέφω.34 In that case, we could understand either 1) (ἀ)πὸ Λα--- , where Λα--- starts a name in the genitive; or 2) the start of a name, in the accusative, that begins with a lost vowel, e.g. (Ἀ)πόλαξιν. The first of these two would admit many possible names attested in the Hellenistic period.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE TABLETS FROM THE HEROÖN Ambiguity of the Erotic Context While it is clearly the case that CT 1 and 2 (and, for the reasons discussed above, likely CT 3 and 4 as well) deal with matters of love and desire, there remains a good deal of ambiguity surrounding the context of each curse and the implicitly desired outcome. Assuming that the defigens is interested in more than just breaking up a pair of lovers (a case of schadenfreude that perhaps should not be wholly excluded) and also wants to secure the affections of one of them, can we identify who that is in each of the curses? Furthermore, is the defigens male or female, and is the intended outcome a product of opposite-sex or same-sex desire? As noted in the discussion of CT 1, Gager interpreted the context as a same-sex love triangle among men, but only because of an erroneous reading of Euboula as a male name. Both Versnel and Faraone, without explicitly addressing these questions, appear to make Euboula the love interest and Aineas the rival of the defigens.35 Eidinow, most recently, does confront such questions in regard to erotic curses in general, and she cautiously suggests that in this tablet the love interest may be Aineas.36 As I will argue from a closer analysis of the more complete texts of CT 1 and 2, however, there remains an ambiguity in these curses that prevents any certain answer; it hinges on both the

LGPN, I, 375, s.v. Πόλα. For aphaeresis in the Greek papyri see Gignac, 319–321. The most common vowels to suffer this are alpha and epsilon. 35  Versnel, 231 n. 38; and Faraone 2005, 39. 36  Eidinow, 210–228. Her point on p. 213 that modern constructions of sexuality may color the interpretation of the ancient text is an important one. See pp. 223 and 224 for her reading of this tablet. 33  34 

317

rhetorical significance of the anatomical lists and the meaning of the operative verb ἀποστρέφω. Let us first consider the rhetorical force of the listing of body parts. Although lists are a common structural device in curse tablets of all types, not just those of an erotic nature, Henk Versnel has demonstrated that in regard to lists of body parts in particular, there is a significant distinction in aim and motivation between “instrumental curses” and “anatomical curses.”37 The former list only those parts of the body that logically must be checked to accomplish the curse, for instance binding a litigant’s mind and mouth or an athlete’s hands and feet. In anatomical curses, however, the list aims to be more comprehensive in describing the cursed individual; its effect is to register a heightened sense of emotional reaction to the named victim, and often the curse entails an expressed desire for the victim to suffer.38 As to the situations that give rise to such a response, Versnel identifies two. First, in many instances the defigens has suffered a perceived injustice at the hands of the victim, and the curse therefore makes a justified call for revenge and retribution.39 Second, in the context of love, the defigens has been rejected by a beloved and thus seeks to torment the beloved while at the same time seeking the beloved’s return. As but one example, Versnel cites a curse from Oxyrrhynchos in which a man named Theodoros wants to secure the affection of a woman named Matrona and instructs a demon to “. . . drag her by her hair, by her guts, by her soul, by her heart.” In this paradoxical language Versnel sees, on the one hand, a similarity to what he describes as the ecphrastic tradition of love 37  Versnel, 219–232. Lists can serve a variety of functions in curse texts, as Gordon demonstrates. In the specific context of lists of body parts, his view shares much with Versnel’s: Gordon, 257–275. 38  Versnel, 231 n. 38, cites the text of CT 1 as an example of an anatomical curse but admits that it lacks any reference to suffering as is usually seen. The text of CT 2 is also exceptional in this respect. Gordon, 268–269, describes the effect of the anatomical list in these vivid words: “The enumeration of parts enables the practicioner imaginitively to dismember the victim so that the curse-moment, the period of projective fixation upon the victim (as opposed to the appeal to powers), can be given more weight. Moreover breaking up the victim’s body into its butcher-parts signals the triumph of the objective gaze: the subjective coherence of the self is transformed into disjecta membra and laid out, as it were, for sale in a shambles.” 39  Versnel, 223–246.

318

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

poetry, in which the poet enumerates the various parts of the desired body of the lover; and on the other hand, a desire to do harm in response to the injustice inf licted by unrequited love.40 Our tablets CT 1 and 2 both exhibit the characteristics of the anatomical curse. While several of the body parts listed in them can no doubt be regarded as instrumental to the erotic relationships that the defigens in each tablet seeks to interrupt, for example the ψωλίον, the lists are more inclusive and their total numbers of body parts, eight (or nine if we include “the whole body”) in CT 1 and 13 in CT 2, set them apart from purely instrumental curses. Another measure of the desire for completeness in both lists is the logical organization of the parts of the body from head to feet, creating the sense of a comprehensive survey of the body.41 Moreover, the text of CT 1 makes the claim of completeness explicit by concluding the list with the phrase “from all his body.”42 How then are we to understand the rhetorical force of these anatomical curses? If we follow Versnel’s general explanation of the aim of the anatomical curse in the erotic context, then we would understand the person whose body parts are enumerated to be the beloved whom the defigens wishes both to torment and to attract. Thus, in CT 1, we would take Aineas to be the love interest, and in CT 2, Diodoros. The defigens could then be understood as a woman expressing an opposite-sex attraction, or a man expressing a samesex one. In support of the latter interpretation for CT 1, it should be pointed out that the references to the chest and the anus, like the reference to the erect penis in both tablets, could be seen as more than just aiming at completeness but in fact naming 40  Versnel, 247–264. For the tablet, cited at 248, see SGD, no. 156. 41  Versnel, 227, cites an example in Latin: DT, no. 190. See also a curse from Kenchreai of the Imperial Period: Faraone and Rife, 146, with other examples adduced at 152. A more explicit approach is observed in SGD, no. 58 = Gager, no. 88, which features the phrase ἀπὸ κεφαλῆς μέχρι ἄκραν ὀνύχων τ δακτ[ύλων], “from head to the tips of the toenails.” See also Gordon, 267–274. 42  Similar expressions of “the whole body” occur at the ends of listed body parts in DT, no. 42 (Megara, Imperial); SGD, no. 64 = Gager, no. 19 (Karystos, Euboia, 4th century B.C.); and on a curse tablet from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth: Corinth XVIII, vi, 86–92, no. 118 (Imperial). The phrasing of DT, no. 42 is especially elaborate: “ . . . and if there is anything left of the parts of his whole body.”

additional points of erotic fixation on the body of the beloved. As Amy Richlin has discussed, both of these parts of the body are attested as a focus of erotic desire in the Hellenistic pederastic poetry preserved in the Palatine Anthology.43 Accordingly, CT 1 might be a curse made by a male interested in another male, Aineas, who is currently having relations with a female, Euboula.44 As noted earlier, Versnel himself thinks that it is Euboula who is the object of the defigens’ desire, not Aineas, and this indeed is a contradiction of his own argument about the function of anatomical lists in erotic curses that he does not explain. In defense of his interpretation, however, I believe it is also possible to read both CT 1 and 2 in this opposite way if we expand upon Versnel’s argument and recognize that the anatomical list can be deployed against the rival for the beloved’s affection. On this reading, the defigens is interested in the woman of each tablet, Euboula and Artemidora, and uses the rhetorical force of the listing of body parts to tear apart or disable the current rival lover. The reference to Aineas’ anus in CT 1 can then be understood in the pejorative and humiliating sense in which it is often used, for instance, in the comedy of Aristophanes.45 Directed against a rival for the beloved, the anatomical curse comes to have the same aim as when it is deployed in the nonerotic context of exacting revenge for a perceived wrong that has been committed against the defigens.46 The ambiguity thus exposed in the anatomical lists of CT 1 and 2 is paralleled by another ambiguity in the semantics of the principal verb of action in these curses, the verb ἀποστρέφω. Faraone, who in a recent study examines the verb’s semantics in various magical texts, including curse tablets, papyri, and amulets, concludes that it is used in two distinct senses. In early curses, he notes, the Richlin, 35–38. For the the desire to fondle a boy’s chest, see AP 12.95; for the anus, see e.g. AP 12.6. 44  The situation would then resemble the inverse of the situation described in Sappho 31, where the speaker of the poem envies the access that a man has to the woman whom she desires. Since we lack comparable poetic evidence to know what parts of the male body might serve as erotic foci for a female lover, we should not rule out that the defigens in CT 1 might still have been a woman, however. 45  Henderson, 150, 201, 209–213. 46  In fact the only other certain reference to the πρωκτός in a curse tablet comes in the context of cursing a rival in a financial transaction: DT, no. 42. DT, no. 75 may contain another reference, but both the reading and the context are uncertain. 43 

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

verb is used with an absolute and physical sense of twisting back, and thus incapacitating, opponents or their body parts.47 So, for instance, in each of two early-5th-century tablets from Selinous, the defigens asks that the tongue of his opponent be turned back, γλῶσα ἀπεστραμένα, in what seems to be a judicial context.48 The meaning of the verb in these early curses is thus analogous, observes Faraone, to many lead magical figurines or dolls in which a figure’s body parts are twisted back. Sometimes the figurines are also bound with lead strips and pierced by nails, all actions that metaphorically express the desire to incapacitate.49 A second, later usage, which appears by the Roman period, sees the verb take on an avertive or apotropaic sense, and can often be translated as “turn away.” On many magical amulets, for example, the verb is part of an incantation to turn away bad things from the possessor, such as a disease or a storm: “Turn away [ἀπόστρεψον] from this place all hail and snow,” reads one of them.50 In respect to CT 1, however, Faraone understands the verb in a different “avertive” sense: the defigens seeks to turn the beloved Euboula away from her current lover and implicitly back toward the defigens. As parallels for this distinct usage in the erotic sphere he cites examples from the magical papyri in which related forms of the verb are used in spells to turn a beloved toward the one using the spell.51 While Faraone’s reading of CT 1 is plausible, it should be observed that the parallels from the papyri are not exact since the verbs used are στρέφω and ἐπιστρέφω, and in any case are too few to have probative value for the usage of ἀποστρέφω here. Hence, I would argue that it is just as plausible that the verb is being used in exactly the same way as in the magical amulets, where it is the bad thing—like the disease or the storm—that is being turned away, thus allowing the possibility that the defigens regards Euboula as a threat in the pursuit of Aineas. The syntax of CT 2 is complicated by the additional verb καταδίδεμι, “I bind,” but once more the force of the verb ἀποστρέφω remains ambiguous. If, following Faraone’s rea-

soning, we take the person being turned away as the person being redirected toward the defigens, then it is Diodoros with all his body parts who is being sought. But if the defigens instead considers that person to be a threat, to be turned away like a disease or storm, then the one being sought is Artemidora. This second reading, moreover, would allow the verb ἀποστρέφω to retain some of its earlier semantic force of incapacitation, for the curse thus could be understood as calling for all the various parts of Diodoros’ body to be not simply turned away but in fact twisted back, just as one finds graphically represented in the lead dolls. The ambiguity that we observe in the language of these two curses from Nemea is not surprising if we also consider, as Faraone, Versnel, and many others have, that matters of love in antiquity, just as today, often entailed a wide range of mixed emotions. Immersed in such emotions, the authors of these tablets, whether they were male or female, suffering from same-sex or opposite-sex desire, inscribed curses that in their own minds gave clear and fitting expression to what they wanted so badly to achieve, but which to other readers like ourselves, unfamiliar with the original situation, remain dark and opaque.

THE SHRINE OF OPHELTES AS A LOCATION FOR CURSE TABLETS The presence of curse tablets in the Heroön of Opheltes requires comment, for the find spots of curse tablets, when documented, are not random. They are frequently found in or near graves, especially in the Classical era.52 The sanctuaries of chthonic divinities, Demeter especially, have also yielded a large number.53 Finally, curse tablets of the Roman period have been found in springs or wells. All of these places, as Graf states, provide “contact with the subterranean world.”54 We might expect hero shrines to be a natural choice of location for depositing a curse tablet in Graf 1997, 134. Graf 1997, 127 and n. 26. Examples include the Sanctuary of Demeter, Kore, and Plouton at Knidos; the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth; the Sanctuary of Demeter Malophoros at Selinous; the Sanctuary of Demeter at Mytilene; the Sanctuary of Minerva Sulis at Bath, England; and the Temple of Mercury at Uley, England. 54  Graf 1997, 127. 52 

Faraone 2005, 34–39. 48  Faraone 2005, 34. For the tablets see López Jimeno 1991, nos. 9–10. 49  Faraone 2005, 35–37; also Versnel, 220 and n. 10. 50  Faraone 2005, 33–34. 51  Faraone 2005, 39–40. The examples he cites are PGM XIc, PGM IV 1807–1809, and PGM XII 59–63. 47 

319

53 

320

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

light of the traditional categorization of heroes as chthonic powers; but in this regard it is important to note that the finding of curse tablets in a hero shrine is exceedingly rare. In truth, I know of only one other instance of this: a curse tablet from a sanctuary of the heroes Pankrates and Palaimon in Athens.55 Consequently, the mere fact that the shrine at Nemea is devoted to a hero does not suffice to explain the provenance of the tablets. Since graves are a common source of defixiones, the belief in the presence of a grave in the Heroön of Opheltes could have been part of its appeal. Now, there are different opinions about the role of the deceased in this form of magic. On the one hand, Benedetto Bravo has argued that the original reason for placing curses in contact with the dead was strictly analogical; like the use of lead itself and the piercing of the tablet with nails, its placement with a dead body extends the metaphor that the victim of the curse is to be rendered ineffective, incapacitated, isolated, or inert.56 Adducing examples of late Archaic and Classical date, he notes that the deceased merely serves as a point of connection to the chthonic divinities, like Hermes, Persephone, Hecate, and Ge; it is they who are invoked in the early tablets, not the deceased. Sarah Johnston, on the other hand, believes that the dead played a more active role from the time of the earliest tablets. At the very least, the dead person was thought to convey the message to the underworld, a role that Graf evocatively describes as the “infernal postman who brings the text to the divine or demonic addressees.”57 This view overlaps with Bravo’s idea of the dead as a point of contact with the powers below ground; but Johnston argues further for an early belief in the dead as the force that carries out the wishes of the defigens upon the named victim(s).58 In the Hellenistic period, however, Bravo agrees that curses begin to regard the dead as playing this more active part. For example, a curse tablet of the 3rd century B.C. from Olbia, the starting point of his study, is addressed to an unnamed dead individual and offers him a gift in exchange for 55  NGCT, no. 14, dated to the later 4th century B.C. The curse addresses Palaimon directly, beseeching him to be a punisher of the listed victims. See Jordan 2008 for the text and commentary as well as a brief discussion of the sanctuary. 56  Bravo, “tablette,” 198-203; see also Graf 1997, 130-132, citing DT, no. 68, side A; Eidinow, 152-154. 57  Graf 1997, 131; also Johnston, 85. 58  Johnston, 86-88.

incapacitating certain opponents who are threatening legal proceedings.59 The same conception is manifest in the spells of the later magical papyri, where the dead is often called a nekydaimon.60 To explain the change in how the curses relate to the dead, Bravo looks to the heroization of the ordinary dead attested in Hellenistic times. This development, he reasons, gives rise to the idea of them as efficacious agents in magical spells.61 His explanation, however, presumes a priori that the heroes had such power for magical spells, yet again we are confronted with the rarity of finding curse tablets in hero shrines. All dead are not alike, however, when it comes to their magical potency. Two classes of the dead are particularly desirable, to judge from the recipes of the ancient magical papyri as well as the texts of many curse tablets: the ἄωροι, those who have died an untimely death; and the βιαιοθάνατοι, those who have died a violent death.62 Moreover, although the papyri and curse tablets are of Imperial date, archaeological excavation has provided some confirmation that the preference for those who have died young existed even as early as the Classical period, for some of the graves that yielded curse tablets contained the remains of verifiably young individuals.63 59  Bravo, “tablette,” 189 (= SGD, no. 173), with five more examples discussed at 204–205. Some scholars dispute that the main tablet discussed by Bravo is a curse at all, but this still does not affect his overall argument, which is based on multiple texts: Vinogradov, 106 n. 7; cf. Jordan 1997, who considers it a curse. See also Gager, 118, 138; Johnston, 86. 60  Bravo, “tablette,” 196. 61  Bravo, “tablette,” 210–211. 62  Graf 1997, 134 (citing PGM V.304f.), 150 (citing PGM IV.296–466 = Gager, no. 27); López Jimeno 1999, 38–41. Curse tablets with references to ἄωροι and βιαιοθάνατοι include DT, nos. 14, 15, 22, 24–26, 28–32, 35, 38, 188, 234, 235, 237–240, 242, and 249, as well as Gager, no. 28, which appears to be based on the recipe in PGM IV.296–466. 63  Jordan 1988, 273–275. Admittedly the archaeological evidence is scant and needs further corroboration: SGD, 152. There are in addition two exceptionally early curses that seem to appeal to the concept of the untimely dead; both are from Attica and date to the late 4th century B.C. One of the them (DT, no. 52) binds several victims παρὰ τοῖς ἠϊθέοις, “before the deceased unmarried young men.” The other (DT, no. 68) is restored as binding a woman πρὸς [το(ὺ)ς] ἀτελ[έ]σ[το(υ)ς], perhaps meaning “in the presence of the unmarried dead.” For a discussion of these texts see Eidinow, 153, 397–398, 400–401. Eidinow, 154, questions whether a belief in the special magical efficacy of the untimely dead prevailed in the Classical and Hellenistic periods. What we may be witnessing in the Nemea tablets, then, is evidence for the development of the idea.

T H E C U R S E TA B L E T S F R O M T H E H E R O S H R I N E

Opheltes is a quintessential ἄωρος and βιαιοθάνατος. As the review of the evidence for his myth

in Chapters 3 and 4 makes clear, while some details vary, Opheltes is universally described as an infant or small child, and Plutarch specifically describes him as ἄγαν ἄωρος at the time of his death (T 57). As the victim of the snake’s fatal attack,

321

whether killed by its poisonous bite or its constrictive coils, he also dies by violence. The Heroön of Opheltes at Nemea, therefore, was believed to contain not just a grave, but a grave with the kind of dead body that held great promise for procuring the desired effect spelled out in lead, and this may have been its appeal to the authors of our texts.

APPENDIX C

TESTIMONIA ON THE MYTH AND C U LT OF OP H E LT E S A N D T H E NEMEAN GAMES

κείνων ἀπ’ εὐδόξων ἀγώνων ἐν Νεμέαι κλεινο[ὶ β]ροτῶν, οἳ τριετεῖ στεφάνῳ ξανθὰν ἐρέψωνται κόμαν.

T 1. Simonides, fr. 48 PMG (apud Athen. 9.396e) ἰοστεφάνου γλυκεῖαν ἐδάκρυσαν ψυχὰν ἀποπνέοντα γαλαθηνὸν τέκος. For the suckling child of violet-crowned . . . they wept, As he breathed out his sweet life.

Fame, O Graces with spindles of gold, the persuader Of men may you grant, since the divine prophet of the violet-eyed Muses is ready of Phlious and Nemean Zeus’ well-nurtured ground To sing, where the destroyer of sheep Did white-armed Hera rear, As the first of the far-famed feats For Herakles: the deep-roaring lion. There the crimson-shielded heroes, The chosen men of the Argives, first Competed in honor of Archemoros, whom the yellow-eyed Monstrous snake did slay as he plucked flowers, A marker of slaughter to come. O fate so powerful, not them Could the son of Oikles persuade to march back To their well-manned abodes. Hope steals men’s wits. It was she as well who at that time sent Adrastos son of Talaos to Thebes for Polyneikes. . . . From those illustrious games, In Nemea, renowned of men will they be Who with the biennial crown Wreathe their golden hair.

T 2. Bakchylides, Ep. 9.1–24 Maehler Δόξαν, ὦ χρυσαλάκατοι Χάρι[τ]ες, πεισίμβροτον δοίητ’, ἐπεὶ Μουσᾶν γε ἰοβλεφάρων θεῖος προφ[άτ]ας εὔτυκος Φλειοῦντά τε καὶ Νεμεαίου Ζηνὸς εὐθαλὲς πέδον ὑμνεῖν, ὅθι μηλοδαΐκταν θρέψεν ἁ λευκώλε[νο]ς Ἥρα περι[κλει]τῶν ἀέθλων πρῶτον [Ἡ]ρ[α]κλεῖ βαρύφθογγον λέοντα. κε[ῖθι φοι]νικάσπιδες ἡμίθεοι πρ[ώτιστ]ον Ἀργείων κριτοὶ ἄθλησαν ⟨ἐ⟩π’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ, τὸν ξανθοδερκής πέφν’ ἀωτεύοντα δράκων ὑπέροπλος, σᾶμα μέλλοντος φόνου. ὦ μοῖρα πολυκρατές· οὔ νιν πεῖθ’ Ὀϊκλείδας πάλιν στείχειν ἐς εὐάνδρους ἀγ[υιάς. ἐλπὶς ἀνθρώπων ὑφαιρ[εῖται νόημ]α· ἃ καὶ τότ’ Ἄδραστον Ταλ[αϊονίδαν πέμπεν ἐς Θήβας Πολυνεικέϊ πλα.ι̣[––‿–

5

10

15

20

323

324

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

T 3. Bakchylides, Ep. 13.54–57 Maehler . . . ἦ ποτέ φαμι [τᾶιδε] περὶ στεφάνοισι [παγκ]ρατίου πόνον Ἑλ[λάνεσσι]ν ἱδρώεντ’ ἔσεσθαι.

T 6. Pindar, N. 10.25–28 Snell-Maehler 55

Truly at some time, I declare, In this place for the sake of crowns Will the Hellenes have the toil of the pankration Dripping with sweat.

T 4. Pindar, N. 6.39–44 Snell-Maehler πόντου τε γέφυρ᾽ ἀκάμαντος ἐν ἀμφικτιόνων ταυροφόνῳ τριετηρίδι Κρεοντίδαν τίμασε Ποσειδάνιον ἂν τέμενος· βοτάνα τέ νίν πόθ᾽ ἁ λέοντος νικάσαντ᾽ ἤρεφε δασκίοις Φλιοῦντος ὑπ᾽ ὠγυγίοις ὄρεσιν.

40

And the bridge of the untiring sea among his neighbors’ bull-slaying biennial rites gave Kreontidas Honor throughout the sanctuary of Poseidon: Him once also Did the lion’s fodder Crown as victor beneath the shadowy Primal mountains of Phlious.

T 5. Pindar, N. 8.46–51 Snell-Maehler σεῦ δὲ πάτρᾳ Χαριάδαις τ’ ἐλαφρόν ὑπερεῖσαι λίθον Μοισαῖον ἕκατι ποδῶν εὐωνύμων 47 δὶς δὴ δυοῖν. χαίρω δὲ πρόσφορον ἐν μὲν ἔργῳ κόμπον ἱείς, ἐπαοιδαῖς δ’ ἀνήρ νώδυνον καί τις κάματον θῆκεν· ἦν γε μὰν ἐπικώμιος ὕμνος 50 δὴ πάλαι καὶ πρὶν γενέσθαι τὰν Ἀδράστου τάν τε Καδμείων ἔριν. For your fatherland and for the Chariadai it is easy to set down as a base the stone Of the Muses for the sake of renowned feet, Two sets indeed for two men. And I am glad to issue A fitting boast in time of work, and with accompanying songs any man Can make his hardship painless. There was, to be sure, song of praise Even long before there came to pass the quarrel of Adrastos and the Kadmeians.

ἐκράτησε δὲ καί ποθ’ Ἕλλανα στρατὸν Πυθῶνι, τύχᾳ τε μολών 25 καὶ τὸν Ἰσθμοῖ καὶ Νεμέᾳ στέφανον, Μοίσαισί τ’ ἔδωκ’ ἀρόσαι, τρὶς μὲν ἐν πόντοιο πύλαισι λαχών, τρὶς δὲ καὶ σεμνοῖς δαπέδοις ἐν Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ. He defeated once as well a Greek force at Pytho, and he went and won the crown both at the Isthmus and at Nemea, and to the Muses he gave a field to plow, Thrice having the winning lot at the sea’s gates, And thrice in the holy plains in what Adrastos ordained.

T 7. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 752d.2–3 (Hyps.) ἥξε̣[ι......]σ̣π̣.[......ἀ]θύρμα[τ]α ἃ σὰς [ὀ]δ̣υ̣ρ̣μ̣ῶν ἐκγαλ̣η̣[νιεῖ φ]ρ̣ένας. (Hyps.) . . . the toys that relieve your mind of its crying.

T 8. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 752f.9–14 (Hyps.) οὐ τάδε πήνας, οὐ τάδε κερκίδος ἱστοτόνου παραμύθια Λήμνια Μοῦσα θέλει με κρέκειν, ὅ τι δ’ εἰς ὕπνον ἢ̣ χάριν ἢ θεραπεύματα πρόσφορα π]αιδὶ πρέπει νεαρῷ τάδε μελῳδὸς αὐδῶ.

10

(Hyps.) Not of the woof, not of the shuttle stretched across the loom are these consoling tales of Lemnos that the Muse wishes me to weave, but rather, because for sleep, Or for amusement, or for the care suited To a young child are they meet, I give voice to them in song.

T 9. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 752h.10–14 (Chorus) ὦ Ζεῦ Νεμέας τῆσδ’ ἄλσος ἔχων, τίνος ἐμπορίᾳ τούσδ’ ἐγγὺς ὁρῶ πελάτας ξείνους Δωρίδι πέπλων ἐσθῆτι σαφεῖς πρὸς τούσδε δόμους στείχοντας ἔρημον ἀν’ ἄλσος; (Chorus) O Zeus, you who hold the grove of Nemea here, On what business do I see these men draw near,

10

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Strange newcomers by their Dorian garb of robes Made distinct, who toward this house March through your desolate grove?

T 10. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 752h.20–36 (Amph.) . . . ἄσμενος δ’ εἶδον δόμ[ους 20 τούσδ’ ἐν Διὸς λειμῶνι Νεμεάδος χθον[ός. καί σ’, εἴτε δούλη τοῖσδ’ ἐφέστηκας δόμ[οις εἴτ’ οὐχὶ δοῦλον σῶμ’ ἔχουσ’, ἐρήσομαι· τίνος τάδ’ ἀνδρῶν μηλοβοσκὰ δώματ[α Φλειουντίας γῆς, ὦ ξένη, νομίζεται; 25 (Hyps.) [ὄ]λβια Λυκούργου μέλαθρα κλῄζεται τά[δε [ὃ]ς ἐξ ἁπάσ̣ης αἱρεθεὶς Ἀσωπίας κλῃδοῦχός ἐστι τοὐπιχωρίου Διός. (Amph.) [ῥ]υτὸν λαβεῖ̣ν̣ [χ]ρ̣[ῄζοι]μ’ ἂ̣ν ἐν κρωσσοῖς ὕδωρ [χ]έρνιβα θ̣εοῖσ̣ι̣ν ὅ[σιον] ὡ̣ς χεαίμεθα. 30 στατῶν γὰρ ὑδάτων [ν]ά̣ματ’ οὐ διειπετῆ, στρατοῦ δὲ πλήθει πάντα συνταράσσεται. (Hyps.) [τίν]ες μολόντες καὶ χ[θ]ονὸς ποίας ἄπο; (Amph.) ἐ̣κ τῶν Μυκηνῶν [ἐσ]μὲν Ἀργεῖοι γέν[ος, [ὅ]ρ̣ια δ’ ὑπερβαίνοντες εἰς ἄλλην χθόνα 35 [στρ]ατοῦ πρ[ο]θῦσαι βουλόμεσθα Δαν[α]ϊδῶ[ν. (Amph.) . . . but I was delighted to see this house Here in the meadow of Zeus of the Nemean land. And you, whether you are assigned as a slave to this house, Or do not have a slave’s body, shall I ask: To which man of the land of Phlious is this house With flocks of sheep reckoned to belong, O Stranger? (Hyps.) The prosperous halls of Lykourgos are these called, Who by selection from all Asopia Is priest of the local Zeus. (Amph.) I would ask to take running water in our pitchers So that we might pour out a pure libation to the gods. For the pools of standing water are not fed by Zeus’ rain, And by our army’s throng are all muddied. (Hyps.) Who are you, and from what land do you come? (Amph.) From Mykenai are we, Argives by race, And as we cross over the frontiers into another land, We wish to make an advance sacrifice for the army of the Danaans.

325

T 11. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 754 (Hyps.?) ἕτερον ἐφ’ ἑτέρῳ αἰρόμενος ἄγρευμ’ ἀνθέων ἡδομένᾳ ψυχᾷ τὸ νήπιον ἄπληστον ἔχων (Hyps.?) Taking one after another, His catch of flowers, while with delighted soul He behaved like an insatiable infant.

T 12. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 754a (?) κρήνη [σ]κ̣ιαζ[ δράκων π̣άροικ[ος [γ]ο̣ρ̣γωπὰ λεύσσω[ν πήληκα σείων, οὗ φοβ̣[ῳ (?) A spring shaded [?] . . . A snake dwelling nearby . . . With monstrous eyes glaring . . . Shaking his crest, where with fear . . .

T 13. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 757.838–843 (Hyps.) σιγᾷς, ἀμείβῃ δ’ οὐδέν; ὦ ⌊τάλαιν’ ἐγ⌋[ώ. ὡς τοῦ θανεῖν μὲν οὕνεκ’ ⌊οὐ μέγα σ̣τ̣⌋[έν]ω, εἰ δὲ κτανεῖν τὸ ⌈τέκν⌉ον ⌈οὐκ⌉ ὀρθ̣ῶ̣ς δοκῶ, 840 τοὐμὸν τιθήνημ’, ὃν ἐπ’ ἐμαῖσιν ἀγκάλαις πλὴν οὐ τεκοῦσα τἄλλα γ’ ὡς ἐμὸν τέκνον στέργουσ’ ἔφερβον, ὠφέλημ’ ἐμοὶ μέγα. (Hyps.) You keep silent, make no reply? O wretched am I! Not for being put to death do I so greatly lament, But rather if I am wrongly thought to have killed the child, My nursling, whom in my arms, I, though not his birth mother, still in all else loved like my own child: I fostered him—O, I felt so much joy from him!

T 14. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 757.897–919 (Amph.) [......]υ̣σ̣ιν[ [....] παῖς με̣[ [...]ασαμεν̣[ [ἡμ]εῖς δε[.]’ [ [...]αι θέλ[οντες [δρ]άκων ας̣[ ἠκόντισ’ ἁ[ καί νιν δρομ[ εἵλιξεν ἀμφ[ὶ ἡμεῖς δ’ ἰδό[ντες ἐγὼ δ’ ἐτόξευσ̣[’

900

905

326

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

ἀρχὴ γὰρ ἡμῖν̣ [ Ἀρχέμορος ε.[ σύ τ’ οὐχὶ σαυτὴ[ν ὄρνιθα δ’ Ἀργείο[ισι καὶ μὴ ….[ ἀλλουχ[ πολλοὶ δ̣[ Κάδμου̣ [ νόστου κυρησ[ Ἄδραστος ἵξετ᾽ αρ[ ἑπτὰ στρατηγ[ τὰ μὲν γενόμεν̣[α

910

915

T 16. Aristotle, fr. 637 Rose (apud schol. in Aristid. Panath.)

(Amph.) ... ... child ... ... But we ... ... wanting [?]... Serpent ... Darted ... And ... it/him in a run [?]... Coiled around ... And we upon seeing ... And I shot ... A beginning indeed for us ... Archemoros ... And you ... not your own ... But an omen for the Argives ... And not ... ... But many ... Of Kadmos ... A return home obtain ... Adrastos will come to ... Seven generals ... The things that have happened ...

T 15. Euripides, Hyps. TrGF V 71 F 757.929–940 (Amph.) θάψαι δὸς ἡμ[ῖν οὐ γὰρ καθ’ ἡμ[ ἀλ̣λ̣’ ε̣ἰ̣ς τὸν αἰε[ὶ τοῖ̣[ς σο]ῖ̣ς βρότ.[ κλεινὸς γὰρ ἔσ[ται ἀγῶνά τ’ αὐτῷ [ στεφάνους διδ[ ζηλωτὸς ἔστ[αι ἐν τῷδε με.[ μνησθήσετα[ι ἐπωνομάσθη[ Νεμέας κατ’ ἄλσ[ος

(Amph.) Permit us to bury ... For not ... But forever ... ... For famed will he be ... And a contest for him Giving crowns ... Envied will he be ... In this ... He will be remembered Named ... Throughout Nemea’s grove ...

930

935

940

ἡ τάξις τῶν ἀγώνων καθὰ Ἀριστοτέλης ἀναγράφεται· πρῶτα μὲν τὰ Ἐλευσίνια διὰ τὸν καρπὸν τῆς Δήμη5 τρος· δεύτερα δὲ τὰ Παναθήναια ἐπὶ Ἀστέρι τῷ γίγαντι ὑπὸ Ἀθηνᾶς ἀναιρεθέντι· τρίτος ὃν ἐν Ἄργει Δαναὸς ἔθηκε διὰ τὸν γάμον τῶν θυγατέρων αὐτοῦ· τέταρτος ὁ ἐν Ἀρκαδίᾳ τεθεὶς ὑπὸ Λυκάονος, ὃς ἐκλήθη Λύκαια· πέμπτος ὁ ἐν Ἰωλκῷ Ἀκάστου καθηγησαμένου ἐπὶ Πελίᾳ τῷ πατρί· 10 ἕκτος ὁ ἐν Ἰσθμῷ Σισύφου νομοθετήσαντος ἐπὶ Μελικέρτῃ· ἕβδομος ὁ Ὀλυμπιακὸς Ἡρακλέους νομοθετήσαντος ἐπὶ Πέλοπι· ὄγδοος ὁ ἐν Νεμέᾳ, ὃν ἔθηκαν οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας ἐπὶ Ἀρχεμόρῳ· ἔνατος ὁ ἐν Τροίᾳ, ὃν Ἀχιλλεὺς ἐπὶ Πατρόκλῳ ἐποίησεν· δέκατος ὁ Πυθικός, ὃν οἱ Ἀμφικτύονες ἐπὶ 15 τῷ Πύθωνος φόνῳ ἔθηκαν. ταύτην τὴν τάξιν ὁ τοὺς πέπλους συνθεὶς Ἀριστοτέλης ἐξέθετο τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ παλαιῶν ἀγώνων. The ordering of the contests as Aristotle records it: first, the Eleusinia, for Demeter’s grain; second, the Panathenaia, for the giant Aster slain by Athena; third, that which Danaos established in Argos because of the marriage of his daughters; fourth, the one established in Arkadia by Lykaon, which was called the Lykaia; fifth, the one in Iolkos, which

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Akastos instituted in honor of Pelias his father; sixth, the one on the Isthmus, which Sisyphos ordained in honor of Melikertes; seventh, the Olympics, which Herakles ordained in honor of Pelops; eighth, the one in Nemea, which the Seven against Thebes established in honor of Archemoros; ninth, the one at Troy, which Achilles held in honor of Patroklos; tenth, the Pythian, which the members of the Amphiktyony established in honor of the Python’s killing. This ordering Aristotle, the one who composed the Peploi, laid out for the earliest and ancient contests.

T 17. Marmor Parium (FGrH 239) A.22 ἀφ’ οὗ Ἀργεῖοι μ̣ετ̣’ Ἀδράσ[του ἐπὶ Θή]βας [ἐστράτ]ευσαν καὶ τὸν ἀγώνα ἐν [Νεμέ]α[ι ἔ]θ[εσ]αν [ἐπ’ Ἀρχε|μόρωι], ἔτη 𐅅ΗΗΗΗ𐅄ΔΔΔ𐅃ΙΙ, βασιλεύοντος Ἀθηνῶν Θησέως. From when Argives with Adrastos campaigned against Thebes and founded the contest in Nemea in honor of Archemoros, 987 years, when Theseus was king of Athens.

T 18. Kallimachos, Aet. III, Victoria Berenices, fr. 54.1–10 Harder = SH 254.1–10 Ζηνί τε κα⌊ὶ Νεμέηι τι χαρίσιον ἕδνον ὀφείλω⌋, νύμφα, κα[σιγνή]τ̣ων ἱερὸν αἷμα θεῶν, ἡμ[ε]τ̣ερο.[......].εων ἐπινίκιον ἵππω̣[ν. ἁρμοῖ γὰρ ⌊Δαναοῦ γ⌋ῆς ἀπὸ βουγενέος εἰς Ἑλένη[ς νησῖδ]α̣ καὶ εἰς Παλληνέα μά[ντιν, 5 ποιμένα [φωκάων], χρύσεον ἦλθεν ἔπος, Εὐφητηϊάδ[αο παρ’] ἠρίον οὕ[νεκ’] Ὀφέλτου ἔθρεξαν προ[τέρω]ν̣ οὔτινες ἡνιόχων ἄσθματι χλι[....]..πιμιδας, ἀλλὰ θε⌊ό⌋ν̣τ̣⌊ων⌋ ὡς ἀνέμων ⌊οὐδεὶς εἶδεν ἁματροχίας⌋ 10 To Zeus and Nemea some pleasing dowry do I owe, O bride, holy blood of sibling gods, Our praise . . . of horses. For just now from the land of cow-born Danaos To Helen’s island and to the seer Pallene, Herder of seals, a golden word has come, That alongside the grave mound of the son of Euphetes Opheltes, None of the charioteers ran before, With their breath . . . shoulders, but of your horses running Like the wind no one saw the tracks.

327

T 19. Scholia in P.Lille 82.14–15 = fr. 60d.8–9 Harder = SH 255.14–15 ...........] Ἀρχέμορος ἐκαλεῖτο [ ...........] . . . Archemoros used to be called . . .

T 20. Kallimachos, Aet. III, Victoria Berenices, fr. 54b.25–29 Harder = SH 257.25–29 ...]α νυν, δρεπάνου γὰρ ἀπε⌊υ⌋θέ⌊α τέρχν[ε]α̣[ ...]α πολύσκαρθμος τοῦτον ἔχει⌊ν[...].[ ...].ε καὶ λίπτουσα δακεῖν κυτί⌊σοιο [χίμαιρα βληχ]άζει πυλέων ἐντὸς ἐερ[γομένη ....] δ̣υ̣σ̣ηβολίοιο τράγου̣ [...]...[

25

. . . now, for the young trees know not the sickle . . . . . . bounding . . . has this . . . . . . and eager to bite the clover the she-goat Bleats, shut within the gates . . . of the disagreeable he-goat . . .

T 21. Scholia in P.Lille 79.8–11 = fr. 60g.20–23 Harder = SH 258.iii.8–11 σκαρθμὸς κίνησις μη̣ν̣α.[ θμον διὰ τὸν ἀγῶνα εὐσκαρ[θμ— ἵ]ππων εὐκείνητα τέρχνε[α δένδρον τι [ skarthmos: a motion . . . . . . because of the contest. euskarthm-: . . . the easy motion of horses. terchnea: . . . A kind of tree.

T 22. Kallimachos, Aet. III, Victoria Berenices, fr. 54i Harder = SH 265 = fr. 59 Pfeiffer ].υ̣.[ ].στέφος̣[ ]λλ’ ὅτεμ[ ]χ̣ρυσοιο.[ καί μιν Ἀλη⌋τεῖδαι π̣⌊ουλὺ γεγειότερον τοῦδε παρ’ Αἰ⌋γαίωνι ⌊θεῷ τελέοντες ἀγῶνα θήσουσιν ν⌋ίκης σύ⌊μβολον Ἰσθμιάδος ζήλῳ τῶν Ν⌋εμέηθε· πίτυν δ’ ἀ⌊ποτιμήσουσιν, ἣ πρὶν ἀγων⌋ιστὰς ἔστεφε το⌊ὺς Ἐφύρῃ. ].νω̣η̣τετεοί, γέρ[ον ].οὐδ’ ἱερὴ π.[ ]σεμοι προμ[ ]ον Παλλὰς ἔ[ ]αρενωι τόδ[

5

10

328

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

σ]ὴν κατ’ ἐπω[νυμίην.’ 15 ]υς τε Μολόρ[κ ].θυμὸν ἀρε[σσάμενος, ν]ύ̣κτα μὲν αὐτόθι μίμνεν, ἀπέστιχε δ’ Ἄργος ἑῶιος· οὐδὲ ξεινοδόκῳ λήσαθ’ ὑποσχεσίης, πέμψε δέ ο̣ἱ̣ τ̣ὸ̣[ν] ὀ̣ρῆα, τίεν δέ ἑ ὡς ἕνα πηῶν. 20 νῦ]ν δ’ ἔθ’ [ἁ]γ̣ι̣σ̣[τείη]ν οὐδαμὰ παυσομένην ..]...[ ].. Πελοπη.[ ]....ς̣ ]..ἔσχον ἀνα[ ]έστησαν ὅς[ ]παισὶν ἀνας[ 25 . . . garland . . . . . . but when . . . . . . gold . . . And when the Aleteidai celebrate their contest, Far older than this, in the presence of the Aegean god, They will confer it as a symbol of Isthmian victory In rivalry with the Nemean; the pine will they disregard, Which aforetime crowned the competitors at Ephyra. . . . old man . . . . . . nor sacred . . . . . . to me . . . . . . Pallas . . . . . . for in it this . . . . . . named after . . . . . . and Molorkos . . . . . . pleased in his heart, He stayed there the night and departed for Argos at dawn. Nor did he forget his promise to his host: He sent him the mule, and treated him like his own. Even now the holy rite that will never come to an end

T 23. Kallimachos, Sos. fr. 384.23–26 Pfeiffer ὄφρα κε Σωσίβιόν τις Ἀλεξάνδρου τε πύθηται γῆν ἐπὶ καὶ ναίων Κίνυφι διστεφέα ἀμφοτέρῳ παρὰ παιδί, κασιγνήτῳ τε Λεάρχου καὶ τὸ Μυριναῖον τῷ γάλα θησαμένῳ, θηλύτατον καὶ Νεῖλο̣[ς ἄ]γ̣ων ἐνιαύσιον ὕδωρ ὧδ’ εἴπ[ῃ]· ‘καλά μοι θρε̣π̣τ̣ὸς ἔτεισε γέρα ...[...οὐ] γάρ πώ τις ἐπ[ὶ] πτόλιν ἤγαγ’ ἄεθλον ].ταφίων τῶνδε πανηγυρίων

25

So that both someone who dwells in the land of Alexander And one who dwells at the Kinyps alike may learn that Sosibios is twice crowned, In the company of a child both times: the brother of Learchos, And the one placed under the milk of Myrina; And the Nile too, as he carries his yearly supply of water most fertile, May thusly say, “Fine prizes has my fosterling paid me back, . . . For never indeed has anyone brought to the city a prize . . . Of these funerary festivals.

T 24. IvLindos II 698 = Ebert, no. 69 [Ἄ]ργος καὶ θεῖον Νεμ[έων | ἕ]δος, ἔνθα Πελάσγοις | Ἥρης ἀρχαῖον κτίσμα | Φορωνιάδος· | ἱ̣ερὸν ἦμαρ ἔλαμψεν, | ὅτε ζυγὰ κοῦφα συνωρί̣[ς] | ἐξέφερ’ εὐκτερέος | σῆμα παρ’ Ἀρ[χ]ε̣μόρου· | νίκα⟨ς⟩ δ’ ἔρ̣νε̣’ ἔθᾱλε | Κ̣λεωνύμωι, ἁ δὲ μάκαιρα̣ | 5 Ἑλλὰς εὐστέφανον | Δωρίδ’ ἔμελ̣ψε Ῥοδον· | οὗ μὲν καὶ προπάτωρ | πάλωι αἰσίωι Ἠ̣ελίοιο | κοσμεῖται· δι̣σσοῖς | δ’ οὔνομ’ ἓν α[ὖ]χ̣ος ὀχεῖ | κύδει ἰ̣σόκλητον· | σαῖς δ’ ἀγλαὸν ὤπα̣σεν ἵπποις, | Χ̣ά̣λ̣κεια, πράταις | [ἄστεϊ τῶιδε] γ̣έ̣ρας. 10 O Argos and divine seat of the Nemean Games, where the Pelasgoi Have the ancient foundation of Hera Phoronias: A holy day has shone, when the nimble pair, the two horses, Shot ahead alongside the tomb of Archemoros well honored with rites; And the branches of victory bloomed for Kleonymos, and blessed Hellas sang of well-crowned Dorian Rhodes. His grandfather, too, with the auspicious lot of Helios Adorned himself, and for the two men one name carries a boast With glory matched. But with your mares in first place did he provide, O Chalkeia, a shining prize for this city.

T 25. Schol., Pi. O. 13.45a–c Drachmann 30

(45a.) δύο δ’ αὐτὸν ἔρεψαν πλόκοι σελίνων: νῦν στέφανοι. ἐκ σελίνων γὰρ οἱ στέφανοι. (45b.) πλόκοι δὲ,

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

παρὰ τὸ πλέκεσθαι τοῖς τὰ Ἴσθμια νικῶσι. (45c.) σημειωτέον ὅτι ἤδη ἀπεδέδεικτο Ἰσθμοῖ ἀπὸ σελίνων στέφανος, ὡς ἐν Νεμέοις. ἀμφότεροι γὰρ ἐπιτάφιοι, ἱερὸν δὲ τὸ σέλινον τῶν καταχθονίων. “Two wreaths of wild celery covered him”: now they are called crowns. For the crowns are made from wild celery. He called them wreaths because of the fact that they were woven for the Isthmian victors. It must be remarked that at that time already a crown of wild celery was shown at the Isthmus, as in the Nemean Games. For both are funerary, and the wild celery is sacred to those below.

T 26. Schol., Pi. N. hyp. a.1–6 Drachmann Τὸν ἀγῶνα τῶν Νεμέων τινὲς μὲν ὑφ’ Ἡρακλέους τεθεῖσθαί φασιν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λέοντος ἀναιρέσει, οἱ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱστορίαν τινὰ λέγουσιν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ὀφέλτου μὲν πρότερον, νυνὶ δὲ Ἀρχεμόρου, ἀπὸ τοῦ μαντεύσασθαι τοῖς ἐπὶ Θήβας στρατευσαμένοις διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου 5 θανάτου. ὁ δὲ ἀγὼν ἐπιτάφιος. Some say that the Nemean Games were established by Herakles on the occasion of the slaying of the lion, but others deny it is so and instead recount a story in regard to them, that they come from Opheltes, as he was formerly called, now Archemoros, from the fact that his own death was read as an omen for those campaigning against Thebes. The contest is funerary.

T 27. Schol., Pi. N. hyp. b Drachmann ἄλλως. οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας παραβαλόντες τῇ Νεμέᾳ διψήσαντες συνέτυχον Ὑψιπύλῃ τῇ Λημνίᾳ φερούσῃ τὸν Λυκούργου τοῦ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερέως καὶ Εὐρυδίκης παῖδα Ὀφέλτην· ἡ δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀφηγήσατο εἴς τινα πηγήν, καταλιποῦσα τὸν παῖδα ἔν τινι λειμῶνι· ὃν δράκων περιειληθεὶς ἢ ἰὸν 5 ἀφεὶς ἀνεῖλεν. οἱ δὲ ὑποστρέψαντες καὶ τὸ πάθος θεασά-

329

μενοι τόν τε δράκοντα ἀνεῖλον καὶ ἀγῶνα ἦγον ἐπιτάφιον τριετηρικόν· ἠγωνίζοντο δὲ στρατιῶται καὶ παῖδες στρατιωτῶν· ὕστερον δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ δημοτικὸν πλῆθος ἔδραμεν· ἦν δὲ γυμνικὸς καὶ ἅρμα, οὐχὶ δίφρος οὐδὲ κέλης. ἔτυχε δὲ 10 οὕτως Ὑψιπύλη ἐν Νεμέᾳ· ὡρισμένου παρὰ τῶν Λημνιάδων πᾶν τὸ ἄρσεν ἀναιρεθῆναι γένος, ἐκ πασῶν Ὑψιπύλη τὸν πατέρα Θόαντα ἐνείρξασα κιβωτῷ ἐφύλαττεν· ὕστερον δὲ μετὰ τὸ τοὺς Ἀργοναύτας ἐκπλεῦσαι φανεροῦ γενομένου ταῖς Λημνιάσι τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Θόαντα αὐτὸν μὲν κατεπόντωσαν ἐνείρ15 ξασαι τῇ κιβωτῷ, ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ καὶ κατὰ τῆς Ὑψιπύλης θάνατον· ἡ δὲ μαθοῦσα φεύγει. ἐν τοσούτῳ δὲ λῃσταῖς περιτυχοῦσα πιπράσκεται Λυκούργῳ. κατ’ ἐκεῖνον δὲ τὸν καιρὸν κατὰ ζήτησιν οἱ ταύτης παῖδες Θόας καὶ Εὔνεως παρέβαλον ἐν Νεμέᾳ, Εὐρυδίκης δὲ τῆς Λυκούργου γυναικὸς βουλο20 μένης διὰ τὸν Ὀφέλτου θάνατον ἀνελεῖν τὴν Ὑψιπύλην, διὰ τοῦτό τε ἔν τινι τόπῳ λαθραίῳ κατακλεισάσης, Ἀμφιάραος μαντευσάμενος δείκνυσι τοῖς παισὶ τὴν Ὑψιπύλην· ἡ δὲ τοῦτο εὐτυχήσασα παρεκάλει τοὺς ἥρωας τοῖς παισὶ συναγωνίσασθαι. Alternatively: The Seven against Thebes crossed over into Nemea because they were thirsty. They chanced upon Hypsipyle of Lemnos, who was carrying Opheltes, the son of Lykourgos, the priest of Zeus, and Eurydike. She led them to a certain spring, after leaving the child behind in some clearing. A snake killed him, whether by strangulation or by poison. When the others returned and saw what happened, they killed the snake and instituted biennial funeral games. Soldiers and the sons of soldiers used to compete; later they were opened to the general public. There used to be a gymnic competition and a four-horse chariot race, but no two-horse chariot race or keles.

330

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Hypsipyle happened to be in Nemea in the following way: When all the race of men was set apart from the Lemnian women and put to death, out of all of them Hypsipyle was protecting her father Thoas by shutting him up in a chest. Later, after the Argonauts set sail, the Thoas affair became known to the Lemnian women; they put him to sea, shutting him in the chest, and voted for Hypsipyle’s death. She learned of this and fled. During this, she encountered pirates and was sold into slavery to Lykourgos. At about that time her own sons, Thoas and Euneos, in quest for her, came to be in Nemea. When Eurydike, Lykourgos’ wife, wanted to execute Hypsipyle because of the death of Opheltes, and therefore had locked her up in some secret spot, Amphiaraos, having divined the situation, revealed Hypsipyle to her sons. She, happy for this, was inviting the heroes to join her sons in the games.

T 28. Schol., Pi. N. hyp. c Drachmann ἄλλως. τὰ Νέμεά φασιν ἄγεσθαι ἐπὶ Ὀφέλτῃ τῷ Εὐφήτου καὶ Κρεούσης παιδὶ, ὃν Εὐφήτην ἐκάλεσαν οἱ Ἀργεῖοι τελευτήσαντα ὑπὸ τὸν Θηβαϊκὸν πόλεμον. τοῦτον δὲ ἔτυχε τροφεύουσα Ὑψιπύλη, ἣν ᾔτησαν οἱ Ἀργεῖοι ὕδωρ· τῆς δὲ ἀπελθούσης ὑδρεύσασθαι ὄφις ἐπελθὼν ἀνεῖλε τὸν παῖδα. 5 Ἀμφιάραος δὲ τούτοις μαντευόμενος Ἀρχέμορον αὐτὸν ἐκάλεσεν, ὅτι αὐτοῖς ἀρχὴ μόρου ἐγένετο ὁ τοῦ παιδὸς θάνατος. ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα διέθηκαν τὴν Ὑψιπύλην παραμυθούμενοι. ἄλλοι δὲ, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Αἰσχύλος, ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τῷ Νεμέας παιδί· οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ Ταλαοῦ παιδί, 10 Ἀδράστου δὲ ἀδελφῷ. εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ καὶ παλαιότερον εἶναί φασι τὸν ἀγῶνα τοῦ Θηβαϊκοῦ πολέμου. ἤθλησαν δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ περὶ στεφάνου μόνου, οὐκ ἐθελήσαντες δωροδοκεῖν, ἐν τιμῇ καθιστάντες τὸν ἀγῶνα· ὑπέσχοντο δὲ ἐκ τῶν λαφύρων ὑπονοστήσαντες ἀργυρίτην αὐτὸν ποιῆσαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο στε15

φανίτης πρῶτον ἐκλήθη. προέστησαν δὲ τοῦ ἀγῶνος καὶ Ἀργεῖοι καὶ Κορίνθιοι καὶ Κλεωναῖοι· ἐμπεδοῦντες δὲ αὐτὸν τῷ Νεμεαίῳ ἀνέθηκαν Διΐ. ἐστέφοντο δὲ τὸ παλαιὸν ἐλαίᾳ, ὕστερον δὲ μετὰ τὴν συμφορὰν τῶν Μηδικῶν ἐπὶ τιμῇ τῶν κατοιχομένων σελίνῳ· οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τοῦτο 20 τεθῆναι. ἔστι δὲ ἡ Νεμέα τῆς τῶν Ἀργείων χώρας μοῖρα, ὠνομασμένη ἀπὸ τῆς Σελήνης καὶ Διός· οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν βοῶν τῶν ὑπὸ Ἄργου νεμομένων ἐν τῷ χωρίῳ, αἳ ἦσαν Ἥρας ἱεραί· οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν Δαναοῦ παίδων, οἳ κατενείμαντο καὶ ἐκληρούχησαν τὸ χωρίον. 25 Alternatively: They say that the Nemean Games are held in honor of Opheltes, the son of Euphetes and Kreousa, whom the Argives named Euphetes upon his death around the time of the Theban War. Hypsipyle happened to be his nurse, and the Argives asked her for water. After she departed to draw water, a snake came up and killed the boy. Amphiaraos interpreted this omen for them and gave him the name Archemoros, since the boy’s death was a beginning of doom for them. In his honor they also established the Games while consoling Hypsipyle. Others, however—including Aischylos as well—say it is in honor of Archemoros the son of Nemea; and others, in honor of the son of Talaos and brother of Adrastos. There are some who say that the contest is even older than the Theban War. They competed in it for a crown alone, not wanting to give money, for they were establishing the contest in honor. They promised, however, upon their return to make it a contest for money from the spoils, and therefore at first it was called stephanitic. The men of Argos, Korinth, and Kleonai were its presidents. They established it and dedicated it to Nemean Zeus. In the old days men were crowned with olive, but later, after the Persian disaster, with wild celery, in honor of the dead. Others, however, say that this was established from the beginning in honor of Archemoros. Nemea is a part of the territory of the Argives, named after Nemea, the daughter of Selene and Zeus; according to others, after the cattle, which were sacred to

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Hera, put to pasture in the area by Argos; according to others, after the sons of Danaos, who parceled and allotted the land for settlement.

T 29. Schol., Pi. N. hyp. d Drachmann ἄλλως. καθ’ ὃν χρόνον οἱ ἑπτὰ τῶν Ἀργείων λοχαγοὶ ἐπεστράτευσαν Θηβαίοις Πολυνείκει συμμαχοῦντες, εἰς Λῆμνον τὴν Θρᾳκικὴν καταντήσαντες καὶ δίψει συσχεθέντες συνέτυχον Ὑψιπύλῃ τῇ Λημνίᾳ γυναικὶ καὶ καθικέτευον ἅτε τῶν χωρίων ἔμπειρον οὖσαν ξεναγῆσαι ἐπὶ πότιμον ὕδωρ. τὴν δὲ ἀβλαβῆ 5 χάριν τοῖς λοχαγοῖς ἀπονεῖμαι βουληθεῖσαν καταλιπεῖν ἐπί τινα τόπον τὸν Ἀρχέμορον Λυκούργου τοῦ ἱερέως παῖδα, ὃν εἶχε πρὸς ἀνατροφήν, Ἀργεῖον τὸ γένος· ὄφιν δὲ τῆς χειᾶς ἐξελθόντα κατὰ τὴν τῆς Ὑψιπύλης ἀπουσίαν περιπλακῆναι τῷ παιδὶ καὶ ταῖς σπείραις ἀποτεταμένον ἀποπνῖξαι τὸ βρέφος· 10 τοὺς δὲ ἐπανελθόντας τοξεῦσαι μὲν τὸν ὄφιν, σφόδρα δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι δυσφορῆσαι, ὅτι δὴ ἡ αὐτῶν χρεία αἰτία τῆς τοῦ παιδὸς ἀναιρέσεως γεγένηται, εἶτα τῇ συμφορᾷ βραχεῖάν τινα παραμυθίαν ποριζομένους θάψαι τὸν παῖδα καὶ ἐπιτάφιον ἀγῶνα θέσθαι τὸν Νεμεαῖον, καθ’ ὃν οἱ κριταὶ φαιὰς ἐσταλ15 μένοι στολὰς κρίνουσι τοῖς ἀγωνιζομένοις ὑπόμνημα τοῦ πένθους ταῖς στολαῖς ἐμφανίζοντες· ὁ γὰρ ἀγὼν ἐπιτάφιος. ὕστερον δὲ νικήσας Ἡρακλῆς καταγωνισάμενος τὸν Νεμεαῖον λέοντα ἐπεμελήθη τοῦ ἀγῶνος τὰ πολλὰ ἀνορθωσάμενος, καὶ Διὸς εἶναι ἱερὸν ἐνομοθέτησεν. ὁ δὲ στέφανος ἐκ χλωρῶν 20 πλέκεται σελίνων· διαφέρει δὲ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰσθμόν, παρόσον ἐκεῖνος ξηρὰ ἔχει τὰ σέλινα. προέστησαν δὲ τοῦ ἀγῶνος πρῶτοι μὲν Κλεωναῖοι, εἶτα Κορίνθιοι, καὶ ἔστι τριετὴς, τελού-

331

μενος μηνὶ Πανέμῳ ιηʹ. οὐκ ἀξιοῦντες δὲ πρότερον εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἀπὸ στρατιωτικοῦ γένους, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπιλειψάντων καὶ 25 τοῦ ἔθους διαλυθέντος συνέβη τοὺς πάντας ἀγωνίζεσθαι. ὁ δὲ ἀγὼν ἱππικός τε καὶ γυμνικός. Alternatively: At the time that the seven chieftains of the Argives campaigned against Thebes as allies to Polyneikes, coming down to Thracian Lemnos and beset by thirst, they chanced upon Hypsipyle the woman of Lemnos, and they implored her, as one who knew the area well, to guide them to potable water. Desiring to do the chieftains a harmless favor, she put Archemoros down someplace, who was the son of Lykourgos the priest and whom she had as her nursling, Argive by birth. A snake, coming out of its hole at the time of Hypsipyle’s absence, coiled round and strangled the infant child, who was squeezed by its coils. When the others returned, they shot the snake, but were very distraught over the event, because clearly their own need became the cause of the child’s killing. Then, after offering a brief speech of consolation for the misfortune, they buried the child and established funeral games, the Nemean Games, during which the judges judge the competitors while wearing dark robes, showing with their robes a remembrance of mourning. For the contest is funerary. Later, however, Herakles, who fought and defeated the Nemean lion, took charge of the contest, reviving much of it, and ordained that it be sacred to Zeus. The crown is woven of fresh wild celery. It differs from the Isthmian, to the extent that the latter has wild celery that is dry. First to preside over the Games were the Kleonaians, then the Corinthians, and it is biennial, held on the 17th of the month Panemos. At first only those of soldier stock were eligible, but later, after their lapse and the slackening of the custom, it happened that all could compete. The contest is hippic and gymnic.

T 30. Schol., Pi. N. 6.71a-c Drachmann (71a.) βοτάνα τέ νίν ποθ’ ἁ λέοντος: βούλεται ἡ ἱστορία ἐκ τοῦ Ἀρχεμόρου αἵματος ἀναδεδόσθαι τὸ βοτανίδιον· οἱ δὲ, ὃ καὶ βέλτιον, βοτάνη λέοντος ἡ Νεμέα, παρόσον κατ’ αὐτὴν διῆγεν ὁ λέων βοσκόμενος.

332

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

(71b,col 1.) ἄλλως. βοτάνην λέοντος τὸ σέλινον δεκτέον. σέλινον γὰρ ὁ αὐτόθι στέφανος, (71b,col 2.) ἄλλως. βοτάνη λέοντος ἤτοι καθολικῶς ἡ Νεμέα, ἢ τὸ σέλινον δεκτέον, ὅτι ὁ Ἡρακλῆς καταγωνισάμενος τὸν λέοντα τοῦτο ἐνομοθέτησεν εἶναι τὸ στέμμα. (71c.) ἀλλ’ ἀλόγως· φαίνεται γὰρ ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ ὅ τε ἀγὼν τεθεὶς καὶ τὸ σέλινον τοῖς νικῶσι διδόμενον. “And him once did the lion’s fodder . . .”: The legend wants to claim that the herb sprang up from the blood of Archemoros. Others have a better explanation, that Nemea is the lion’s fodder, to the extent that the lion roamed and grazed throughout it. Alternatively: The wild celery should be taken for the lion’s fodder, for the crown there is wild celery, Alternatively: Either Nemea as a whole is the lion’s fodder, or the wild celery should be taken for it, because Herakles after defeating the lion ordained this to be the crown. But that is false; for it is clear that it is in honor of Archemoros that the Games were established and that the wild celery is given to the victors.

T 31. Schol., Pi. N. 8.85 Drachmann ἦν γε μὰν ἐπικώμιος ὕμνος δὴ πάλαι: τουτέστι τὰ ἐγκώμια ἐγράφετο καὶ πάλαι, πρὶν καὶ τοὺς Ἀργείους ἐπιστρατεῦσαι ταῖς Θήβαις, τουτέστι πρὶν τὰ Νέμεα τεθῆναι ἦν ἐγκώμια. στρατευσάντων γὰρ τῶν περὶ Ἄδραστον ἐπὶ Θήβας ὁ Ἀρχέμορος ὑπὸ τοῦ δράκοντος διεφθάρη, οἱ δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ 5 τοῦ μόρου ἄρξαντι τὰ Νέμεα ἔθηκαν. “There was, to be sure, song of praise / Even long . . .”: That is to say, praise poetry was being written even long ago, even before the Argives campaigned against Thebes; i.e. there was praise poetry before the Nemean Games were established. For it was when those men in Adrastos’ company

were campaigning against Thebes that Archemoros was killed by the snake, and they established the Nemean Games in his honor, because he was the beginning of their doom.

T 32. Schol., Pi. N. 10.49b.1–8 Drachmann ὁ δὲ νοῦς· καὶ παρέσχε πρόφασιν ταῖς Μούσαις· τρίτον μὲν γὰρ κληρωθεὶς ἐνίκησε τὰ Ἴσθμια· πόντου γὰρ πύλας εἶπε τὸν Ἰσθμὸν διὰ τὸ στενόν· τρὶς δὲ τὰ Νέμεα κατὰ τὴν Ἀδράστου διοίκησιν καὶ νομοθέτησιν τελούμενα. οἱ γὰρ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας ἀνενεώσαντο τὰ 5 Νέμεα, ὧν εἷς Ἄδραστος. ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ αὐτὸς τῶν ἐν Ἄργει ἐπιφανῶν, διὰ τοῦτο Ἀδραστείῳ νόμῳ φησὶ, χαριζόμενος καὶ διὰ τούτου πλέον τι τοῖς Ἀργείοις. The meaning: he also provided the Muses an excuse. For three times he was alloted victory in the Isthmian Games—he called the Isthmus “gates of the sea” because of its narrowness—and three times in the Nemean Games, which are celebrated according to the arrangement and decree of Adrastos. For the Seven against Thebes renewed the Nemean Games, one of whom was Adrastos. Since of course he too was one of the famous men in Argos, he [Pindar] accordingly says “in what Adrastos ordained” because it pays the Argives somewhat more of a compliment.

T 33. Schol., Pi. I. hyp. a Drachmann Ἐτελοῦντο μὲν οἱ παλαιοὶ πάντες ἀγῶνες ἐπί τισι τετελευτηκόσιν. ἐτελεῖτο γὰρ ὁ μὲν Ὀλυμπικὸς τῷ Διῒ διὰ τὸν Πέλοπα, ὁ δὲ Πυθικὸς τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι διὰ τὸν δράκοντα, ὃν ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν Πυθοῖ, ὁ δὲ Ἰσθμικὸς τῷ Ποσειδῶνι. ἔστι δὲ ἡ ἱστορία αὕτη. Ἰνοῦς καὶ Ἀθάμαντος παῖδες Λέαρχος καὶ 5 Μελικέρτης· τὸν μὲν δὴ Λέαρχον μανεὶς ὁ Ἀθάμας ἀπέκτεινεν, εἶτα ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καθῆκεν αὐτὸν εἰς λέβητα ὕδατος ζεστοῦ, μανεῖσα δὲ καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ τελευταῖον ἥλατο μετὰ τοῦ

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Μελικέρτου εἰς θάλασσαν, καὶ ἐγένετο μὲν ἡ Ἰνὼ μία τῶν Νηρεΐδων, ἧς καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς μέμνηται· ἔστι δὲ αὕτη 10 Λευκοθέα· ὁ δὲ Μελικέρτης μετεβλήθη εἰς δαίμονα· ἔστι δὲ οὗτος Παλαίμων. χορεύουσαι τοίνυν ποτὲ αἱ Νηρεΐδες ἐπεφάνησαν τῷ Σισύφῳ καὶ ἐκέλευσαν εἰς τιμὴν τοῦ Μελικέρτου ἄγειν τὰ Ἴσθμια. All the old games used to be held in honor of someone who had died. For the Olympics were celebrated for Zeus because of Pelops, the Pythian for Apollo because of the snake, which he killed in Pytho; and the Isthmian for Poseidon. The story is this: The sons of Ino and Athamas were Learchos and Melikertes. Athamas went mad and killed Learchos; then his mother lowered him into a cauldron of boiling water, and going mad herself, ultimately she jumped into the sea with Melikertes. Ino became one of the Nereids, whom the poet mentions; this is Leukothea. Melikertes was changed into a daimon; this is Palaimon. One day the Nereids appeared in chorus to Sisyphos and bade him hold the Isthmian Games in honor of Melikertes.

T 34. Douris (FGrH 76) F 33 (apud Photios) Σελίνου στέφανος πένθιμος· τὸ γὰρ σέλινον πένθεσι προσήκει, ὡς ἔφη καὶ Δοῦρις ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀγώνων. A wreath of celery is sorrowful: for the wild celery is related to sorrows, as Douris also said in his On Contests.

T 35. Euphorion, fr. 84 Powell (apud Plut., Mor. 677a) Κλαίοντες δέ τε κοῦρον ἐπ’ ἀγχιάλοις πιτύεσσι κάτθεσαν, ὁκκόθε δὴ στεφάνωμ’ ἄθλοις φορέοντο· οὐ γάρ πω τρηχεῖα λαβὴ καταμήσατο χειρῶν Μήνης παῖδα χάρωνα παρ’ Ἀσωποῦ γενετείρῃ, ἐξότε πυκνὰ σέλινα κατὰ κροτάφων ἐβάλοντο. And weeping they set the boy down at the pines near the sea, From which indeed came the crown they used to wear in the games;

333

For not at all had the harsh grasp of hands yet cut down The Moon’s bright-eyed child beside the daughter of Asopos, Whence they began to throw the dense wild celery around their temples.

T 36. Nigidius Figulus, fr. 93 Swoboda Nigidius refert hunc leonem nutritum apud Lunam, iussu Junonis ad Herculis exitium demissumque caelo a Junone in terram Arcadiam in regionem Nemeae. In qua speluncam esse, ubi hic leo victus memoratur, quae Amphidymon nomine fuerit. Hercules iussu Eurysthei interfecit cum Molorcho hospite suo, cuius clavam viribus tributam (tum) principio est adeptus eaque leonem interfecit. Itaque postea clava pro gladio, pelle pro scuto in reliquo tempore uti instituit et apud omnes mortales gratus ob virtutem haberi coeptus est; Junoni porro magis in odio pervenerat. Quapropter leonem caelesti memoria dignari voluntate Junonis arbitrantur; plerique Nemeae gymnicos ludos ab hoc arbitrantur leone institutos. Nigidius relates that this lion was reared by the Moon on Juno’s order for Herakles’ destruction and lowered by Juno from heaven to the earth in Arkadia, in the region of Nemea. In that place is a cave, where this vanquished lion is commemorated, which had the name Amphidymon. At Eurystheus’ command Herakles killed the lion with the help of his host Molorkos, whose club endowed with powers he then acquired for the first time, and with it he killed the lion. And so afterward he resolved to use the club in place of a sword and the hide in place of a shield ever after, and among all mortals he started to be regarded with gratitude because of his courage; all the more did he incur Juno’s hatred. And for this reason it is thought that by Juno’s will the lion was deemed worthy of a heavenly memorial; and very many think that the gymnic games at Nemea were instituted as a result of this lion.

T37. Ovid, Ibis 481–484 Merkel and Ehwald Neve venenato levius feriaris ab angue, Quam senis Oeagri Calliopesque nurus: Quam puer Hypsipyles, quam qui cava primus acuta Cuspide suspecti robora fixit equi.

334

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

And may you not be struck more lightly by a poisonous snake, Than the daughter-in-law of old Oeagrus and Calliope: Than Hypsipyle’s boy, than he who first with sharp Point pierced the hollow wood of the suspected horse.

T 38. Propertius, 2.34.33–40 Loeb nam cursus licet Aetoli referas Acheloi, fluxerit ut magno fractus amore liquor, atque etiam ut Phrygio fallax Maeandria campo 35 errat et ipsa suas decipit unda vias, qualis et Adrasti fuerit vocalis Arion, tristis ad Archemori funera victor equus: non Amphiareae prosint tibi fata quadrigae aut Capanei magno grata ruina Iovi. 40 Go ahead now and speak of the course of Aitolian Acheloos, How his water flowed broken by a great love, And also how the faulty Maeander from the Phrygian field Wanders and how the water itself tricked its own paths, And tell how Adrastos’ Arion will have begun to speak, The victorious horse at the funeral rites of sad Archemoros: May the fate of Amphiaraos’ chariot be of no use to you, Or great Kapaneus’ downfall, so pleasing to Jove.

T 39. Hyginus, F. 74 Rose Septem ductores qui Thebas oppugnatum ibant deuenerunt in Nemeam, ubi Hypsipyle Thoantis filia in seruitute puerum Archemorum siue Ophiten Lyci regis filium nutriebat; cui responsum erat ne in terra puerum deponeret antequam posset ambulare. ergo ductores septem qui Thebas ibant aquam quaerentes deuenerunt ad Hypsipylen eamque rogauerunt ut eis aquam demonstraret. illa timens puerum in terram deponere, apium altissimum erat ad fontem, in quo puerum deposuit. quae dum aquam eis tradit, draco fontis custos puerum exedit. at draconem Adrastus et ceteri occiderunt et Lycum pro Hypsipyle deprecati sunt, ludosque puero funebres instituerunt, qui quinto quoque anno fiunt, in quibus uictores apiaciam coronam accipiunt.

The seven leaders who were on their way to Thebes to attack it turned aside to Nemea, where Hypsipyle, the daughter of Thoas, was serving in slavery as nurse to the boy Archemoros or Ophites, the son of King Lykos. He had an oracle that he should not put the boy down on the ground until he was able to walk. And so the seven leaders who were on their way to Thebes, being in need of water, turned aside to Hypsipyle and asked her to show them water. She, afraid to put the boy on the ground. . . . There was a very deep patch of wild celery at the spring, in which she placed the boy. And while she was handing them water, a snake, the spring’s guardian, killed the boy. Then Adrastos and the others killed the snake, begged forgiveness from Lykos for Hypsipyle, and instituted funeral games for the boy, which are held every four years, and in which the victors receive a crown of wild celery.

T 40. Hyginus, F. 273.5–8 Rose octauo loco fecit Hercules Olympiae gymnicos Pelopi Tantali filio, in quibus ipse contendit pammachium, quod nos pancratium uocamus, cum Achareo. nono loco facti sunt in Nemea Archemoro Lyci et Eurydices filio, quos fecerunt septem duces qui Thebas ibant oppugnatum, in quibus ludis postea uicerunt cursu Euneus et Deipylus Iasonis et Hypsipyles filii. his quoque ludis pythaules qui Pythia cantauerunt septem habuit palliatos qui uoce cantauerunt, unde postea appellatus est choraules. decimo Isthmia Melicertae Athamantis filio et Inus fecisse dicitur Eratocles, alii poetae dicunt Theseum. In eighth place, Herakles made gymnic games at Olympia for Pelops son of Tantalos, in which he himself competed in the pammachium, which we call pancratium, with Achareus. In ninth place, games were made in Nemea for Archemoros son of Lykos and Eurydike, which the seven leaders who were on their way to attack Thebes made, and in which afterward Euneos and Deipylos, the sons of Jason and Hypsipyle, won in the footrace. In these games also the pythaules had seven men dressed in cloaks sing Pythian songs aloud, from which fact he was afterward called choraules. In tenth place, Eratokles is said to have made the Isthmia for Melikertes son of Athamas and Ino; but other poets say it was Theseus who made them.

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

T 41. [Apollod.], Bibliotheca 1.9.13–14 Frazer [13] Βίαντος δὲ καὶ Πηροῦς Ταλαός, οὗ καὶ Λυσιμάχης τῆς Ἄβαντος τοῦ Μελάμποδος Ἄδραστος Παρθενοπαῖος Πρῶναξ Μηκιστεὺς Ἀριστόμαχος Ἐριφύλη, ἣν Ἀμφιάραος γαμεῖ. Παρθενοπαίου δὲ Πρόμαχος ἐγένετο, ὃς μετὰ τῶν ἐπιγόνων ἐπὶ Θήβας ἐστρατεύθη, Μηκιστέως δὲ Εὐρύαλος, ὃς ἧκεν εἰς Τροίαν. Πρώνακτος δὲ ἐγένετο Λυκοῦργος, Ἀδράστου δὲ καὶ Ἀμφιθέας τῆς Πρώνακτος θυγατέρες μὲν Ἀργεία Δηιπύλη Αἰγιάλεια, παῖδες δὲ Αἰγιαλεὺς Κυάνιππος. [14] Φέρης δὲ ὁ Κρηθέως Φερὰς ἐν Θεσσαλίᾳ κτίσας ἐγέννησεν Ἄδμητον καὶ Λυκοῦργον. Λυκοῦργος μὲν οὖν περὶ Νεμέαν κατῴκησε, γήμας δὲ Εὐρυδίκην, ὡς δὲ ἔνιοί φασιν Ἀμφιθέαν, ἐγέννησεν Ὀφέλτην κληθέντα Ἀρχέμορον. Bias and Pero had Talaos, who with Lysimache, the daughter of Abas son of Melampous, had Adrastos, Parthenopaios, Pronax, Mekisteus, Aristomachos, and Eriphyle, whom Amphiaraos marries. Parthenopaios had Promachos, who campaigned against Thebes with the Epigonoi, while Mekisteus had Euryalos, who went to Troy. Pronax had Lykourgos, while Adrastos and Amphithea, the daughter of Pronax, had daughters Argeia, Deipyle, and Aigialeia, and sons Aigialeus and Kyanippos. Pheres the son of Kretheus founded Pherai in Thessaly and sired Admetos and Lykourgos. Lykourgos then settled around Nemea, married Eurydike (though some call her Amphithea), and sired Opheltes, who was later called Archemoros.

T 42. [Apollod.], Bibliotheca 3.6.4 Frazer παραγενόμενοι δὲ εἰς Νεμέαν, ἧς ἐβασίλευε Λυκοῦργος, ἐζήτουν ὕδωρ. καὶ αὐτοῖς ἡγήσατο τῆς ἐπὶ κρήνην ὁδοῦ Ὑψιπύλη, νήπιον παῖδα [ὄντα] Ὀφέλτην ἀπολιποῦσα, ὃν ἔτρεφεν Εὐρυδίκης ὄντα καὶ Λυκούργου. αἰσθόμεναι γὰρ αἱ Λήμνιαι ὕστερον Θόαντα σεσωσμένον ἐκεῖνον μὲν ἔκτειναν, τὴν δὲ Ὑψιπύλην ἀπημπόλησαν: διὸ πραθεῖσα ἐλάτρευε παρὰ Λυκούργῳ. δεικνυούσης δὲ τὴν κρήνην, ὁ παῖς ἀπολειφθεὶς ὑπὸ δράκοντος διαφθείρεται. τὸν μὲν οὖν δράκοντα ἐπιφανέντες οἱ μετὰ Ἀδράστου κτείνουσι, τὸν δὲ παῖδα θάπτουσιν. Ἀμφιάραος δὲ εἶπεν ἐκείνοις τὸ σημεῖον τὰ μέλλοντα προμαντεύεσθαι: τὸν δὲ παῖδα Ἀρχέμορον ἐκάλεσαν. οἱ δὲ ἔθεσαν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ

335

τὸν τῶν Νεμέων ἀγῶνα, καὶ ἵππῳ μὲν ἐνίκησεν Ἄδραστος, σταδίῳ δὲ Ἐτέοκλος, πυγμῇ Τυδεύς, ἅλματι καὶ δίσκῳ Ἀμφιάραος, ἀκοντίῳ Λαόδοκος, πάλῃ Πολυνείκης, τόξῳ Παρθενοπαῖος. Arriving at Nemea, which Lykourgos ruled, they were searching for water. And Hypsipyle led them on the path to a spring, after leaving behind the infant boy Opheltes, whom she was tending as nurse and who was the son of Eurydike and Lykourgos. For when the Lemnian women later realized that Thoas had been saved, they killed him and sold Hypsipyle into slavery. And so she was bought and was serving in the household of Lykourgos. Now while she was pointing out the spring, the abandoned child was slain by a snake. When those with Adrastos came to the scene, they killed the snake and gave the boy burial. Amphiaraos told them that the sign was a prediction of things to come, and he named the boy Archemoros. Then they instituted in his honor the contest of the Nemean Games, and Adrastos won in the horse race, Eteoklos in the stadion race, Tydeus in boxing, Amphiaraos in the long jump and the discus, Laodokos in the javelin, Polyneikes in wrestling, and Parthenopaios in archery.

T 43. Statius, Theb. 4.723–729 Klotz una tamen tacitas sed iussu numinis undas haec quoque secreta nutrit Langia sub umbra. nondum illi raptus dederat lacrimabile nomen 725 Archemorus, nec fama deae; tamen avia servat et nemus et fluvium; manet ingens gloria nympham, cum tristem Hypsipylen ducibus sudatus Achaeis ludus et atra sacrum recolet trieteris Ophelten. But one spring nonetheless, this too by god’s command, her silent streams Does nurture under the secret shade: Langia. Not yet had the snatched Archemoros given her a sorrowful name, Nor had fame yet come to the goddess; but out of the way she keeps Both grove and stream. Great glory awaits the nymph, When the sweaty contest for the Achaean chiefs Every two years will sorrowfully revisit sad Hypsipyle and holy Opheltes.

336

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

T 44. Statius, Theb. 4.746–752 Klotz tandem inter silvas—sic Euhius ipse pararat— errantes subitam pulchro in maerore tuentur Hypsipylen; illi quamvis et ad ubera Opheltes non suus, Inachii proles infausta Lycurgi, dependet—neglecta comam nec dives amictu—, 750 regales tamen ore notae, nec mersus acerbis extat honos. tunc haec adeo stupefactus Adrastus: Now as through the woods (so Euhius himself had prepared it) They wandered, suddenly they spy in her pretty sorrow Hypsipyle: even though at her breast hangs Opheltes, Not her own, but the unlucky offspring of Inachian Lykourgos (and her hair is unkempt and her dress is lowly), Still she has the marks of royalty in her face, nor sunken by bitter circumstance Is her conspicuous honor. Then Adrastos, so struck with wonder, spoke these words:

T 45. Statius, Theb. 4.785–800 Klotz . . . simul haerentem, ne tarda Pelasgis 785 dux foret, a! miserum vicino caespite alumnum– sic Parcae volvere—locat ponique negantis floribus adgestis et amico murmure dulces solatur lacrimas: qualis Berecyntia mater, dum parvum circa iubet exultare Tonantem 790 Curetas trepidos; illi certantia plaudunt orgia, sed magnis resonat vagitibus Ide. at puer in gremio vernae telluris et alto gramine nunc faciles sternit procursibus herbas in vultum nitens, caram modo lactis egeno 795 nutricem clangore ciens iterumque renidens et teneris meditans verba inluctantia labris miratur nemorum strepitus aut obvia carpit aut patulo trahit ore diem nemorique malorum inscius et uitae multum securus inerrat. 800 . . . At once her clinging charge, lest for the Pelasgians she be A slow leader, ah! the wretch she places on the grass nearby (So the fates wished), and since he does not want to be set down, with gathered flowers and a friendly whisper his sweet tears

She soothes: just like the Berecyntian Mother, While she bids revel around the wee Thunderer the restless Curetes, and they clap out their clashing Orgies, but Ida echoes with great crying. But meanwhile the boy in the green earth’s lap and deep Grass tramples with his spurts of crawling the simple blades, And rocks headlong; then with a thirsty cry for milk For his dear nurse he calls, and then once more smiling And pondering words still a struggle for his tender lips, He marvels at the sounds of the woods, or grasps at whatever is at hand, Or with his mouth open passes the day, of the woods’ evils Unaware, and secure in his life he wanders far and wide.

T 46. Statius, Theb. 5.499–521 Klotz talia Lernaeis iterat dum regibus exul Lemnias et longa solatur damna querella 500 inmemor absentis—sic di suasistis!—alumni, ille graves oculos languentiaque ora comanti mergit humo fessusque diu puerilibus actis labitur in somnos, prensa manus haeret in herba. interea campis, nemoris sacer horror Achaei, 505 terrigena exoritur serpens, tractuque soluto inmanem sese vehit ac pos terga relinquit. livida fax oculis, tumidi stat in ore veneni spuma virens, ter lingua vibrat, terna agmina adunci dentis, et auratae crudelis gloria fronti 510 prominet. Inachio sanctum dixere Tonanti agricolae, cui cura loci et silvestribus aris pauper honos; nunc ille dei circumdare templa orbe uago labens, miserae nunc robora siluae atterit et vastas tenuat complexibus ornos; 515 saepe super fluvios geminae iacet aggere ripae continuus, squamisque incisus adaestuat amnis. sed nunc, Ogygii iussis quando omnis anhelat terra dei trepidaeque latent in pulvere Nymphae, saevior anfractu laterum sinuosa retorquens 520 terga solo siccique nocens furit igne veneni. While such things the exiled Lemnian recounts to the Lernaian kings, and solaces her losses with her long complaint, Unmindful of her absent—so the gods urged— nursling,

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

He lowers his heavy eyes and tiring face to the silky Earth, and long worn out by his childish acts Slips into slumber, his clenched hand still clutching the grass. Meanwhile, out in the fields, the holy horror of the Achaean grove, The earthborn serpent rises, and with sliding motion Pulls his enormous bulk along and leaves it to trail behind. A flaming yellow torch are his eyes, and in his mouth stands a growing spray Of poison ready to burst. Three times his tongue flicks past a triple row of hooked Teeth, and a cruel glory from his gilded brow Projects. Farmers say that he is sacred to the Inachian Thunderer, For whom he is a local guardian and for his woodland altars A meager official; at times encircling the god’s precincts In a meandering circuit he slithers, at times against the trunks of the wretched forest He rubs and weakens in his strangling embrace the mighty mountain ash trees. Often, he spans streams and lies on the bulk of their twin banks In one unbroken line, and the water cut by his scales surges. But now, when by the Ogygian god’s orders the whole land Pants and the restless nymphs lie in dust, More fiercely he twists his winding back with only the bending of his flanks, And intent on harm he rages with the fire of his dried-out venom.

T 47. Statius, Theb. 5.533–536 Klotz quis tibi, parve, deus tam magni pondera fati sorte dedit? tune hoc vix prima ad limina vitae hoste iaces? an ut inde sacer per saecula Grais 535 gentibus et tanto dignus morerere sepulcro? Which god, little one, to you allotted the weight of so great a destiny? Are you, when barely at life’s first threshold, Laid low by this enemy? Is it so that in this way eternally sacred To the Greek nations you may die, and worthy of so great a tomb?

337

T 48. Statius, Theb. 5.608–612 Klotz ‘o mihi desertae natorum dulcis imago, Archemore, o rerum et patriae solamen ademptae servitiique decus, qui te, mea gaudia, sontes 610 extinxere dei, modo quem digressa reliqui lascivum et prono vexantem gramina cursu?’ “O sweet image to me of my children bereft, Archemoros, O consolation for the affairs of my ruined country, And honor of my servitude, which gods are guilty, my joy, Of making you perish, you whom I left just for a moment while I went away, Carefree and harrying the grasses with your crawling?”

T 49. Statius, Theb. 5.733–753 Klotz ‘audite, o ductor Nemeae lectique potentes Inachidae, quae certus agi manifestat Apollo. iste quidem Argolicis haud olim indebitus armis 735 luctus adest, recto descendunt limite Parcae: et sitis interitu fluviorum et letifer anguis et puer, heu nostri signatus nomine fati, Archemorus, cuncta haec superum demissa suprema mente fluunt. differte animos festinaque tela 740 ponite; mansuris donandus honoribus infans. et meruit; det pulchra suis libamina Virtus manibus, atque utinam plures innectere pergas, Phoebe, moras, semperque novis bellare vetemur casibus, et semper Thebe funesta recedas. 745 at uos magnorum transgressi fata parentum felices, longum quibus hinc per saecula nomen, dum Lernaea palus et dum pater Inachus ibit, dum Nemea tremulas campis iaculabitur umbras, ne fletu violate sacrum, ne plangite divos: 750 nam deus iste, deus, Pyliae nec fata senectae maluerit, Phrygiis aut degere longius annis.’ finierat, caeloque cavam nox induit umbram. “Hear, O leader of Nemea and chosen chiefs Of Inachos, the things that Apollo surely reveals to be done. Indeed never and by no means due to Argive arms Is this grief now at hand; the Fates descend in a straight line: The thirst brought on by the failing of the streams, the death-dealing snake, And the boy, alas marked with the name of our own fate,

338

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Archemoros—all these things flow down by the supreme Will of those above. Relax your passions and set your eager weapons Aside. Enduring honors must we bestow on the infant, As he deserves. Let Virtue grant fair libations to his spirit, And may you continue to tie us up with even more delays, Phoebus, and may we always avoid waging war with fresh Misfortunes, and may you, deathly Thebe, always be distant. But you who have surpassed the fates of your great parents, You fortunate ones, who henceforth will have long renown through the ages, So long as there is a Lernaean swamp and father Inachos goes on flowing, So long as Nemea will cast hurtling shadows in her fields, Do not defile the sacred rite with weeping, do not mourn for the divine: For a god has this one become, a god; he did not want the fate of the Pylian’s Old age, or to live longer than the Phrygian’s years.” He finished his speech, and night draped her enveloping darkness over heaven.

T 50. Statius, Theb. 6.1–14 Klotz Nuntia multivago Danaas perlabitur urbes Fama gradu, sancire novo sollemnia busto Inachidas ludumque super, quo Martia bellis praesudare paret seseque accendere virtus. Graium ex more decus: primus Pisaea per arva hunc pius Alcides Pelopi certavit honorem pulvereumque fera crinem detersit oliva; proxima vipereo celebratur libera nexu Phocis, Apollineae bellum puerile pharetrae; mox circum tristes servata Palaemonis aras nigra superstitio, quotiens animosa resumit Leucothea gemitus et amica ad litora festa tempestate venit: planctu conclamat uterque Isthmos, Echioniae responsant flebile Thebae. The messenger, Fame, glides through the Danaan towns with her wandering Step, saying that holy rites for a new tomb do the Inachidai

5

10

Consecrate, and a contest over it, with which martial valor Toils in training and arouses itself for warfare. It is a Greek honor by tradition: first through the fields of Pisa Did faithful Alkides vie in this honor for Pelops And brushed clean his dusty brow with wild olive; Next is celebrated as free of the serpent’s embrace Phokis, the childhood battle of Apollo’s quiver; Soon thereafter around Palaimon’s sad altars is kept The black ritual, as often as distraught Leukothea Resumes her groans and returns to friendly shores At the time of the festival: with wailing on both sides does the Isthmus Resound, and Echion’s Thebes answers with lamentation.

T 51. Statius, Theb. 6.242–248 Klotz mirum opus accelerasse manus! stat saxea moles, templum ingens cineri, rerumque effictus in illa ordo docet casus: fessis hic flumina monstrat Hypsipyle Danais, hic reptat flebilis infans, 245 hic iacet, extremum tumuli circum asperat orbem squameus; expectes morientis ab ore cruenta sibila, marmorea sic volvitur anguis in hasta. Amazing how their handiwork made haste! There stands a stony mound, A great precinct for his ashes, and fashioned upon it a row Of scenes illustrates his misfortunes: here the streaming water to exhausted Danaans does Hypsipyle show; here crawls the wailing infant; Here he lies dead, and a rough circle around the outer circuit of the mound forms The scaly beast; from its mouth as it dies you would expect bloody Hisses, just so does the snake twist on the marble spear.

T 52. Statius, Theb. 6.513-517 Klotz quis mortis, Thebane, locus, nisi dura negasset Tisiphone, quantum poteras dimittere bellum! te Thebe fraterque palam, te plangeret Argos, 515 te Nemea, tibi Lerna comas Larisaque supplex poneret, Archemori maior colerere sepulcro. What a place of death would this have been, had cruel Tisiphone

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Not denied it, how great a war you could have stopped! You would Thebe and her brother publicly mourn, Argos would mourn you, And Nemea too; for you would Lerna and suppliant Larisa their locks of hair Set aside: you would be worshipped greater than the tomb of Archemoros.

T 53. Statius, Theb. 6.924–928 Klotz ipsum etiam proprio certamina festa labore dignari et tumulis supremum hunc addere honorem hortantur proceres ac, ne victoria desit una ducum numero, fundat vel Lyctia cornu tela rogant, tenui vel nubila transeat hasta.

925

May he himself deem the festival contest worthy Of his own effort and add this highest honor to the mound— So the princes urge, and lest victory be lacking To one of the leaders’ number, let him hurl from a bow his Lyctian Arrows, they beg, or cross the clouds with a slender spear.

T 54. Statius, Theb. 7.17–21 Klotz ‘illi vix muros limenque egressa iuventus sacra colunt; credas bello rediisse, tot instant plausibus, offensique sedent ad iusta sepulcri. hicne tuus, Gradive, furor? sonat orbe recusso discus et Oebalii coeunt in proelia caestus.’

20

“These youths, having barely left the threshold of their city walls, Are attending sacred rites—you would think they were back from war, for so much Applause do they vie—and they sit for the due honors of the offended tomb. Is this your rage, Gradivus? Their discus clangs as its circle rebounds, And they engage in battles of the Oibalian boxing glove.”

T 55. Statius, Theb. 7.90–103 Klotz finierat pugnas honor exequialis inermes, 90 necdum aberant coetus, cunctisque silentibus heros vina solo fundens cinerem placabat Adrastus Archemori: ‘da, parve, tuum trieteride multa instaurare diem, nec saucius Arcadas aras

339

malit adire Pelops Eleaque pulset eburna 95 templa manu, nec Castaliis altaribus anguis, nec sua pinigero magis adnatet umbra Lechaeo. nos te lugenti, puer, infitiamur Averno, maestaque perpetuis sollemnia iungimus astris, nunc festina cohors. at si Boeotia ferro 100 vertere tecta dabis, magnis tunc dignior aris, tunc deus, Inachias nec tantum culta per urbes numina, captivis etiam iurabere Thebis.’ The funeral honor had brought an end to the unarmed fights; Not yet did the assembly disband, for while all are silent the hero Pours wine to the ground and he, Adrastos, soothes the ashes of Archemoros. “Grant, little one, the renewal of your holiday Many times every two years; then wounded Pelops his Arkadian altars Would prefer not to approach nor knock with ivory hand at the Elean Temples; nor would the snake attend her Castalian altars, Nor would the ghost rather swim to his own rites from piny Lechaion. We deny you, child, to gloomy Avernus, And your mournful ceremonies we join with the eternal stars. Now the troops are in a hurry; but if you you will grant us with sword to Overturn Boiotian houses, then you will be worthier of great altars, Then a god, and not only will your divinity be worshipped throughout The Inachian cities, but you will also be called on in oaths in captured Thebes.”

T 56. Statius, Silv. 3.1.139–143 Marastoni iam placidae dant signa tubae, iam fortibus ardens fumat harena sacris. hos nec Pisaeus honores 140 Iuppiter aut Cirrhae pater aspernetur opacae. nil his triste locis; cedat lacrimabilis Isthmos, cedat atrox Nemee: litat hic felicior infans. Now the peaceful trumpets give their signal, now the hot Sand smokes with rites of strength. These honors would neither Pisaean Jupiter nor the father of shady Kirrha despise.

340

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

No sadness in this place; away with the tearful Isthmus, Away with dark Nemea: here a more fortunate infant makes offerings.

T 57. Plutarch, Moralia 110f–111a Babbitt οὐ φαύλως γὰρ ἂν δόξειεν ὁ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ Ἀμφιάραος παραμυθεῖσθαι τὴν Ἀρχεμόρου μητέρα δυσχεραίνουσαν ὅτι νήπιος ὢν ὁ παῖς καὶ ἄγαν ἄωρος ἐτελεύτησε. φησὶ γὰρ οὕτως· ἔφυ μὲν οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐ πονεῖ βροτῶν. θάπτει τε τέκνα χἄτερ’ αὖ κτᾶται νέα, αὐτός τε θνῄσκει· καὶ τάδ’ ἄχθονται βροτοὶ εἰς γῆν φέροντες γῆν. ἀναγκαίως δ’ ἔχει βίον θερίζειν ὥστε κάρπιμον στάχυν, καὶ τὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸν δὲ μή. τί ταῦτα δεῖ στένειν, ἅπερ δεῖ κατὰ φύσιν διεκπερᾶν; δεινὸν γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν ἀναγκαίων βροτοῖς. Indeed not foolishly would the poet’s Amphiaraos seem to have consoled the mother of Archemoros when she was grieving that her son died an exceedingly premature death while an infant. He says: There is no one of mortal men who does not suffer. A man buries his children, gets other new ones, Then dies himself; and mortals have a tough time with this, As they bring earth to the earth. But it is a matter of necessity That life dies back in summer like the fruitful grain, That one man lives, another does not. Why then lament These things, which by nature must be endured? Surely nothing that is necessary for mortals should be terrifying.

T 58. Plutarch, Tim. 26.1–5 Ziegler Ἀναβαίνοντι δ’ αὐτῷ πρὸς λόφον, ὃν ὑπερβαλόντες ἔμελλον κατόψεσθαι τὸ στράτευμα καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τῶν πολεμίων, ἐμβάλλουσιν ἡμίονοι σέλινα κομίζοντες, καὶ τοῖς στρατιώταις εἰσῆλθε πονηρὸν εἶναι τὸ σημεῖον, ὅτι τὰ μνήματα τῶν νεκρῶν εἰώθαμεν ἐπιεικῶς στεφανοῦν σελίνοις· καὶ παροιμία τις ἐκ τούτου γέγονε, τὸν ἐπισφαλῶς νοσοῦντα δεῖσθαι [τοῦτον] τοῦ σελίνου. βουλόμενος οὖν αὐτοὺς ἀπαλλάξαι τῆς δεισιδαιμονίας καὶ τὴν δυσελπιστίαν ἀφελεῖν, ὁ Τιμολέων ἐπιστήσας τὴν πορείαν ἄλλα τε

πρέποντα τῷ καιρῷ διελέχθη, καὶ τὸν στέφανον αὐτοῖς ἔφη πρὸ τῆς νίκης κομιζόμενον αὐτομάτως εἰς τὰς χεῖρας ἥκειν, ᾧπερ Κορίνθιοι στεφανοῦσι τοὺς Ἴσθμια νικῶντας, ἱερὸν καὶ πάτριον στέμμα τοῦ σελίνου νομίζοντες. ἔτι γὰρ τότε τῶν Ἰσθμίων, ὥσπερ νῦν τῶν Νεμείων, τὸ σέλινον ἦν στέφανος, οὐ πάλαι δ’ ἡ πίτυς γέγονεν. ἐντυχὼν οὖν ὁ Τιμολέων ὥσπερ εἴρηται τοῖς στρατιώταις, καὶ λαβὼν τῶν σελίνων, κατεστέψατο πρῶτος αὐτός, εἶθ’ οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν ἡγεμόνες καὶ τὸ πλῆθος. As he was ascending toward a hill, which they intended to cross over and from there survey the size and strength of the enemy force, some mules transporting wild celery came charging toward them, and it occurred to the soldiers that it was a bad sign, since they were accustomed to garland decorously the monuments of their dead with wild celery; and a certain proverb has arisen from this, that someone who is seriously ill is lacking only the wild celery. Wanting, therefore, to rid them of their superstitiousness and eliminate their despair, Timoleon halted their march, and in addition to arguing many other points befitting the occasion, he also told them that the crown for their victory had come to their hands carried of its own accord, indeed the one with which the Corinthians, who regard the crown of wild celery as holy and ancestral, crown the Isthmian victors. For at that time still the wild celery was the crown of the Isthmian Games, as it is now of the Nemean Games; the pine became its crown not long ago. Thus after Timoleon entreated his soldiers in the aforementioned way, he took some of the wild celery, and he himself was the first to put on a crown; then the leaders in his company followed suit, and the troops as well.

T 59. [Plutarch], De fluv. 18.4–5 Bernardakis 4. Παράκεινται δ᾽αὐτῷ ὄρη Μυκῆναί τε καί Ἀπεσαντος καὶ Κοκκύγιον καὶ Ἀθηναῖον, τὰς προσηγορίας εἰληφότα διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. τὸ μὲν Ἀπέσαντον ἐκαλεῖτο πρότερον Σεληναῖον. Ἥρα γάρ, παρ᾽ Ἡρακλέους δίκας βουλομένη λαβεῖν, συνεργὸν παρέλαβε τὴν Σελήνην· ἡ δ᾽ ἐπῳδαῖς χρησαμένη μάγοις αφροῦ κίστην ἐπλήρωσεν, ἐξ ἧς γεννηθέντα λέοντα μέγιστον. Ἶρις ταῖς ἰδίαις ζώναις ἐπισφίγξασα κατήνεγκεν εἰς ὄρος Ὀφέλτιον· ὁ δὲ ποιμένα τινὰ τῶν ἐγχωρίων Ἀπέσαντον σπαράξας ἀνεῖλεν· κατὰ δὲ θεῶν πρόνοιαν ὁ τόπος Ἀπέσαντος ἀπ᾽αὐτοῦ

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

μετωνομάσθη· καθὼς ἱστορεῖ Δημόδοκος ἐν α´ Ἡρακλείας. 5. Γεννᾶται δ᾽ἐν αὐτῷ βοτάνη σελήνη καλουμένη· τὸν δὲ καταφερόμενον ἀπ᾽ αύτῆς ἀφρὸν περὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ θέρους οἱ ποιμένες αἴροντες ἀλείφουσι τοὺς πόδας καὶ ούδὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ἑρπετῶν ἀδικοῦνται. 4. Near it [sc. the river Inachos] lie the mountains Mykenai, Apesantos, Kokkygion, and Athenaion, which got their names for the following reasons. Apesantos formerly used to be called Selenaion. For Hera, wanting to exact punishment from Herakles, enlisted Selene as her accomplice. She, by using magic spells, filled a chest with foam, from which was born a very large lion. Iris swaddled it in her own girdle and carried it to Mount Opheltion. It mauled and killed one of the shepherds in the region, Apesantos; and by the providence of the gods the place was renamed Apesas after him. So recounts Demodokos in Book 1 of the Herakleia. 5. Now on it grows a plant called Selene. Around the beginning of summer the shepherds gather the juice produced by it and coat their feet with it, and they then suffer no harm from snakes.

T 60. Lucian, Salt. 44 Harmon καὶ τὰ ἐν Νεμέᾳ δέ, ἡ Ὑψιπύλη καὶ Ἀρχέμορος, ἀναγκαιότατα τῷ ὀρχηστῇ μνημονεύματα. And the events in Nemea—Hypsipyle and Archemoros—are most necessary for the dancer to commit to memory.

T 61. Pausanias 2.15.2–3 Musti . . . καὶ ἡ Νεμέα τὸ χωρίον ἀπέχει σταδίους πέντε που καὶ δέκα. ἐν δὲ αὐτῇ Νεμείου τε Διὸς ναός ἐστι θέας ἄξιος, πλὴν ὅσον κατερρυήκει τε ὁ ὄροφος καὶ ἄγαλμα οὐδὲν ἔτι ἐλείπετο· κυπαρίσσων τε ἄλσος ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν ναόν, καὶ τὸν Ὀφέλτην ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ τεθέντα ἐς τὴν πόαν διαφθαρῆναι λέγουσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ δράκοντος. θύουσι δὲ Ἀργεῖοι τῷ Διὶ καὶ ἐν τῇ Νεμέᾳ καὶ Νεμείου Διὸς ἱερέα αἱροῦνται, καὶ δὴ καὶ δρόμου προτιθέασιν ἀγῶνα ἀνδράσιν ὡπλισμένοις Νεμείων πανηγύρει τῶν χειμερινῶν. ἐνταῦθα ἔστι μὲν Ὀφέλτου τάφος, περὶ δὲ αὐτὸν θριγκὸς λίθων καὶ ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου βωμοί· ἔστι δὲ χῶμα γῆς Λυκούργου μνῆμα τοῦ Ὀφέλτου πατρός. τὴν δὲ πηγὴν Ἀδράστειαν ὀνομάζουσιν εἴτε ἐπ’ ἄλλῃ τινὶ αἰτίᾳ εἴτε καὶ ἀνευρόντος αὐτὴν Ἀδράστου· τὸ δὲ ὄνομα

341

λέγουσι τῇ χώρᾳ Νεμέαν δοῦναι θυγατέρα Ἀσωποῦ καὶ ταύτην. καὶ ὄρος Ἀπέσας ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τὴν Νεμέαν, ἔνθα Περσέα πρῶτον Διὶ θῦσαι λέγουσιν Ἀπεσαντίῳ. . . . and the place Nemea is about 15 stades away. In it is a temple of Nemean Zeus worthy of view, except that the roof had fallen in and there was no cult statue left, and around it is a grove of cypresses, and there they say that Opheltes was placed on the grass by his nurse and killed by the snake. The Argives make sacrifices to Zeus in Nemea and they select a priest of Nemean Zeus, and they even conduct a race for men in full armor at the festival of the winter Nemean Games. Here there is a grave of Opheltes; around it is a fence of stones and within the enclosure are altars. There is also a mound of earth, the tomb of Lykourgos, Opheltes’ father. The spring they call Adrasteia either because Adrastos discovered it or for some other reason. And they say that Nemea gave her name to the place, she too being a daughter of Asopos. And the mountain Apesas is above Nemea, where they say Perseus was the first to sacrifice to Zeus Apesantios.

T 62. Pausanias 8.48.2 Spiro ἐν μὲν δὴ Ὀλυμπίᾳ κοτίνου τῷ νικῶντι δίδοσθαι στέφανον καὶ ἐν Δελφοῖς δάφνης, τοῦ μὲν ἤδη τὴν αἰτίαν ἀπέδωκα ἐν τοῖς ἐς Ἠλείους, τοῦ δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔπειτα δηλώσω· ἐν Ἰσθμῷ δὲ ἡ πίτυς καὶ τὰ ἐν Νεμέᾳ σέλινα ἐπὶ τοῦ Παλαίμονος καὶ τοῦ Ἀρχεμόρου τοῖς παθήμασιν ἐνομίσθησαν. οἱ δὲ ἀγῶνες φοίνικος ἔχουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ στέφανον· ἐς δὲ τὴν δεξιάν ἐστι καὶ πανταχοῦ τῷ νικῶντι ἐστι θέμενος φοῖνιξ. Now the reason that in Olympia a crown of wild olive is given to the victor I related in the book on Elis, and the reason for laurel in Delphi I shall explain in the next book. The pine at the Isthmus and the wild celery in Nemea were made customary in honor of the sufferings of Palaimon and Archemoros. The majority of contests have a crown of palm; and everywhere a palm branch is placed in the victor’s right hand.

T 63. Aelian, VH 4.5 Hercher καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας Πρώνακτι καὶ ἐκεῖνοι χάριτας ἀπέδοσαν. διὰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἀπολομένου τοῦ Πρώνακτος τὸν ἀγῶνα ἔθεσαν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ, ὃν οἱ πολλοὶ οἴονται ἐπ’ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τεθῆναι ἐξ ἀρχῆς.

342

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

And even the Seven against Thebes returned favors to Pronax. For since Pronax died on their account, they established in his honor the contest that is commonly thought to have been established in honor of Archemoros from the start.

T 64. Tertullian, De corona 7.4–5 Ruggiero Hercules nunc popolum capite praefert, nunc oleastrum, nunc apium. 5. Habes tragoediam Cerberi, habes Pindarum atque Callimachum, qui et Apollinem memorat interfecto Delphine dracone lauream induisse, qua supplicem. Herakles shows on his head now the poplar, now the wild olive, now the wild celery. You have the tragedy of Kerberos, you have Pindar and Kallimachos, who recalls also that Apollo put on a crown of laurel, as a suppliant, after the Delphic snake had been slain.

T 65. Anthologia Graeca 3.10 Beckby Ἐν δὲ τῷ κατὰ δύσιν πλευρῷ ἐστὶν ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ Ι πίνακος Εὔνοος γεγλυμμένος καὶ Θόας, οὓς ἐγέννησεν Ὑψιπύλη, ἀναγνωριζόμενοι τῇ μητρὶ καὶ τὴν χρυσῆν δεικνύντες ἄμπελον, ὅπερ ἦν αὐτοῖς τοῦ γένους σύμβολον, καὶ ῥυόμενοι αὐτὴν τῆς διὰ τὸν Ἀρχεμόρου θάνατον παρ’ Εὐρυδίκῃ τιμωρίας Φαῖνε, Θόαν, Βάκχοιο φυτὸν τόδε· ματέρα γάρ σου ῥύσῃ τοῦ θανάτου, οἰκέτιν Ὑψιπύλαν· ἃ τὸν ἀπ’ Εὐρυδίκας ἔτλη χόλον, ἦμος ἀφαυρὸν ὕδρος ὁ γᾶς γενέτας ὤλεσεν Ἀρχέμορον. στεῖχε δὲ καὶ σὺ λιπὼν Ἀσωπίδος ἀφνεὸν οὖθαρ, 5 γειναμένην ἄξων Λῆμνον ἐς ἠγαθέην. On the west side at the beginning of the tenth tablet are carved Eunoös and Thoas, whom Hypsipyle bore, in the act of recognizing their mother and showing her the golden vine, which was the token of their family, as well as saving her from the punishment handed down from Eurydike for the death of Archemoros. Show, Thoas, this plant of Bakchos; indeed your mother Will you save from death, the servant Hypsipyle, Who hazarded Eurydike’s rage, when the offspring

Of the earth slew Archemoros thirsty for water. And go you now, leave Asopis’ rich udder, And take your mother to Lemnos most holy.

T 66. Anthologia Graeca 9.357 Beckby Τέσσαρές εἰσιν ἀγῶνες ἀν’ Ἑλλάδα, τέσσαρες ἱροί, οἱ δύο μὲν θνητῶν, οἱ δύο δ’ ἀθανάτων, Ζηνός, Λητοΐδαο, Παλαίμονος, Ἀρχεμόροιο· ἆθλα δὲ τῶν κότινος, μῆλα, σέλινα, πίτυς. Four in number are the Games in Hellas, four that are sacred, Two to mortals, and two to immortals: To Zeus, Leto’s son, Palaimon, and Archemoros. Their prizes, wild olive, apples, wild celery, and pine.

T 67. Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 2.34.1 Ἴθι δὴ καὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐν βραχεῖ περιοδεύσωμεν καὶ τὰς ἐπιτυμβίους ταυτασὶ πανηγύρεις καταλύσωμεν, Ἴσθμιά τε καὶ Νέμεα καὶ Πύθια καὶ τά ἐπὶ τούτοις Ὀλύμπια. Πυθοῖ μὲν οὖν ὁ δράκων ὁ Πύθιος θρῃσκεύεται καὶ τοῦ ὄφεως ἡ πανήγυρις καταγγέλεται Πύθια· Ἰσθμοῖ δὲ σκύβαλον προσέπτυσεν ἐλεεινὸν ἡ θάλαττα καὶ Μελικέρτην ὀδύρεται τὰ Ἴσθμια· Νεμέασι δὲ ἄλλο παιδίον Ἀρχέμορος κεκήδευται καὶ τοῦ παιδίου ὁ ἐπιτάφιος προσαγορεύεται Νέμεα· Πῖσα δὲ ὑμῖν τάφος ἐστίν, ὦ Πανέλληνες, ἡνιόχου Φρυγός, καὶ τοῦ Πέλοπος τὰς χοάς, τὰ Ὀλύμπια, ὁ Φειδίου σφετερίζεται Ζεύς. Μυστήρια ἦσαν ἄρα, ὡς ἔοικεν, οἱ ἀγῶνες ἐπὶ νεκροῖς διαθλοῦμενοι, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ λόγια, καὶ δεδήμευνται ἄμφω. Come now, let us briefly travel the circuit of games and do away with these funerary festivals: the Isthmian Games, the Nemean, the Pythian, and especially the Olympics. At Pytho, of course, the Pythian serpent is worshipped, and the snake’s festival is announced as the Pythia. At the Isthmus, the sea spat up its pitiful refuse, and the Isthmian Games mourn Melikertes. At Nemea another small child, Archemoros, is mourned, and the child’s funeral games are called the Nemean Games. Pisa to you, O Panhellenes, is a grave of a Phrygian charioteer, and the libations for Pelops—the Olympics—Pheidias’ Zeus has appropriated. So they used to be mysteries, it seems, these games entered in honor of corpses, just like the oracles; but both have been opened to the public at large.

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

T 68. Iamblichos, VP 52.4-8 Klein συγκεχωρῆσθαι δὲ καὶ τῶν στεφανιτῶν ἀγώνων τεθῆναι διὰ παῖ5 δας, τὸν μὲν Πυθικὸν κρατηθέντος τοῦ Πύθωνος ὑπὸ παιδός, ἐπὶ παιδὶ δὲ τὸν ἐν Νεμέᾳ καὶ τὸν ἐν Ἰσθμῷ, τελευτήσαντος Ἀρχεμόρου καὶ Μελικέρτου. It is agreed that some of the stephanitic games were established because of boys: the Pythian Games, because Python was defeated by a boy, whereas those in Nemea and at the Isthmus are in honor of a boy because of the deaths of Archemoros and Melikertes.

T 69. Menander Rhetor, 366.18–20 Russell and Wilson ἡ μὲν πανήγυρις ἄγεται θεῷ, ὡς Ὀλύμπια τῷ Διΐ· ἥρωϊ δὲ τὰ Ἴσθμια Παλαίμονι, καὶ Νέμεα Ἀρχεμόρῳ· βασιλεῖ δέ, ὡς τὰ Σεβάστεια πολλαχοῦ. The festival is held for a god—as the Olympics are for Zeus; for a hero—the Isthmian Games for Palaimon, and the Nemean Games for Archemoros; for a ruler—as the Sebasteia in many places.

T 70. Ausonius, Ecl. 12 Green Quattuor antiquos celebravit Achaia ludos. caelicolum duo sunt et duo festa hominum: sacra Iovis Phoebique Palaemonis Archemorique, serta quibus pinus malus oliva apium. Four ancient games did Achaia celebrate. Two are festivals of gods, two of men: Sacred to Jupiter, Phoebus, Palaimon, and Archemoros, For which the crowns are pine, apple, olive, and wild celery.

T 71. Ausonius, Ecl. 13 Green Prima Iovi magno celebrantur Olympia Pisae, Parnasus Clario sacravit Pythia Phoebo. Isthmia Portuno bimarisque dicata Corinthos. Archemori Nemeaea colunt funebria Thebae. First to great Jupiter are celebrated the Olympics at Pisa, Parnassus the Pythian Games did consecrate to Clarian Phoebus.

343

The Isthmia were dedicated to Portunus at Corinth of the two seas. Archemoros’ funerary Nemean Games does Thebes attend.

T 72. Ausonius, Ecl. 14 Green Primus Olympiacae sacravit festa coronae Iuppiter Argivi stadia ad longissima circi. proximus Alcides Nemeae sacravit honorem. Isthmia Neptuno data sunt et Pythia Phoebo. First the festival of the Olympian crown did Jupiter Consecrate across the lengthy stades of the Argive hippodrome. Next Alcides consecrated this honor at Nemea. The Isthmian Games to Neptune were given, and the Pythian Games to Phoebus.

T 73. Ausonius, Ecl. 15 Green Tantalidae Pelopi maestum dicat Elis honorem. Archemori Nemeaea colunt quinquennia Thebae. Isthmia defuncto celebrata Palaemone notum. Pythia placando Delphi statuere draconi. To Tanatalid Pelops does Elis dedicate its mournful honor. Archemoros’ quadrennial Nemean Games does Thebes attend. That the Isthmian Games are celebrated for dead Palaimon is known. The Pythian Games Delphi established for the snake to be appeased.

T 74. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 3.478–479 Sweeney . . . potest et haec deriuatio religionum currere: quod Isthmia, quae in honorem Neptuni aguntur, finguntur Melicertia–nam constat Melicertam a Sisypho rege susceptum, cum Boeotia [navigio] Isthmos delatus esset–et Nemeaea Archemori[a] in honorem Iovis celebrari volunt. . . . . . . and possibly this derivation of the rites runs as follows: that the Isthmian Games, which are held in honor of Neptune, are created Melikertia—for it is agreed that Melikertes was taken up by King Sisyphos when he was transported by sea from Boiotia to the Isthmus—and they want the Nemean Archemoria to be celebrated in honor of Jupiter. . . .

344

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

T 75. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.159–160 Sweeney ergo cum Hercules ad occidendum leonem isset ab Eurystheo missus, a Molorcho susceptus hospitio est, cuius filium leo interfecerat, didicitque ab eo quemadmodum aduersus ferum coiret. quo superato ludos instituit, quos a loco Nemea appelauit. And so when Herakles, as commissioned by Eurystheus, went to kill the lion, he was received with hospitality by Molorkos, whose son the lion had killed, and he learned from him how to engage the beast. After vanquishing it, he established the games, which he called Nemean after the place.

T 76. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.717–719 Sweeney fons est qui postea uocatus est Archemorus. et huic consecratus est fons et Nympha, cuius famam postea Argiui accepto beneficio extulerunt quia non perdiderat aquam. iuxta hunc fontem agon celebratur in honorem Archemori consecratus et in Nymphae beneficium. Archemorus est Lycurgi filius [Graeci] quem Hypsipyle acceperat nutriendum. quae dum sitientibus Graecis Langian fontem demonstrat, regium puerum ictu serpentis amisit. idem puer Opheltes, qui post Archemorus est dictus. NOMEN enim lacrimabile signat Archemorus ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς μοίρας, eo quod primus occisus est. The spring is the one that afterward was called Archemoros. To this was dedicated the spring and the Nymph, whose fame the Argives subsequently extolled, because of the benefit received, since she had not lost her water. Next to this spring is celebrated the contest dedicated in honor of Archemoros and for the Nymph’s kindness. Archemoros is the son of Lykourgos [the Greek] and the one whom Hypsipyle took to nurse. While she was showing the thirsty Greeks the Langia spring, she lost the king’s child to the attack of a snake. Opheltes is the same boy, who was later named Archemoros. NAME: For Archemoros has a sorrowful meaning, “from the beginning of doom,” to the extent that he was the first to be killed.

T 77. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.721 Sweeney HYPSIPYLEN Lemnias fuit. quodam tempore dum Lemniadum uiri in Thracia pugnantes triennio

tenerentur, indignatae desiderio necem feminae aduersus omnes coniurauerunt ut omnes perimerent. inter quas sola Hypsipyle Thoanti patri pepercit. ex quo in se armauit ceterum furorem. quae dum fugeret, capta ad Lycurgum regem ducta est [Graeciae]. in cuius seruitio cum filium eius Ophelten nutriret, puer dracone periit. qua orbitate rex iratus cum in Hypsipyle ius dominii exercere uellet eamque filio inferias mittere, a Graecis prohibitus , quibus fontem sitientibus demonstrauit. Graecis uero postea responsum est non prius eos ad Thebas peruenire nisi placassent manes Archemori. pro qua re illi ludos funebres condiderunt, de quibus ipse poeta plenius loquitur. Hypsipyle was a woman of Lemnos. At a certain time, when the husbands of the Lemnian women were detained for three years fighting in Thrace, the women, driven angry by their want, plotted slaughter for all of them, so that they all would perish. Hypsipyle alone among them spared her father, Thoas. Because of this she aimed the madness of the others against herself. While she was taking flight, she was captured and led to King Lykourgos [in Greece]. When she, as his slave, was nursing his son Opheltes, the boy was killed by a snake. The king, enraged by this bereavement, wanted to exercise his right of mastery upon Hypsipyle and send her to his son in the underworld; but he was stopped by the Greeks, since it was because of their thirst that she showed them the spring. The Greeks, however, later received an oracle that they would not reach Thebes unless first they appeased Archemoros’ spirit. For this reason they established the funeral games, about which the poet himself speaks rather fully.

T 78. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.740–741 Sweeney = Myth. Vat. 2.141 cum septem duces Thebas oppugnatum uenissent et aquam quaererent, Adrastus deuenit ad Hypsipylen, Thoantis filiam, cuius alumnus Archemorus periit. et ludos funebres instituerunt, quibus ludis Hypsipyle cum duobus filiis ex Iasone intererat. qui et ipsi matrem quaerentes currendo uicerunt. quorum nomina praeco cum pronuntiasset, Iasonis et Hypsipyles filios esse mater eos cognouit. qui ab rege impetrarunt ut matrem recuperatam Lemnum reuocarent. When the seven leaders had come to attack Thebes and were looking for water, Adrastos turned to

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

Hypsipyle, the daughter of Thoas, whose nursling Archemoros died. And so they instituted funeral games, at which Hypsipyle was present together with her two sons by Jason. They, who themselves were searching for their mother, won the footrace; and when the herald announced their names, their mother recognized that they were the sons of Jason and Hypsipyle. They then begged the king that they might take their regained mother back to Lemnos.

T 79. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 6.1–3 Sweeney agon Archemori apii corona celebratur idcirco quia puer hic cuius memoriae certamen Nemeaeum dicatum est admodum paruus obierat. ex hoc creditum est hoc coronae genus indicium immaturae mortis electum nam humilis herba immaturi luctus ostendit indicium. quidam super hanc herbam puerum reptantem a nutrice derelictum et serpente interemptum uolunt. nam in hoc agone etiam poetae certantes apio coronatur. unde Vergilius : ‘floribus atque apio crinis ornatus amaro’. The contest of Archemoros is celebrated with a crown of wild celery for the reason that this boy, to whose memory the Nemean contest is dedicated, perished while still little. Therefore it is believed that this kind of crown was chosen as a sign of premature death, for the low-lying herb offers a sign of premature grief. Some want to say that the boy was crawling over this herb when he was abandoned by his nurse and killed by the snake. At any rate, in these games even the poets who compete are crowned with wild celery. Whence Vergil (Ecl. 6.68): “Locks adorned with flowers and bitter wild celery.”

T 80. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 6.5–7 Sweeney prima ergo certaminum genera haec fuerunt, quae per ordinem hoc loco poeta descripsit: Olympia in honorem Pelopis, cuius uictores oleastro coronantur; Pythia in honorem Apollinis, cuius uictores lauro coronantur; Isthmia in honorem Palaemonis, cuius uictores pinu coronantur; Nemea in honorem Archemori, cuius uictores apio coronantur. These therefore were the first kind of games, which the poet has described in order in this passage: the

345

Olympic Games in honor of Pelops, whose victors are crowned with wild olive; the Pythian Games in honor of Apollo, whose victors are crowned with laurel; the Isthmian Games in honor of Palaimon, whose victors are crowned with pine; the Nemean Games in honor of Archemoros, whose victors are crowned with wild celery.

T 81. Lactantius Placidus, in Stat. Theb. comm. 7.19 Sweeney OFFENSI[QUE SEDENT] irati quod eorum gratia perisset Archemorus. siue offensi ‘occupati’ nouo sermone dixit. SEPULCRI Archemori, cui ludos funebres celebrant. [AND] OFFENDED [THEY SIT]: Angered because for their sake Archemoros had perished. Or he says offensi with the novel meaning “occupied.” OF THE TOMB: of Archemoros, for whom they are celebrating funeral games.

T 82. [Probus] ad Verg. Georg. 3.19 Thilo-Hagen ‘lucos Molorchi’ Nemeam dicit. Molorchus fuit Herculis hospes, apud quem is diversatus est, cum proficisceretur ad leonem Nemeum necandum. qui cum immolaturus esset unicum arietem, quem habebat, ut Herculem liberalius acciperet, impetravit ab eo Hercules, ut eum servaret, immolaturus vel victori tamquam deo vel victo †et interfecto leone cum solutus esset† [ . . . victo et intefecto manibus. interfecto autem leone cum sopitus esset . . . Keil] vel odio Iunonis, ne ei caelestes honores contingerent, vel fatigatus, experrectus mira damnum celeritate correxit, sumptaque apiacea [Naeke: picea codd.] corona, qua ornantur, qui Nemea vincunt, < >. supervenit itaque et Molorcho paranti sacrificium manibus, ubi et aries immolatus erat. inde Nemea instituta sunt: postea Archemori manibus sunt renovata a septem viris, qui Thebas petebant. sed Molorchi mentio est apud Callimachum in Αἰτίων libris. “Groves of Molorkos” means Nemea. Molorkos was Herakles’ host, in whose house he rested when he was setting out to kill the Nemean lion. When he was about to sacrifice the only ram he had, in order to host Herakles more generously, Herakles bade him to keep it and either sacrifice it as to a god for him if victorious, or, if defeated and killed, to his spirit. Then, after the lion was slain, he fell asleep, whether because of Juno’s hatred—so that the

346

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

divine honors would not befall him—or from fatigue. But once awake, he made up for lost time with wondrous speed, and after taking up a crown of wild celery, with which the winners of the Nemean Games are adorned, . . . And so he came upon Molorkos as he was preparing the sacrifice to his spirit, when the ram had already been burned. Thereafter the Nemean Games were established: Afterward, they were renewed for the spirit of Archemoros by the seven heroes who were campaigning against Thebes. But there is mention of Molorkos by Kallimachos, in the books of his Aitia.

T 83. Servius ad Verg. Georg. 3.19 Thilo-Hagen ‘lucosque Molorchi’: id est silvam Nemeam, in qua celebratur agon in honorem Archemori. Molorchus autem pastor fuit, qui Herculem venientem ad occidendum Nemeaeum leonem suscepit hospitio. “And the groves of Molorkos”: that is the woodland Nemea, in which is celebrated the contest in honor of Archemoros. Molorkos however was a shepherd who received Herakles with hospitality when he came to kill the Nemean lion.

T 84. Servius ad Verg. Buc. 6.68 Thilo-Hagen ATQUE APIO apud antiquos in agone erat species coronae de apio, sed in Nemeaeo agone, qui in honorem Archemori institutus est. et volunt quidam hoc coronae genus ad indicium mortis electum; aut quod humilis herba inmaturum de Archemoro luctum ostendat; aut quod supra hanc herbam reptans puer a serpente extinctus sit. sane in eo agone speciatim apio coronantur poetae. AND WITH WILD CELERY: Among the ancients in their games there was a type of crown from wild celery—rather in the Nemean Games, which were established in honor of Archemoros. And some want to say that this kind of crown was chosen as a sign of death; or because the low-lying plant shows about Archemoros his premature grief; or because the boy was killed by the snake while crawling over this plant. In those games the poets are crowned with wild celery.

T 85. Hesychios, Lex. s.v. σελίνου στέφανος Schmidt σελίνου στέφανος· πένθει προσήκων. διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἰσθμικῷ ἀγῶνι στεφάνῳ ἐχρήσαντο αὐτῷ Wild celery crown: appropriate to grief. For this reason they also used this crown in the Isthmian Games.

T 86. Schol., Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.34 pp. 306.25– 307.2 Stählin and Treu Νέμεα· τῶν Νεμέων τοῦ ἀγῶνος ἡ αἰτία ἐστὶν αὕτη· ὅτε οἱ ἑπτὰ 25 ἐπὶ Θήβας σὺν Ἀδράστῳ καὶ Πολυνείκει ἐστρατεύοντο, παρέβαλον εἰς τὴν Νεμέαν· τόπος δὲ οὗτος τοῦ Ἄργους· ζητοῦντες δὲ ὑδρεύσασθαι συνέτυχον Ὑψιπύλῃ τῇ Θόαντος θυγατρί, τρεφούσῃ παιδίον Ὀφέλτην καλούμενον Εὐφήτου καὶ Εὐρυδίκης. ἣ δὲ ἀποθεμένη τὸ παιδίον ἀπῆλθεν, αὐτοῖς ὑδρεύσασθαι βουλομένη· δράκων ἐν τοσούτῳ περι30 πεσὼν τῷ παιδίῳ ἀνεῖλεν αὐτό· ἣ δὲ ἐπανελθοῦσα ἐθρήνει. Ἀμφιάραος δὲ ὁ μάντις, εἷς ὢν τῶν ἑπτά, ἀπὸ τοῦ συμβάντος τοῖς Ἕλλησι θάνατον προεμαντεύσατο καὶ τὸν παῖδα Ἀρχέμορον ἐκάλεσεν· Ἄδρα[p. 307] στος δὲ παραμυθούμενος τὴν Ὑψιπύλην ἐπ’ αὐτῷ τὸν Νεμεακὸν ἀγῶνα συνεστήσατο, ὃς ὕστερον τῷ Διὶ ἀνιερώθη. Nemean Games: This is the reason for the competition of the Nemean Games: When the Seven against Thebes were campaigning with Adrastos and Polyneikes, they turned aside to Nemea—this is a place in Argos. While searching for a supply of water they happened upon Thoas’ daughter Hypsipyle, who was tending the little child named Opheltes, son of Euphetes and Eurydike. She put the child aside and went away with the intention of fetching water for them; meanwhile a snake attacked the child and killed him. When she returned, she started to lament. The seer Amphiaraos, one of the Seven, predicted death for the Greeks from what had taken place and renamed the boy Archemoros. Adrastos consoled Hypsipyle and instituted the Nemean competition, which later was consecrated to Zeus.

Te sTi moni a on o ph e lT e s an d T h e n e m ean Gam e s

T 87. Schol., AG 9–15 Lolos Σημείωσαι δὲ ὅτι ἐτελοῦντο οἱ παλαιοὶ παντες ἐπὶ τισι τετελευτηκόσι· ἐτελεῖτο γὰρ ὁ μὲν Ὀλυμπιακὸς τῷ Διὶ διὰ τὸν Πέλοπα· ὁ δὲ Πυθικὸς τῷ Ἀ10 πόλλωνι ⟨διὰ⟩ τὸν δράκοντα, ὃν ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν Πυθοῖ· ὁ δὲ Νεμεακὸς κατά τινας τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ λέοντος ἀναιρέσει· ὁ δὲ Ἰσθμιακὸς τῷ Ποσειδῶνι. Ἐξ Ἀθάμαντος καὶ Ἰνοῦς Λέαρχος καὶ Μελικέρτης ὁ καὶ Παλαίμων μετονομασθείς· ἐξ Εὐφήτου καὶ Κρεούσης Ὀφέλτης, ὃν Ἀμφιάραος Ἀρχέλαον ἐκάλεσε⟨ν⟩, ὅτι ἀρχὴ μόρου τοῖς Θηβαίοις ἐγένετο. Note that all the ancient ones were conducted in honor of someone deceased: For the Olympics were conducted for Zeus because of Pelops; the Pythian Games for Apollo because of the snake that he killed in Pytho; the Nemean Games according to some, for Herakles, in honor of the slaying of the lion; and the Isthmian Games for Poseidon. The sons of Athamas and Ino were Learchos and Melikertes, whose name was also changed to Palaimon; the son of Euphetes and Kreousa was Opheltes, whom Amphiaraos named Archelaos, because he was the beginning of doom for the Thebans.

T 88. Schol., AG 40–43 Lolos Νέμεα· τὰ Νέμεά φασιν ἄγεσθαι ἐπὶ Ἀρχεμόρῳ τῷ Λυκούργου τοῦ ἱε40 ρέως παιδί, ὃν ἔτυχε τροφεύουσα Ὑψιπύλη, ἣν ᾔτησαν οἱ Ἀργεῖοι ὕδωρ· τῆς δὲ ἀπελθούσης ὑδρεύσασθαι ὄφις ἐπελθὼν ἀνεῖλε τὸν παῖδα, ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ τὸν ἀγῶνα διέθηκαν παραμυθούμενοι Ὑψιπύλην. Nemean Games: The Nemean Games, they say, are held in honor of the son of Lykourgos the priest, Archemoros, whose nurse happened to be Hypsipyle, whom the Argives asked for water. After she went away to fetch water, a snake attacked and killed the child, in whose honor they arranged the contest while consoling Hypsipyle.

T 89. Schol., AG 48-51 Lolos Πίτυς πρὸς τὸν Ἀρχέμορον· οἱ γὰρ Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας ἔθαψαν τὸν Ὀφέλ-

347

την ὑπὸ δράκοντος ἀποπνιγέντα, ἐπιτάφιον τὸν Νεμεαῖον ἀγῶνα τιθέντες καὶ πίτυϊ τὸν νικῶντα στεφανώσαντες, ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸν παῖδ’ ἐπέθηκαν 50 πίτυος θαλλοῖς, ὡς Εὐφορίων μαρτυρεῖ. Pine for Archemoros: For the Seven against Thebes buried Opheltes after he was suffocated by the snake, and instituted the Nemean contest as funeral games, crowning the victor with pine; for they had laid the child out on branches of pine, as Euphorion attests.

T 90. Schol., AG 91–96 Lolos Οἱ ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας παραβαλόντες τῇ Νεμέᾳ διψήσαντες συν⟨έ⟩τυχον Ὑψιπύλῃ τῇ Λημνίᾳ φερούσῃ τὸν Λυκούργου τοῦ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερέως καὶ Εὐρυδίκης παῖδα Ὀφέλτην καὶ Ἀρχέμορον λεγόμενον. ἡ δὲ ἀφηγήσατο αὐτοῖς εἴς τινα πηγήν καταλιποῦσα τὸν παῖδα ἔν τινι λειμῶνι, ὃν δράκων περιειληθεὶς ἰὸν ἀφεὶς ἀνεῖλεν. οἱ δὲ ὑποστρέψαντες καὶ τὸ πάθος θεασάμενοι τόν τε δράκοντα κτεί95 νουσι καὶ ἀγῶνα ἐπιτάφιον ἱστῶσι τριετηρικόν πίτυϊ τὸν νικῶντα στεφανοῦντες. The Seven against Thebes crossed over into Nemea because they were thirsty. They chanced upon Hypsipyle of Lemnos, who was carrying Opheltes, also called Archemoros, the son of the priest of Zeus, Lykourgos, and Eurydike. She led them to a certain spring, after leaving the child behind in some clearing. A snake killed him, whether by strangulation or by poison. After the others returned and saw what happened, they kill the snake and institute biennial funeral games, in which they crown the victor with pine.

T 91. Schol. ad Lyc. 373 Scheer ὁ μὲν Ὀφέλτης ἀπὸ †Ὀφέλτου τοῦ καὶ Ἀρχεμόρου κληθείς, ὃς ἦν υἱὸς Λυκούργου ἱερέως τοῦ Νεμείου Διός. Opheltes, after Opheltes, the one who was also called Archemoros, who was the son of Lykourgos the priest of Nemean Zeus.

I N DE X OF SU BJ EC T S, A NC I E N T PEOP L E A N D P L AC E S, A N D MODERN SCHOLARS Abramson, H., xxv, 126n135, 174n3, 176n21, 178n31 Achilles, 32n88, 36n106, 113, 113n74, 143n13, 208 (Cat. 52), 327 (T 16) Adler, F., xxxv, 175n15, 177nn23–24, 177n26 Admetos, 125, 125n133, 335 (T 41) Adrasteia Spring, 127, 139, 172, 341 (T 61) Adrastos. See under Seven against Thebes Adshead, K., xxv, 130n152 Aeneas (of Troy), 118 aetiology, 1, 2, 97, 103, 114, 115, 117, 118, 127, 128, 129, 130–138, 139, 140, 154, 170, 178, 178n37, 179, 327 (T 16), 329 (T 25), 330–331 (T 28), 332–333 (T 33–35), 334 (T 40), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 66), 343 (T 68–70), 343 (T 73–74), 346 (T 84–85). See also under Herakles; myth of Opheltes; Pronax Aigina, 36n108, 46 (fig.), 48, 48n159, 59n195, 106, 122n122, 130, 282 (Cat. 235) Aineas, 301–302 (CT 1), 317, 318, 319 Aithon, 113n76 aition. See aetiology Ajax, 143n13 Akarnania, 306 (CT 2) Akastos, 327 (T 16) Alexander III, 46 (fig.), 328 (T 23) Alföldi, A. and E., xxxiii, 167 Alroth, B., xxxi, 181n51 altar, 9n17, 9n20, 13n36, 36, 36nn107–108, 37–38, 48, 69n233, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 88, 89, 93, 93n36, 95, 96, 97, 98–99 (table), 99, 114, 119, 147, 147n33, 157–158, 157n86, 163, 165, 165n120, 169, 170, 172, 175–176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 337 (T 46), 338 (T 50), 339 (T 55), 341 (T 61)

Altar of Zeus at Nemea. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Amandry, P., xxv, xxvii, 72n250, 194 (Cat. 28), 200 (Cat. 39), 220 (Cat. 84), 225–226 (Cat. 94– 95), 235–236 (Cat. 116–117), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146) Amathous, 99 (table) American School of Classical Studies at Athens, x, 80, 155 (fig.), 159 (fig.), 160 (fig.) Amphiaraos. See under Seven against Thebes amulets, magical, 319 Amyklai, throne of Apollo, 142, 143 Amyx, D.A., xxv, xxviii, 33, 200–202 (Cat. 40) Andrews, A.C., xxv, 134n175 Andromache, 149 Andromeda Group, 201–201 (Cat. 40) Andros, 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2) Antigonos Gonatas, 46 (fig.), 73, 74 Antoninus Pius, 164 Antonaccio, C.M., xxv, 174, 177, 177n28, 178n29 aoros, 126n134, 173, 320–321. See also death, premature/untimely Aphrodite, 33, 69n234, 79, 93, 98–99 (table), 99, 111 Apolaxis, 317 (CT 4) Apollo, 96n48, 98 (table), 99, 100, 137n186, 142, 143, 156n83, 174, 181, 332–333 (T 33), 337–338 (T 49–50), 339–340 (T 56), 342 (T 64, 66), 343 (T 70–72), 345 (T 80), 347 (T 87) Apollonios, 125 Apollonis, temple of, 109n51 apostrepho, 301–302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2), 309 (CT 3), 311–312 (CT 4), 314 (CT 4), 316–317 (CT 4), 317, 318–319 Araps, 113n76

349

350

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Aratos of Sikyon, 72n249, 72n251, 74, 173 Archaeological Institute of America, xi Archaic–Classical period at Nemea, xli–xlii, 1, 5, 7, 8 (fig.), 9, 10, 10 (fig.), 11, 12, 13–60, 62n207, 65n219, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71n244, 73, 75, 76, 77– 78, 79–96, 103, 171–172, 174, 177, 182 Archemoros, 103n11, 104, 105, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116n89, 118, 119, 121n114, 124, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133, 134, 134n171, 135, 136, 137n186, 141n1, 152, 153, 323 (T 2), 327 (T 16–17, T 19), 328 (T 24), 330–332 (T 28–31), 334–335 (T 38–41), 335 (T 43), 337 (T 48), 338–339 (T 52), 339 (T 55), 341 (T 60), 341–342 (T 62– 63), 342–343 (T 65–71), 343 (T 73), 344–346 (T 76–84), 347 (T 88–91). See also under myth of Opheltes architectural terracotta, 29n71, 39, 40n136, 57, 61n201, 63n209, 64n213, 69n233, 73, 74, 213 (Cat. 67–68), 285–286 (Cat. 247) Argonauts, 109n52, 111, 329–330 (T 27) Argos, 2, 32, 59n196, 60n198, 102, 104, 105, 108, 110, 110n57, 111, 111n64, 112, 113, 113n76, 115, 116, 116n89, 117, 117n93, 119, 120, 121, 121n112, 121n114, 124–125, 125n133, 126, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135n176, 138, 139, 143, 143n7, 143n11, 154n72, 161–162, 170, 182, 306 (CT 2), 323 (T 2), 325 (T 10), 325–326 (T 14), 326– 327 (T 16–17), 327–328 (T 22), 328 (T 24), 330–331 (T 28–29), 332 (T 31–32), 336 (T 44), 336–337 (T 46), 337–338 (T 49), 338–339 (T 52), 339 (T 55), 341 (T 61), 343 (T 72), 344 (T 76), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 88). See also Seven against Thebes Agora, 103 ancestral heroes, 123 Ayia Sotira, 195 (Cat. 31), 281 (Cat. 230) burial practice, 178n30 coins, 45, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161, 68, 72, 138, 163–166, 173 grave mounds/tumuli, 177 Heraion, 194–195 (Cat. 28–30), 200 (Cat. 39), 220 (Cat. 84), 225–226 (Cat. 94–95), 235–236 (Cat. 116–117), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146) lamps, 209–210 (Cat. 54, 56–58, 60), 269 (Cat. 195) Larisa, 162n98, 338–339 (T 52) Museum, 195 (Cat. 31), 205 (Cat. 47), 225 (Cat. 94), 247 (Cat. 146), 281 (Cat. 230) Nemean Games and, 60, 72, 72nn248–250, 73,

74n260, 78, 103, 110, 110n57, 112, 113n73, 122n121, 132, 139, 140, 154, 170, 173 pottery, 29–30, 30n75, 31, 41, 42, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 57, 193–196 (Cat. 25–31), 196 (Cat. 32), 200 (Cat. 39), 205 (Cat. 47), 219–220 (Cat. 83–84), 223 (Cat. 89), 225–226 (Cat. 94–95), 235–236 (Cat. 116–117), 238–239 (Cat. 124–125), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146), 281 (Cat. 230), 281 (Cat. 231), 287 (Cat. 250) shield band from Olympia, 141–142, 143, 143n13, 162, 169 shrine of the Seven against Thebes, 103 Temple of Aphrodite, 33 Theaios, 106 Zeus Nemeios, statue of, 165n117 Arion. See under Seven against Thebes Aristaios, 144, 145, 146 Arkadia, 45n158, 46 (fig.), 48n161, 72, 114, 161, 326 (T 16), 333 (T 36), 339 (T 55) arrowhead, 32n87, 45, 59, 59n195, 61n201, 283–284 (Cat. 239–240) Artemidora, 304 (CT 2), 306–307 (CT 2), 318, 319 Artemis, 69n234, 98 (table), 99 Asea, 99, 100 (table) Asia Minor, 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2), 316n32 Asklepios, 32n88, 85, 96n47, 208 (Cat. 52) Aslamantzidou–Kostourou, Z., xxv, 195 (Cat. 31), 281 (Cat. 230) Asopos River and Asopia, 107, 110n60, 116, 125, 139, 325 (T 10), 333 (T 35), 341 (T 61), 342 (T 65) Asper, M., xxv, 111n66 Astyanax, 149 Astypalaia, 306 (CT 2) Athamas, 332–333 (T 33), 334 (T 40), 347 (T 87) Athena, 98 (table), 131, 158n89, 326 (T 16) Athens, 110, 110nn57–59, 144, 153, 154, 169, 177– 178, 180, 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2), 316n32, 327 (T 17) agon epitaphios, 105n26 Agora, 93, 98 (table), 154, 155 (fig.), 181 Altar of Aphrodite Ourania, 93, 98 (table), 99 art, 143n13, 144–146, 154, 155 (fig.), 156, 158–163, 168, 169, 169n133, 170, 173 coins, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161 curse tablets, 306 (CT 2), 306nn21–23, 320, 320n62 figurines, 256 (Cat. 160), 296 (Cat. 271) Kerameikos, 178, 256 (Cat. 160), 296 (Cat. 271), 306 (CT 2)

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

lamps, 209 (Cat. 54–55), 210–211 (Cat. 58–60), 267–269 (Cat. 190–195) Marathon, 104, 128, 178, 178n31 Miltiades, 178n36 National Archaeological Museum, 163n105, 163 (fig.) Panathenaia, 111, 326 (T 16) pottery, 14, 41, 41n141, 42, 143n13, 144–146, 154, 155 (fig.), 168, 186 (Cat. 8), 218 (Cat. 81), 220 (Cat. 84), 223 (Cat. 88), 232 (Cat. 107), 232–233 (Cat. 107–109), 233 (Cat. 112), 234–235 (Cat. 114–115), 236–237 (Cat. 119–120), 239–240 (Cat. 127–128), 249 (Cat. 150), 283 (Cat. 237) Sanctuary of Pankrates and Palaimon, 320 Theseion, 122n122 Theseus, 111, 117n93, 154, 327 (T 17), 334 (T 40) Titos Domitios Prometheus, 113n76 Attalos II, 109n51 Audollent, A., xxix, 306n21, 306n23, 307nn26–27, 309n31, 318nn41–42, 318n46, 320n56, 320n62 Augoustakis, A., xxv, 119n105 Austin, C, xxv, 112n66, 113n76 Babbitt, F.C., 340 (T 57) Baitinger, H., xxxv, 184 (Cat. 2), 206–207 (Cat. 50–51), 264–265 (Cat. 180–183) Ball, L., ix, 4n7 Bammer, A., xxvi, 98 (table) Barakari–Gleni, K., xxvi, 205 (Cat. 47), 281 (Cat. 230) Barfoed, S., xxvi, 127n139, 186 (Cat. 7–8), 203–204 (Cat. 44–45), 205 (Cat. 48), 214 (Cat. 69), 214–215 (Cat. 71–72), 215–216 (Cat. 74–75), 243 (Cat. 136), 244–245 (Cat. 140–141), 248 (Cat. 147–148), 249 (Cat. 150), 280 (Cat. 228) Bari Museum, 146, 147 (fig.), 148n39, 154, 156, 156n84, 158, 162, 169, 170 Basel, 143n13 Basilica. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Bastianini, G., xxv, xxvi, 112n66, 113n76 Bath. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Bath, G., x Baur, P.V.C., xxvi, 208 (Cat. 52) bead. See under jewelry Beazley, J.D., xxvi, 143n13, 144, 144n14, 145n22, 146 Beckby, H., 342 (T 65–66) Beer, C., xxvi, 295 (Cat. 271) Belz, C., 5n11 Bembina, 119n106

351

Benecke, H., xxvi, 98 (table) Benson, J.L., xxviii, 249 (Cat. 150) Bentz, J.L., xxvi, 29n73 Berenike II, 111, 111n66, 112, 113n76, 114, 133 Berger–Doer, G., xxvi, 141n1, 146n28, 149nn45–46, 150n49, 152n61, 153n62 Bergquist, B., xxvi, 12n33, 97 (table) Berlin, Staatliche Museen, 164 (fig.), 165 (fig.), 166 (fig.), 167 (fig.) Bernardakis, G.N., 340–341 (T 59) Bethe, E., xxvi, 129n148, 142n5, 143n11 Bevilacqua, G., xxvi, 307n28 biaiothanatos, 173, 320–321. See also death, violent Biers, W.R., xxvi, 30n74, 193 (Cat. 26), 194 (Cat. 28), 223 (Cat. 89), 224 (Cat. 91), 244 (Cat. 139), 245 (Cat. 141), 246 (Cat. 143), 247 (Cat. 145) Birge, D.E., xxvi, xxxv, 4n8, 9n17, 25n67, 31n79, 31n81, 40nn133–134, 40n136, 58n190, 59n196, 60nn198–199, 63n210, 64n214, 72nn250–251, 75n270, 96n47, 107n36, 127n138 black–figure pottery, 42, 239–241 (Cat. 128–132) blade, 57, 281–282 (Cat. 231–232). See also chert; knife; obsidian; sickle; sword Blatter, R., xxvi, 143n13 Blech, M., xxvi, 135nn176–177, 136n178, 136nn181– 182, 137n184, 137n186, 147n34 Blegen, C.W., xxvi, xxviii, 3, 7n14, 29n73 blisterware, 18n47, 33n94, 59n195, 64, 72n245, 224– 225 (Cat. 93), 227–228 (Cat. 99) blood, 95, 122, 134n171, 136, 181, 182, 331–332 (T 30) Boessneck, J., xxvi–xxvii, 98 (table), 100 (table) Boiotia, 41, 45n158, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161, 85n22, 128, 208 (Cat. 52), 219 (Cat. 82), 306 (CT 2), 306n21, 343 (T 74). See also Thebes Bol, P.C., xxxv, 263 (Cat. 176) Bond, G.W., xxvii, 106n34, 107n35, 107nn39–40, 108, 108nn42–43, 108n45, 109n47, 109n53, 110n58, 110n62 bones, animal. See faunal remains; sacrifice, animal Bookidis, N., xxvii, 99 (table) Bornmann, F., xxxiii, 131–132, 131n154, 132n159 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 167 (fig.) Boulotis, C., xxvii, 106n34, 109nn51–52, 110n54, 141n1, 146n31, 147n35, 148nn37–38, 149n46, 151n52, 152nn58–59, 152n61, 153n62, 153n68, 154n73, 154n76, 155, 155nn77–78, 156n81, 156nn83–84, 157n86, 158n88, 158nn90–91, 163n105, 164n110, 164n112, 164n115, 166n124, 167n126, 170n134, 170n136

352

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Bovon, A., xxxiii, 209–210 (Cat. 54, 56–58, 60), 269 (Cat. 195) Bowdoin College, xi Bradeen, D.W., xxvii, xxxi, 72n251 Bravo, B., xxvii, 320 Bravo, J.J., ix, x, xxvii, 4n9, 105n29, 174n3, 297n1 breakage of vases, deliberate/ritual, 30–31, 57 Brein, F., xxvi, xxvii, 98 (table) Brelich, A., xxvii, 101, 124n128, 130n152, 134n173, 176n21, 178n33, 179n40 Bremmer, J.N., xxvii, 102n10, 104n20 Brendel, O., xxvii, 161n94, 162n101, 163n106, 169n133, 295 (Cat. 271) Brillante, C., xxvii, 129n148, 141n3, 142n6, 143nn9– 10, 143n13 British School at Athens, x Broneer, O., xxvii, xxviii, xxxii, 49n168, 127n139, 135n176, 176n18, 179n44, 267–269 (Cat. 190–194) Bronze Age at Nemea, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 58n190, 119n106, 171, 174, 183 (Cat. 1), 184– 185 (Cat. 3–5) bronze sheet/strip/flake, 49n169, 61n201, 73n256, 74nn263–264, 273 (Cat. 208), 284 (Cat. 242), 291 (Cat. 262) bronze vessels at Nemea, 42n143, 73n256 kylix, 42, 242 (Cat. 135) oinochoe, 56, 57, 57 (fig.), 278–279 (Cat. 226) phiale, 30, 30 (fig.), 32, 206 (Cat. 49) situla, 42, 242 (Cat. 134) bronze vessels, prizes from funeral games, 105 Brulotte, E.L., xxvii, 179 Brundisium, 302 (CT 1) Buck, C.D., xxvii, 303n15 buckle, 40n135, 211 (Cat. 62) Buerger, S., x Bulloch, A.W., xi Burkert, W., xxvii, 29n72, 146n28, 178, 179 Burn, L., xxvii, 144, 144nn18–20, 145–146, 145nn23–25, 146n29 button, 40n135, 211 (Cat. 61) Byzantine period at Nemea, xlii, 38, 75, 80, 91 (table) Cairns, D.L., xxvii, 106nn30–31 Call–Ferrer, V., x Cambitoglou, A., xxxvii, 147n35, 148n37, 149n45, 150n49, 151n52, 152nn53–54, 152n59, 153n63, 154n72 Campania, 306 (CT 2) Caracalla, 46n158, 73n254, 163, 166, 167 (fig.) Carder, B., x, 4n9

Carlini, A., xxxiii, 131n154, 132n159 Capitoline Museum, 295 (Cat. 271) carbon and charred wood, 32, 38, 39, 58 Caskey, J.L., xxvii, 194 (Cat. 28), 200 (Cat. 39), 220 (Cat. 84), 225–226 (Cat. 94–95), 235–236 (Cat. 116–117), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146) cattle, 96, 110n60, 330–331 (T 28). See also under sacrifice, animal celery, wild (selinon), 108n44, 109, 115, 118, 132, 134n171, 134n175, 135, 136, 136n179, 137n184, 138, 147, 154, 329 (T 25), 330–332 (T 28–30), 333 (T 34–35), 334 (T 39), 340 (T 58), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 64), 343 (T 70), 345 (T 79), 346 (T 84–85). See also under crown Cerveteri, 295 (Cat. 271) chain, 40n135, 54n178, 212 (Cat. 63), 277 (Cat. 224) Chandler, R.C., xxvii, 3n2 Charaxus, 122n121 Cheiron, 32n88 Chenal–Velarde, I., xxxviii, 98 (table) Cherry, J.F., xxvii, 7n14 chert, 62n207, 285 (Cat. 244–246) Christesen, P., xxvii, 34n99 Chthonia, Temple of (Hermione), 69n234 chthonian/chthonic cult, 44, 76, 76n274, 123, 154, 181, 319, 320 Clayman, D.L., xxvii, 112n66, 133n167 coarseware, 8, 29n71, 39, 41, 54n176, 57, 59n195, 183 (Cat. 1), 197–198 (Cat. 35–36), 199 (Cat. 38), 226–227 (Cat. 96–97), 237–239 (Cat. 121– 127), 277 (Cat. 223) Cockle, W.E.H., xxvii, 106n34, 107n35, 107n38, 107n40, 110n57, 118n101, 157n85, 158n89 coins, 29, 45–49, 59n195, 63, 68, 70, 71, 71nn243– 244, 72, 72n248, 73, 73n254, 74, 74n263, 75, 75n267, 75n272, 130n151, 132–133, 133n166, 138, 138n187, 163–166, 167 (fig.), 173, 282 (Cat. 235) Achaian League, 46 (fig.), 48n161 Aigina, 46 (fig.), 48, 48n159, 59n195, 282 (Cat. 235) Alexander III, 46 (fig.) Ambrakia, 45, 70 Antigonos Gonatas, 46 (fig.), 73, 74 Antoninus Pius, 164 Argos, 45, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161, 68, 72, 138, 163–166, 173 Arkadia, 45n158, 46 (fig.), 48n161, 72 Athens, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161 Boiotian League, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Caracalla, 46n158, 73n254, 163, 166, 167 (fig.) Chalkis, 46 (fig.), 68, 70 Corinth, 45, 46 (fig.), 46n158, 48n159, 48n161, 63, 71, 72, 73n254, 74, 74n263, 166, 167 (fig.), 173 Constantius II, 71n243, 75n267 Demetrios Poliorketes, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 72, 74 Domitian, 166 Elea, 45 Elis, 45n158 Epidauros, 46 (fig.) Erythrai, 74n263 Euboian League, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 72n248, 73 Hadrian, 163, 164, 165n117 Heraia, 45n158 Hermione, 46 (fig.) Histiaia, 46 (fig.), 48n161 Ioulis, 45n158 Julia Domna, 164, 165 (fig.), 166 (fig.) Kassandros, 45n158, 48n159 Kleitor, 46 (fig.) Kleonai, 46 (fig.), 132–133, 133n166, 138 Kos, 45, 72 Lebadeia, 45n158 Leukas, 46 (fig.), 48n159 Lokrian League, 46 (fig.), 48n159 Lokris Opontion, 45n158, 48n161 Lucius Verus, 164, 165 (fig.) Manuel I, 75n272 Megara, 46 (fig.) Melitaia, 45n158, 48n159 Messenia, 46 (fig.) Pheneos, 45n158, 48n159 Philip II, 46 (fig.), 48n159 Phlious, 45, 46 (fig.), 68, 71n244 Phokis, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161 Plautilla, 46n158, 165, 166 (fig.) Ptolemy I, 46 (fig.) Pyrrhos, 46 (fig.), 72 Salamis, 45n158 Septimius Severus, 164, 165 (fig.), 166, 167 (fig.) Sikyon, 45, 46 (fig.), 48n161, 73n254, 74n263 Skiathos, 46 (fig.) Syracuse, 45, 48n159 Tegea, 45n158, 68 Teos, 45n158 Thebes, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161 Tiryns, 46 (fig.) Troizen, 46 (fig.), 68 collar, 49n169, 272 (Cat. 206) Collinge, A., xxvii, 43, 144n15, 144nn17–18, 146n30

353

Columeau, P., xxviii, 99 (table) commerce, 49, 95 continuity of cult, 7, 13, 103, 171, 175 contorniates, 166–167, 168, 169, 173 Cook, J.M., xxviii, 193 (Cat. 26), 220 (Cat. 84), 238 (Cat. 125), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146) cooking and food preparation, 39, 41, 49, 58. See also under sacrifice, animal Cope, F., x Corbato, C., xxxiii, 131n154, 132n150 Corinth, 117, 117n95, 136, 161, 166, 170, 208 (Cat. 52), 330–331 (T 28–29), 340 (T 58), 343 (T 70) Akrokorinth, 125 Anaploga Well, 186 (Cat. 8), 198 (Cat. 37), 237 (Cat. 121) architectural terracotta, 39, 40n136, 61n201, 64, 213 (Cat. 68) Asklepieion, 208 (Cat. 52) button, 211 (Cat. 61) coins, 45, 46 (fig.), 46n158, 48n159, 48n161, 63, 71, 72, 73n254, 74, 74n263, 166, 167 (fig.), 173 cosmetic spoon, 213 (Cat. 66) curse tablets, 306n22, 318n42, 319n53 Demeter and Kore, sanctuary of, 99 (table), 204– 205 (Cat. 46), 205 (Cat. 48), 215 (Cat. 72), 218 (Cat. 79–80), 224 (Cat. 90–91), 233 (Cat. 111), 238 (Cat. 122), 245 (Cat. 141), 247 (Cat. 145), 248 (Cat. 148), 251 (Cat. 153), 277 (Cat. 223), 295–296 (Cat. 271), 306n22, 318n42, 319n53 figurines, 208 (Cat. 52), 257 (Cat. 162), 258 (Cat. 164–165), 260 (Cat. 167), 295–296 (Cat. 271) Gulf of, ix, 3 lamps, 267–269 (Cat. 190–194) loom weight, 266 (Cat. 185) Museum, 158, 159 (fig.), 160 (fig.) North Cemetery, 34, 186–191 (Cat. 7–21), 192 (Cat. 23–24), 197 (Cat. 34), 198 (Cat. 37), 203 (Cat. 42), 204 (Cat. 45), 205 (Cat. 48), 213–215 (Cat. 69–72), 224 (Cat. 92), 227 (Cat. 98), 230 (Cat. 103), 243 (Cat. 136), 244 (Cat. 140), 278 (Cat. 225), 280 (Cat. 228) Opheltes sarcophagus, 158–163, 168, 169, 169n133, 170 Potters’ Quarter, 208 (Cat. 52), 249 (Cat. 150), 258 (Cat. 165) pottery, xliii, 18n47, 29, 30, 30n74, 31, 33, 33n94, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43 (fig.), 44, 56–57, 59n195, 63n209, 64, 71, 72n245, 175n13, 185–192

354

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Corinth (continued) pottery (continued) (Cat. 7–24), 196 (Cat. 32), 196–197 (Cat. 34), 198–199 (Cat. 37), 200–202 (Cat. 40), 203 (Cat. 42), 204–205 (Cat. 44–46), 205 (Cat. 48), 213–217 (Cat. 69–76), 218 (Cat. 78–80), 222 (Cat. 87), 224–225 (Cat. 90– 93), 227–228 (Cat. 98–99), 228–230 (Cat. 101–104), 231 (Cat. 106), 232 (Cat. 108), 233 (Cat. 111), 235 (Cat. 117), 237–238 (Cat. 121–123), 240 (Cat. 130), 241 (Cat. 132), 242–243 (Cat. 136–137), 244–246 (Cat. 140–141), 247 (Cat. 145), 247–248 (Cat. 147–148), 249 (Cat. 150), 251–252 (Cat. 153–154), 277 (Cat. 223), 278 (Cat. 225), 279–280 (Cat. 227–229), 286 (Cat. 250) Roman colony, xlii, 166 spindle whorl, 266 (Cat. 186) Stele Shrine A, 248 (Cat. 147) stylus, 276 (Cat. 221) Cornell–Taylor, M., xi Corycian Cave, 48 cosmetic spoons, 40n135, 212–213 (Cat. 66) Cousin, G., xxviii, 3n2 Crabtree, P.J., xxviii, 99 (table) Cropp, M.J., xxviii, 106n34, 107nn35–36, 107nn38– 40, 108nn41–43, 108n45, 109n51, 109n53, 110n55, 110nn57–59, 110nn61–62, 111n64, 118n99, 143n11, 146n28, 149n46, 150nn48–49, 152n58, 156n83 Crome, J.F., xxviii, 261 (Cat. 171) crown, 1, 104, 109, 114, 117n96, 121n117, 130, 135, 136–137, 146, 147, 153, 154, 323–324 (T 2-3), 324 (T 6), 326 (T 15), 327–328 (T 22), 330–331 (T 28), 333 (T 34), 345 (T 80). See also under Herakles; Isthmia; myth of Opheltes; Olympia apple, 137n186, 342 (T 66), 343 (T 70) laurel, 341 (T 62), 342 (T 64), 345 (T 80) myrtle, 136n179, 154 olive, 117n96, 137n186, 330–331 (T 28), 338 (T 50), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 64, 66), 343 (T 70), 345 (T 80) palm, 341 (T 62) pine, 135, 135n176, 137, 137n186, 138, 327–328 (T 22), 333 (T 35), 340 (T 58), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 66), 343 (T 70), 345 (T 80), 347 (T 89–90) poplar, 342 (T 64) wild celery at Isthmia, 131, 135, 135n176, 136–137, 137n186, 138, 327–328 (T 22), 329 (T 25),

331 (T 29), 333 (T 35), 340 (T 58), 346 (T 85) wild celery at Nemea, 108n44, 109, 115, 117–118, 131, 132, 133, 133n166, 134n175, 135, 135 (fig.), 136–137, 137n186, 138, 140, 154, 163, 327–328 (T 22), 329 (T 25), 330–332 (T 28– 30), 334 (T 39), 340 (T 58), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 66), 343 (T 70), 345 (T 79–80), 345–346 (T 82), 346 (T 84) cult table, 96n48 Culver, L., x, xi Cumae, 307 (CT 2) curse tablets, 49, 71n244, 73, 76, 126n134, 173, 183, 297–321 anatomical curses, 317 Attica, 306 (CT 2), 306nn21–23, 320, 320n62 binding, 297, 298, 298n4, 304 (CT 2), 306 (CT 2), 308 (CT 3), 319 Boiotia, 306n21 Corinth, 306n22, 318n42, 319n53 Cumae, 307 (CT 2) Delos, 303n17 Egypt, 306n22, 309n31, 317–318 erotic context, 49, 298, 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2), 309 (CT 3), 316 (CT 4), 317–319 find spots, 319–320 folding/rolling of tablets, 298, 300 (CT 1), 303 (CT 2), 307 (CT 3), 309 (CT 4) Hadrumetum, 307n27 Karystos, 306n22, 318n42 Kenchreai, 309n31, 318n41 Knidos, 307n27, 319n53 lead as medium, 297, 320 Lilybaeum, 306n21 Megara, 306 (CT 2), 318n42 Mercury, Temple of (Uley, England), 319n53 Metapontum, 306 (CT 2), 306n21 Minerva Sulis, Sanctuary of (Bath, England), 319n53 Mitylene, 319n53 nail holes, 49, 298, 300 (CT 1), 303 (CT 2), 307 (CT 3), 320 Olbia, 320 Pydna, 306n22 Selinous, 319, 319n53 Sicily, 307n29 Curtius, E., xxviii, xxxv, 3n2, 175n15, 177nn23–24, 177n26 Cyprus, 128n141, 208 (Cat. 52), 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2)

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Dabney, M.K., xxviii, 9n17, 13n36 D’Alessio, G.B.D., xxviii, 131n154, 132n161 Dalinghaus, M., 183 (Cat. 1) Damosthenes, 312 (CT 4), 316 (CT 4) Danaos, 110n60, 112, 326 (T 16), 327 (T 18), 330– 331 (T 28) Daphnis, 121n115 Darius Painter, 151, 152n54, 152n59, 153, 154, 154n72, 169, 170 Daux, G., xxviii, 286 (Cat. 250) Davidson, G.R., xxviii, 211 (Cat. 61), 213 (Cat. 66), 257 (Cat. 162), 260 (Cat. 167), 266 (Cat. 185– 186), 276 (Cat. 221) Davies, J., xxix, 176n22, 179n38 Davies, M, xxix, 103n12, 103n18 Davis, J.L., xxix, xxxii, 7n14, 9n17, 100 (table) Davis, S.J.M., xxix, 98 (table) death, ix heroes and, 101 initiation and, 145–146, 178 magic and, 320–321 of Opheltes. See myth of Opheltes premature/untimely, 2, 76, 125–126, 135, 153, 170, 173, 320–321, 320n62, 340 (T 57), 345 (T 79), 346 (T 84) symbolic, 178 violent, 76, 170, 173, 320–321 dedications. See votive offerings Deianeira, 208 (Cat. 52) Delos, 97, 97 (table), 303n17, 306 (CT 2) Delphi, 49n165, 87, 174, 324 (T 6), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 64), 343 (T 73) Orestes at, 147n35 Pythian Games, 111, 115, 121, 121n116, 128, 174, 178, 327 (T 16), 332–333 (T 33), 338 (T 50), 342–343 (T 67–68), 343 (T 70, 72–73) 345 (T 80), 347 (T 87) Python (snake), 121, 327 (T 16), 332–333 (T 33), 338 (T 50), 339 (T 55), 342 (T 64), 342–343 (T 67–68), 343 (T 73), 347 (T 87) Demakes, P., x Demakopoulou, K., xxix, 183 (Cat. 1) Demeter, 79, 93, 99, 99 (table), 100, 259 (Cat. 166), 319, 326 (T 16). See also under Corinth Demetrios Poliorketes, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 72, 74 Demitrack, A., xxvii, 7n13 Des Courtils, J., xxix, 97 (table) Deshayes, J., xxix, 196 (Cat. 33) Detroit Institute of Arts, 157n86, 157 (fig.) Dickie, M.W., xxx, 97n50, 176n18

355

Dillon, M., xxix, 174 Diodoros, 304 (CT 2), 306–307 (CT 2), 318, 319 Dion Museum, 154–155 Dionysos, 109, 109n51, 110, 117n98, 118, 119, 128, 128n144, 146, 152, 153, 154n72, 156n83, 295 (Cat. 271), 342 (T 65) disc, perforated, 49n169, 275 (Cat. 218) Dodwell, E., xxix, 3n2 Dörpfeld, W., xxv, 174–175, 177n24, 177n26 Doffey, M.–C., xxix, 102n9, 103n13, 106n32, 107n38, 109n53, 110n59, 129, 129nn145–147, 131n154, 134, 134n172, 137n184 Doherty, L, xi doll, 108n41, 157, 319 Domitian, 121n115, 166 Drachmann, A.B., xxix, 115n87, 116n89, 136n180, 179n40, 328–333 (T 25–33) Drees, L., 179 Driesch, A. von den, xxvii, xxix, xxxvi, 81, 98 (table) Drougou, S., xxix, 208 (Cat. 52) Dürrbach, F., xxviii, 3n2 Early Christian period at Nemea, xlii, 3, 36, 40nn135–136, 45nn157–158, 52, 69n230, 71n244, 74n263, 75, 80, 91 (table), 168, 298. See also farming trenches. See also under Heroön of Opheltes; Nemea River Early Hellenistic period at Nemea, xlii, 50 (fig.), 54n179, 62, 63–64, 74, 168. See also under Heroön of Opheltes; Sanctuary of Zeus Early Iron Age at Nemea, 5, 7, 9, 9n20, 9 (fig.), 10, 11, 12n29, 13, 13n37, 14, 19, 171, 184 (Cat. 2), 185 (Cat. 6) Early Stadium at Nemea. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Ebert, J., xxix, 112, 112nn69–70, 113nn75–76, 328 (T 24) Echetlos, 104 École Française d’Athènes, x Edwards, G.R., xxviii, 217 (Cat. 76), 225 (Cat. 93), 232 (Cat. 108), 238 (Cat. 123), 277 (Cat. 223), 279 (Cat. 227) Edwards, K.M., xxviii, 166n125 Egypt, 256 (Cat. 160), 306n22, 309n31, 328 (T 23) Oxyrrhynchos, 106, 317 Ehwald, R., 333–334 (T 37) Eidinow, E., xxix, 297nn2–3, 298nn4–6, 300 (CT 1), 302n11, 303n17, 306n25, 307n29, 317, 320n56, 320n62 ekphrasis, 122

356

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Ekroth, G., xi, xxix, 93, 97n53, 99n54, 174n3, 174n5, 176nn16–17, 177n24, 177n26, 180–181, 180n48, 181n51, 182n58, 182n61 Eleusinia, 111, 326 (T 16) Elis, 36n106, 45n158, 69n234, 177n24, 177n28, 343 (T 73) embankment. See also North Pit Deposit. See also under Heroön of Opheltes abandonment, 73–74 clay lining, 50, 51 (fig.), 53, 56, 58, 61 construction, 50–52, 179n44 poros blocks, 53 (fig.), 54, 55 (fig.) refurbishment, 14n39, 50 (fig.), 52 (fig.), 58–63, 64, 78, 173 relation to athletic venues, 1–2, 4 (fig.), 14, 54, 112, 124, 139, 172 rubble features, 50, 51 (fig.), 52, 53 (fig.), 59, 60, 61 wall across, 52–54, 56, 57 (fig.), 58, 78, 172 water channel across, 15 (fig.), 55 (fig.), 63–64 Eos, 150, 151 Ephesos, 69n234, 98 (table), 302 (CT 1) epi, 105, 111, 115, 125, 129, 139, 323 (T 2), 326–327 (T 16), 330–331 (T 28), 332 (T 31), 332–333 (T 33), 335 (T 42), 341–342 (T 62–63), 343 (T 68), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 88) Epidauros, 46 (fig.), 85, 96n47, 106n34, 108n41, 179 Epigonoi, 117n93, 335 (T 41) Epiros, 184 (Cat. 2), 302 (CT 1) epitaphios (funerary), 105n26, 114, 115, 127, 135, 137n186, 139, 328 (T 23), 329–330 (T 25–27), 331 (T 29), 342 (T 67), 347 (T 89–90) Eretria, 33, 98 (table), 261 (Cat. 171) Eriphyle, 161, 335 (T 41) Eros, 307 (CT 2) Etearchos, 113n76 Eteoklos. See under Seven against Thebes Etruria, 208 (Cat. 52), 242 (Cat. 133) Euboia, 33, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161, 68, 70, 72n248, 73, 98 (table), 100 (table), 128, 261 (Cat. 171), 318n42 Eubotas, 113n76 Euboula, 301–302 (CT 1), 317, 318, 319 Eumenes II, 109n51 Euneos and Thoas. See under myth of Opheltes Euneidai, 110, 153 Euphetes. See myth of Opheltes, parents, variant names of Euripides, influence of, 142, 148, 149, 152–153, 155, 156n83, 157, 169, 173 Eurydike (mother of Opheltes). See under myth of Opheltes

Eurydike (wife of Orpheus), 144, 145 Faraone, C., xi, xxx, 297n3, 298, 298nn5–6, 309n31, 317, 318–319, 318n41 farming trenches, 36n104, 38, 39, 52, 66, 67 (fig.), 71n243, 72n248, 75, 78 Farnell, L.R, xxx, 101 faunal remains, 2, 9, 19, 31n79, 32, 38, 39, 39n124, 40, 41, 42, 44n151, 57, 58n189, 79–100, 181, 182. See also sacrifice, animal Favier, S., xxx, 149nn45–46, 150n49, 151n51 Felch, P., ix Felicissima, 307 (CT 2) figurines. See also under Athens; Corinth; Olympia bronze, ii, 9n20, 76, 155, 168, 169, 173, 183, 256 (Cat. 160), 293–296 (Cat. 271) centaur, 32, 207–208 (Cat. 52) foundation deposits, 32–33 Hypsipyle, 44, 76, 168, 169, 173, 254–255 (Cat. 159) kouros, lead, 97 magical, 319 Mycenaean, 5, 13n36 Opheltes, ii, 32n88, 44, 76, 155, 167–168, 169, 173, 183, 254–256 (Cat. 159–160), 293–296 (Cat. 271) stone, 44, 76, 168, 169, 173, 254–255 (Cat. 159), 295 (Cat. 271) temple boys, 295 (Cat. 271) terracotta, 5, 13n36, 32, 39n129, 44, 48, 59n195, 71, 76, 168, 169, 173, 207–208 (Cat. 52), 255–261 (Cat. 160–170), 295–296 (Cat. 271) votive, 32, 44, 48, 70, 168, 169, 173, 175n15, 254– 261 (Cat. 159–170) fillet, 49, 149, 150, 152, 153, 153n68, 170 Finglass, P.J., xxix, 103n12, 103n18 Fisher, J.E., xxxix, 29n73 Foley, A., xxx, 178n30 Forstenpointner, G., xxx, 95n43, 98 (table) Fortgens, H.W., xxx, 122nn120–122, 123, 123nn123–124 Foster, G.V., xxx, xxxvii, 82n16, 98 (table) foundation deposits, 29, 33, 68, 76n273. See also under Heroön of Opheltes; North Pit Deposit Amorgos, 58n189 Argos, 32 Asine 30n75, 30n77, 32n83, 33n90, 58n189 figurines, 32–33 foundation ritual, 31n78, 32n86 Gela, 58n189 Gortyn, 68n225

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Naxos, 68n225 Pergamon, 30n77 Samos, 32n83 vases, incomplete, 30 vases, intentional breakage of, 30–31, 31 (fig.) vases, placement of, 30, 30 (fig.), 31–32 West Gate Heroön at Eretria, 33 Fraser, P.M., xxxiii, 222 (Cat. 86), 302nn12–13, 306nn19–20, 316n32, 317n33 Frazer, J.G., xxx, 127n138, 335 (T 41–42) Friedländer, J., xxx, 164n110, 164n112, 165nn118– 119, 166n121, 166n125 Fuhrer, T., xxx, 103n18, 110n60, 112, 113n77, 114n78, 114n84, 130n150, 130n153, 131, 131n156, 132, 133n169, 134n173, 137n184 Fulbright Foundation, xi funeral games, 2, 77, 101, 105, 105n26, 111, 113, 114, 115, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 133n170, 135, 137n186, 139, 174, 178–180, 178n37, 323 (T 2), 326–327 (T 16), 328 (T 23), 329–331 (T 25– 29), 332–333 (T 33), 334 (T 40), 335 (T 42), 338 (T 50), 341–342 (T 63), 342–343 (T 67– 68), 343 (T 73), 347 (T 87), 347 (T 89–90). See also under myth of Opheltes funerary epigram, 105, 113n74 funerary ritual, 140, 150, 153, 170, 180 funerary symbolism, 76, 76n274, 117, 123, 135, 136, 138, 154, 161, 170, 329 (T 25), 331 (T 29), 333 (T 34) Furtwängler, A., 175n13 Futrell, A., 36nn105–106 Gager, J.G., xxx, 297nn2–3, 298n4, 298n6, 299n10, 300 (CT 1), 302n11, 306nn21–22, 307n28, 317, 318nn41–42, 320n59, 320n62 Gallazzi, C., xxvi, 112n66, 113n76 Gallis, K.I., xxx, 219 (Cat. 82) Ganiban, R., xxx, 119n107, 121n112, 121nn114–116, 122n118, 143n7 Gantz, T., xxx, 103nn11–12, 104n21, 110n55, 123n126, 129n148, 130n150, 143nn12–13 Gardeisen, A., xxix, 97 (table) Gardner, P., xxvi, xxxii, 164nn110–112, 164nn114– 116, 165nn117–119, 166nn121–123 Garland, R., xxx, 154n71 Ge, 320 Gebhard, E., xi, xxx, 34n99, 97n51, 97 (table), 98 (table), 176nn18–19, 179n44, 180n48, 182n60 Geisau, H. von, xxx, 130n149 Gell, W., xxx, 3n2 Geometric period. See Early Iron Age at Nemea

357

Gercke, P. and W., xxx, 184 (Cat. 1) Gignac, F.T., xxx, 306 (CT 2), 306n21, 307n26, 317n33 glass, 29n69, 45n157, 70n236, 73, 288 (Cat. 252–253) Glaukos, 145 goat, 44, 87, 240 (Cat.130), 263 (Cat. 176), 327 (T 20). See also under sacrifice, animal Goldberg, P., xxvii, 99 (table) Goold, G.P., 334 (T 38) Gordon, R., xxx, 317nn37–38, 318n41 Grace, V., xxxi, 288 (Cat. 254) Graf, F., xxxi, 182n61, 297, 297nn2–3, 298nn4–5, 302n14, 303n18, 306n22, 319nn52–53, 320, 320nn54–55, 320n57, 320n62 Graham, P. ix, x Grant, A., xxxi, 81 Gravisca, 99 (table) Green, R.P.H., 343 (T 70–73) Greenewalt, C., xi Griffith, M., xi grinding stones, 49, 270–271 (Cat. 197–200) Groot, M., xxxi, 100 (table) Group of Taranto 7013, 149n45 grove (alsos), 40n134, 69n234, 107, 119, 147, 324–325 (T 9), 326 (T 15), 335 (T 43), 336–337 (T 46), 345–346 (T 82–83). See also under Sanctuary of Zeus Guldager Bilde, P., xxxi, 242 (Cat. 133), 283 (Cat. 237) Hadrian, 163, 164, 165n117 Hadrumetum (North Africa), 307n27 Hadzisteliou–Price, T., xxxi, 256 (Cat. 160), 295 (Cat. 271) Hagen, H., 345–346 (T 82–84) Hägg, R., xxxi, 98 (table), 181n51 Halieis, 98 (table), 99, 100, 181 Hall, J.M., xxxi, 103n14 Halm–Tisserant, M., xxxi, 261 (Cat. 171) Halstead, P., xxviii, xxxii, 9n17, 13n36, 100 (table) Handberg, S., xxxi, 242 (Cat. 133), 283 (Cat. 237) Hanell, K., xxxi, 34n99 Hanse, J., xxvii, 99 (table) Harder, A., xxxi, 111n66, 112, 112nn67–68, 112n70, 113nn72–73, 113n77, 114n78, 131, 131nn154– 156, 131n158, 132, 132n159, 132n161, 133nn167–168, 135n176, 136, 137n184, 327–328 (T 18–22) Harmodios, 163 Harmon, A.M., 341 (T 60)

358

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Harpokrates, 256 (Cat. 160) Haug. E.M., x Hecate, 320 Hellenic Ministry of Culture, x Hellenistic (Middle–Late) period at Nemea, 54n178, 71n244, 72n246, 72n251, 73, 74, 80, 81 (fig.), 91 (table) Hemans, F.P., xxx, 179n44 hemitheoi, 105n29 Henderson, J., xxxi, 303n15, 318n45 Henrichs, A., xxxi, 181n51, 182n61 Hensley, P., 5n11 Hera, 85, 98 (table), 99, 323 (T 2), 330–331 (T 28), 333 (T 36), 340–341 (T 59), 345–346 (T 82). See also under Argos Herakles aetiology of Nemean Games, 105, 114, 117, 130, 131, 132, 133, 133n170, 134, 140, 329 (T 26), 333 (T 36), 335 (T 43), 343 (T 72), 344 (T 75), 347 (T 87) aetiology of wild celery crown, 114, 132, 134, 136– 137, 137n185, 138, 327–328 (T 22), 331–332 (T 30), 333 (T 35), 342 (T 64), 345–346 (T 82) children of, 170n135 founder of cult of Hera Aigophagos, 85 founder of Olympics, 118, 121, 131n154, 176n17, 327 (T 16), 334 (T 40), 338 (T 50) infant Herakles, 104, 163, 167, 169 Kleonai, cult at, 131n156, 133n168 Molorkos and, 113n73, 114, 130, 131, 131n156, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 327–328 (T 22), 333 (T 36), 344 (T 75), 345–346 (T 82–83) Nemean lion and, 104, 105, 113n73, 114, 117, 128n142, 129, 130–132, 133, 134, 134n171, 136, 137, 138, 163, 323 (T 2), 324 (T 4), 329 (T 26), 331–332 (T 29–30), 333 (T 35–36), 340–341 (T 59), 344 (T 75), 345–346 (T 82–83), 347 (T 87) pankration, 130 refounder of Nemean Games for Zeus, 117, 131, 131n156, 132, 133, 134, 134n173, 331 (T 29) representation in art, 130, 133, 138, 154, 154n72, 182, 295 (Cat. 271) Surrentum, cult at, 125 Thasos, cult at, 12, 97, 97 (table) Herbasia Clymene, 157n86 Herbert, S., xxviii, 217 (Cat. 78) Herbig, P., xxxi, 156 (fig.) Hercher, R., 341–342 (T 63) Herculaneum, 156, 156n84, 158, 162, 169

Hermes, 44, 150, 258 (Cat. 164), 261 (Cat. 171), 320 Hermione, 46 (fig.), 69n234 hero cult, ix, 2, 96–97, 99, 100, 320. See also Heroön of Opheltes Achilles (Elis), 36n106 Agamemnon (Mycenae), 193 (Cat. 26), 220 (Cat. 84), 223 (Cat. 89), 238 (Cat. 125), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146), 270 (Cat. 196), 325 (T 10) Aiakos (Aigina), 36n108, 122n122 Amphiaraos (Oropos), 85n22, 110n59 ancestor cult/cult of the dead, 13, 103, 140, 174 Anios (Delos), 97, 97 (table) antiquity of (pre–Olympian), 2, 134n174, 171, 173–174, 182 Aristodemos (Megalopolis), 178n31 Aristomenes (Messene), 85n22 athletic festivals and, 101, 127, 171, 178–179, 180, 182. See also funeral games Battos (Kyrene), 178n31 child/baby heroes, 101–102, 121n116, 127, 180 Echetlos (Marathon), 104 Euneos (Athens), 110 fallen Athenians (Marathon), 128, 178 grave/tomb as place of cult, 13, 103, 105, 171, 176 Herakles (Kleonai), 131n156 Herakles (Surrentum), 125 Herakles (Thasos), 12, 97, 97 (table) heroized oikistes (Orgame), 178n31 Hippodameia (Olympia), 69n234 Hypsipyle (Nemea), 127n139 Iolaos (Thebes), 136n179, 179, 180 Kalchas (Mount Dion, Italy), 85n22 Kar (Megara), 178n31 Melikertes–Palaimon. See under Isthmia Orestes (Messene), 178n31 Pankrates and Palaimon (Athens), 320 Pelops. See under Olympia Pindar (Thebes), 180 ritual practices, 2, 12, 85, 93, 96–97, 99, 100, 149, 171, 177n26, 175, 179, 180, 181, 182, 182n61 Seven against Thebes (Argos), 103 shrines, decoration of, 122n122 Theseus (Athens), 122n122 Trophonios (Lebadeia), 85n22 West Gate Heroön (Eretria), 33 Heroön of Opheltes access/entrance to, 35, 69–70 altars, 3, 36–38, 48, 69n233, 74, 76, 77, 78, 165n120, 172, 341 (T 61). See also under sacrifice, animal

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Archemoreion, 77n276 artificial fill in, 14, 16 (fig.), 18, 19, 23, 25, 26, 26 (fig.), 29, 33, 76, 77, 172 athletic venues and, 1–2, 4 (fig.), 77, 112, 124, 139, 172, 173, 179, 180 burning/fire, 32, 36, 38, 39–40, 41, 49, 69, 76, 81–84, 85, 95, 96, 180, 182 clay lining, 14, 16 (fig.), 35, 39, 39n130, 40, 69, 76, 77, 171 cobblestone surface, 23 (fig.), 24–25 construction of Archaic shrine, 1, 11, 13–29, 32, 33, 76, 80, 81, 81 (fig.), 90–91 (table), 93 (table), 172, 179n44 construction date of Archaic shrine, 1, 5, 13, 33– 34, 58, 77, 172, 176 disturbance by Early Christian activity, 16n44, 35n102, 36n109, 37n113, 38n120, 39, 40, 45n157, 46, 48, 66, 66n222, 67 (fig.), 68n223, 71nn243–244, 72n248, 73, 75, 81 (fig.), 93, 298 disturbance from Nemea River, 26, 27 (fig.), 29, 34, 65, 71n244, 75 earlier features in, possible, 9–13, 171 Early Hellenistic enclosure wall and foundation course, 8 (fig.), 14, 16, 17, 18 (fig.), 19 (fig.), 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 (fig.), 36, 37 (fig.), 38, 48n159, 64–72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 122n121, 123, 173, 177, 298 embankment and, 1–2, 4 (fig.), 14, 34, 34n100, 35, 50, 54, 58, 64, 65, 70, 77–78, 124, 139, 149, 172, 176, 180 excavation history, ix, x, 3–5 foundation deposits, 14, 18–19, 25, 26, 29–33, 34, 45, 58, 66–67, 76, 77, 78, 172, 173, 185–208 (Cat. 7–52), 226 (Cat. 96), 281 (Cat. 231), 286–287 (Cat. 250–251) identification, 4n8, 76–77 location in Sanctuary of Zeus, 3, 4–5, 4n8, 4 (fig.), 6 (fig.), 7 (fig.) modification of existing landscape for, 14, 16 (fig.), 17, 24, 29n71, 76, 77, 171 mound shape of Archaic shrine, 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16 (fig.), 17, 18–19, 20, 22–23, 25, 26, 27 (fig.), 28 (fig.), 29, 34, 34n100, 65, 66, 77, 105, 112, 122n121, 139, 149, 171, 176, 177 Ophelteion, 77n276 period of use, 2, 38, 59, 60n198, 71n243, 72, 73, 78, 80, 134, 140, 171 pits and surface deposits, 18n47, 19, 32n85, 36 (fig.), 37, 37 (fig.), 38–40, 70n242, 71n244, 80, 81, 92, 93 (table), 149

359

poros blocks, 20 (fig.), 21–22, 22n54, 65 pottery from, 5, 7, 8, 9, 9n19, 9n21, 10, 11, 12, 12n29, 13, 13n34, 13n37, 14, 18–19, 22, 25, 26, 29–32, 33–34, 35n103, 36, 38, 39, 39n124, 40, 41–44, 48, 49, 68, 70–71, 72n244, 73, 75, 76, 77, 171, 172, 182, 183– 184 (Cat. 1), 185–205 (Cat. 6–48), 213–233 (Cat. 69–111), 234–235 (Cat. 113–114), 235–236 (Cat. 116–117), 237–239 (Cat. 121–125), 239–241 (Cat. 128–132), 242–248 (Cat. 136–148), 286–287 (Cat. 250), 288– 289 (Cat. 254–255) references in literature, 105, 113, 122–123, 124, 126, 139, 140, 172, 323 (T 2), 327 (T 18), 328 (T 24), 338–339 (T 50–54), 341 (T 61) representation in art, 141, 149, 165–166, 170 ritual activity (sacrifice, drinking/libations, votive offerings), 1, 2, 9, 12, 19, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 32n87, 33, 36, 38, 39, 39n124, 40, 41–49, 66, 68, 70, 76, 76n273, 77, 78, 79–96, 100, 122, 139–140, 168, 171, 180, 181, 182, 298 robbing trench, 69, 71n244, 75 rubble features, 8 (fig.), 9–10, 14, 16–21, 22–23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (fig.), 28 (fig.), 29, 35, 76, 77, 122, 149, 171, 176, 177 small finds from, 5, 9, 9n21, 29n71, 32, 32n87, 36, 38, 40, 40nn135–136, 42, 44–49, 59n197, 68, 69n233, 70, 70n238, 71, 71n244, 73, 75, 76, 78, 167–169, 171, 182, 184–185 (Cat. 2–5), 206–213 (Cat. 49–68), 241–242 (Cat. 133–135), 254–263 (Cat. 158–177), 264–265 (Cat. 180–183), 266–269 (Cat. 185–195), 270–274 (Cat. 197–212), 287 (Cat. 251), 297–300, 300–317 (CT 1–4) Tomb of Opheltes (stone feature), 1, 3, 12, 35–36, 38, 39 (fig.), 76, 77, 122, 171–172, 173, 320 tree in, 40, 77, 149, 165, 170, 172 Herrmann, H.–V., xxxi, 175, 177n26, 179n40 Herrmann, P., xxxi, 156 (fig.) Hershenson, C., ix, 4n7 Herter, H., xxxi, 13n35, 101, 103, 103n11, 103nn17– 18, 110n55, 111n64, 117n98, 128n141, 174 Hesperides, Garden of, 145, 154n72 Hiesel, G., xxx, 184 (Cat. 1) Hill, B.H., 3 hinged box/locket, 45, 263–264 (Cat. 178–179) Hippodameia, 69n234, 154 hippodrome. See under Olympia; Sanctuary of Zeus; Thebes Hippomedon. See under Seven against Thebes

360

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Hoffmann, H., xxxii, 144, 144n15, 144n18, 145–146, 146n29 holocaust (holókausta). See under sacrifice, animal honey, 122, 145, 146, 182 hoop, 49n169, 73n256, 271 (Cat. 201), 273 (Cat. 209–210), 274 (Cat. 213) horse bit, 44, 262 (Cat. 173) Howland, R.H., xxv, 267–269 (Cat. 190–195) Huber, S., xxxii, 98 (table) Hunt, G.R., xi, xxxii, 29, 30n75, 30n77, 31, 32n83, 32n86, 33, 33 nn89–92, 58n189, 68n225, 68n227, 76n273 Hunt Painter, 143n13 hydria. See under myth of Opheltes; miniature pottery at Nemea Hypsipyle. See under figurines; hero cult; myth of Opheltes Illyria, 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2) Imhoof–Blumer, F.W., xxxii, 164nn110–112, 164nn114–116, 165nn118–119, 166nn121–123 Ino–Leukothea, 69n234, 149, 167n127, 332–333 (T 33), 334 (T 40), 338 (T 50), 347 (T 87) inscribed pottery, 41n141, 44, 182, 220–222 (Cat. 86), 233–234 (Cat. 112), 249–250 (Cat. 151), 303n16 Iolkos, 326 (T 16) Iris, 150n49 iron peg, 49n169, 274 (Cat. 211) iron tool/implement, 32n87, 60, 73n256, 74n263, 208–209 (Cat. 53), 284 (Cat. 241), 292 (Cat. 265), 293 (Cat. 269) Isaakidou, V., xxxii, 100 (table) Isthmia, 98 (table), 99, 125, 136, 137, 171, 176, 179, 181, 182, 324 (T 4, 6), 327 (T 16), 339–340 (T 56), 341 (T 62), 343 (T 74) Altar of Poseidon, 97 crown of victory, 131, 135, 135n176, 136–137, 137n186, 138, 327–328 (T 22), 329 (T 25), 331 (T 29), 333 (T 35), 340 (T 58), 341 (T 62), 342 (T 66), 343 (T 70), 345 (T 80), 346 (T 85) Games, 34n99, 97, 106, 111, 112n66, 114, 115, 118, 121, 125, 127, 128, 131, 135, 136, 137n186, 138, 166, 174, 176, 176n19, 178, 179, 180, 332–333 (T 32–33), 333 (T 35), 334 (T 40), 338 (T 50), 342–343 (T 67–69), 343 (T 71– 74), 345 (T 80), 347 (T 87) lamps, 49n168 Melikertes–Palaimon and Palaimonion, 49n168, 77n276, 97, 97 (table), 101, 103n11, 114,

118, 121, 122n122, 125, 127, 128, 135, 137, 137n186, 138, 167n127, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181n49, 327 (T 16), 328 (T 23), 332–333 (T 33), 334 (T 40), 338 (T 50), 339 (T 55), 341 (T 62), 342–343 (T 66–71), 343 (T 73– 74), 345 (T 80), 347 (T 87) metal finds, 45, 97, 208 (Cat. 53), 242 (Cat. 134), 262 (Cat. 173), 264 (Cat. 178), 276 (Cat. 221) post holes, 12n33 stadia, 179 Jakoby, F., 111n65, 327 (T 17), 333 (T 34) Jameson, M.H., xxxii, 98 (table) Jarman, M.R., xxxii, 99 (table) javelin points, 44, 73n256, 262 (Cat. 174–175) Jefremow, N., xxxii, 289 (Cat. 255) jewelry, 45 bead, 45n157, 70n236, 73n256, 288 (Cat. 252), 292 (Cat. 264) earring, 45n157 pin. See needle/pin fibula, 45n157 ring, 45n157, 59n195, 282–283 (Cat. 236) Johnson, F.P., xxviii, xxxii, 158, 158n91, 159n92, 161, 161nn95–96, 162n98, 162n101, 162n104, 217 (Cat. 78) Johnston, S.I., xxxii, 320, 320nn57–59 Jöhrens, G., xxxii, 288–289 (Cat. 254–255) Jones, W.H.S., 126n135 Jordan, D.R., xxxii, xxxv, xxxvii, 297n1, 297n3, 298n6, 298n9, 300 (CT 1), 306nn21–22, 306n25, 307nn28–29, 318nn40–42, 320n55, 320n59, 320n63 Julia Domna, 164, 165 (fig.), 166 (fig.) Kabeirion. See under Thebes Kadletz, E., xxxiii, 94, 96n49, 99n55 Kalapodi, 98 (table) Kalydon, 143n11 Kampakoglou, A., xxxiii, 111n66, 133n167 Kannicht, R., xxxviii, 106n34, 107–109, 324–326 (T 7–15) Kapaneus. See under Seven against Thebes Karageorghis, V., xxxiii, 128n141 Karberg, R., x, 4n9 Karystos, 100 (table), 318n42 Kassapoglou, E., xxxiii, 261 (Cat. 171) Katsota, D., x Kenchreai, 309n31, 318n41 Kephalos, 150

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

kerykeion, 44, 76, 150, 261 (Cat. 171) Kilian–Dirlmeier, I., xxxiii, 184 (Cat. 2) kilns, 30n74 Klein, U., 343 (T 68) Kleonai, 30, 46 (fig.), 59n196, 60n198, 72n249, 87, 107n38, 110n57, 113n73, 114, 117, 117n95, 119n106, 127, 130, 131, 132–133, 133n166, 133n168, 133n170, 138, 166n125, 330–331 (T 28–29) Klotz, A., 335–339 (T 43–55) Knapp, R.C., xi, xxxv, 45n158, 48, 48n159, 49, 59n196, 60nn198–199, 68nn226–227, 70n236, 70n240, 71nn243–244, 72nn245–246, 72nn250–251, 73n254, 74nn258–259, 74n263, 107n39, 133n166, 138n187, 163, 164n115, 282 (Cat. 235) Knidos, 289 (Cat. 255), 307n27, 319n53 knife, 73n256, 292 (Cat. 266) Knight, T., ix, 3n5, 22n53 Knossos, 99 (table) Koehler, C.G., xxxviii, 33n94 Kommos, Crete, 93, 99, 100 (table) Kos, 45, 72, 73n257, 293 (Cat. 270) Kourion, 98 (table), 99, 100, 181 Kourouniotes, K., xxxiii, 261 (Cat. 171) Krauskopf, I., xxxiii, 123n126, 141n1, 146, 157n86, 158n88, 161n97 Kraynak, L.H., xxxv, 3n3, 4n8, 9n17, 25n67, 31n79, 31n81, 40nn133–134, 40n136, 58n190, 59n196, 60nn198–199, 63n210, 64n214, 72nn250–251, 75n270, 96n47, 107n36, 127n138 Kreousa. See myth of Opheltes, parents, variant names of Kritios and Nesiotes, 163 Kron, U., xxxiii, 267 (Cat. 187–188) Kunze, E, xxxv, 141n3, 142, 143, 143nn12–13, 175n15 Kyrene and Kyrenaika, 85, 99 (table), 143n13, 178n31, 302 (CT 1) Kyrieleis, H., x, xxviii, xxxiii, xxxv, 174, 174nn5–8, 175–176, 175n10, 175nn12–14, 176n22, 177, 177nnn25–27 Kyzikos, 109n51 Laconia, 29, 30, 31, 33n94, 41, 57, 61n204, 85, 143n13, 195–196 (Cat. 31), 196 (Cat. 32–33), 222 (Cat. 87), 280–281 (Cat. 230), 285 (Cat. 243), 286 (Cat. 250) Laguna, G., xxxiii, 125n131 lamps, 31n79, 40nn135–136, 49, 73, 73n257, 209–211 (Cat. 54–60), 267–269 (Cat. 190–195)

361

lamp stand, 49n168, 270 (Cat. 196) Lang, M., xxxiii, 208 (Cat. 52) Langia Spring, 119, 127, 148n37, 335 (T 43), 344 (T 76) Laodokos. See under Seven against Thebes Lasimos, 149n45 Lawrence, P., xxv, xxviii, 186 (Cat. 8), 198 (Cat. 37), 200–202 (Cat. 40), 237 (Cat. 121) lead finds at Nemea, 49n169, 59n195, 64nn213–214, 73, 74, 74n263, 97, 274 (Cat. 212), 276 (Cat. 220), 286 (Cat. 248–249), 290–291 (Cat. 258– 261), 298. See also curse tablets Learchos, 114, 328 (T 23), 332–333 (T 33), 347 (T 87) Leguilloux, M., xxxiii, 98 (table) Leibethra, 154 Lemnos, 107, 109, 110n55, 110n59, 111, 114, 116n92, 120, 155, 324 (T 8), 329–330 (T 27), 331 (T 29), 335 (T 42), 336–337 (T 46), 342 (T 65), 344–345 (T 77–78), 347 (T 90) Lerna, House of Tiles, 174–175 Lesbos, 93, 99 (table), 306 (CT 2), 319n53 libations and drinking, 1, 29, 32, 40, 41, 42, 58, 66, 68, 78, 108, 116, 118, 122, 124, 139, 143n8, 153, 172, 182, 325 (T 10), 337–338 (T 49), 339 (T 55), 342 (T 67) Lilybaeum, 306n21 Linear B, 128n141 Linos, 121n116 Livrea, E., xxxiii, 131n154, 132n159, 137n184 Lloyd–Jones, H., xxxvii, 112n67, 131n155, 327–328 (T 18–22) Lokroi (Epizephyrian), 136n179 Lolos, A.C., xxxiii, 116nn90–91, 347 (T 87–90) Lolos, Y., xi London, British Museum, 144, 144n14, 145n22, 145 (fig.), 165n117, 165 (fig.) loom weight, 45, 266 (Cat. 185) López Jimeno, M., xxxiii, 319n48, 320n62 Louvre, 149, 150 (fig.), 170 Lovatt, H., xxxiii, 123n125 Luce, J.–M., xxxiii, 178n30 Lucius Verus, 164, 165 (fig.) lullaby, 102, 120 Lungu, V., xxxiii, 178n31 Lycurgus Painter, 147–149 Lykaon, 326 (T 16) Lykosoura, Sanctuary of Despoina, 69n234, 261 (Cat. 171) Lykourgos (father of Opheltes). See under myth of Opheltes

362

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Lykourgos (son of Pronax), 125, 128, 129, 142, 143, 143n9, 143n11, 335 (T 41) tomb of, 126–127, 139, 172, 341 (T 61) Macedonia, 60, 154n72, 155, 170, 302 (CT 1), 302n13, 306 (CT 2) Mac Isaac, J.D., xxxv, 71nn243–244, 75n267, 75n272 MacKinnon, M., x, xxxiv, 2, 41, 57, 92n30, 93n36, 95n46, 100n57, 180, 180nn46–47, 181 Maehler, H., xxxiv, 103n18, 105, 105nn23–24, 105n29, 109n53, 110n54, 110n60, 130n150, 130nn152–153, 131n154, 133n168, 134, 323– 324 (T 2–6) Major, C., x Malango, C., ix Mallwitz, A., xxxiv, 69n234, 175n13, 175n15, 177n23, 177nn25–26, 179 Mantzourani, E., xxvii, 7n14 Marastoni, A., 339–340 (T 56) Marbach, xxxiv, 129n148 Marchand, J., xi, xxxiv, 34n99, 59n196, 60nn198– 199, 72n250, 103n13, 103n15, 104n19, 107n39, 110n57, 114, 114n79, 114n85, 117n95, 122n121, 127n138, 128n142, 130n152, 131n156, 132, 133, 133n166, 133n168, 133n170, 134nn172–173, 138n188 Matrona, 317 Matthews, E., xxxiii, 220–222 (Cat. 86), 302nn12– 13, 306nn19–20, 316n32, 317n33 Matthews, V. J., xxxiv, 106n33 Mauzy, C., ix, x Mayser, E., xxxiv, 303n18, 306 (CT 2), 306n21, 307n26, 309n30 McDavid, A., x McDowell, R.H., xxxiv, 155n80 McEnroe, J., ix, 5n11 McGregor, M.F., xxxiv, 34n99 McLane, J., ix McPhee, I. xxxiv, 286–287 (Cat. 250) Medea, children of, 170n135 Megalopolis, 69n234, 178n31 Megara, 46 (fig.), 69n234, 149, 178n31, 306 (CT 2), 318n42 Megara Hyblaea, 256 (Cat. 160) Melanippos, 117n93 Melikertes–Palaimon. See under Isthmia Melissa, 145 mender, 42, 59n195, 241–242 (Cat. 133), 283 (Cat. 237) Méniel, P., xxxii, 98 (table)

Merkel, R., 333–334 (T 37) Merker, G.S., xxviii, 258 (Cat. 164), 295–296 (Cat. 271) Messene/Messenia, 46 (fig.), 85n22, 177n28, 178n31 Metapontum, 306 (CT 2), 306n21 Michiel, M., 3n2 Midea, 183 (Cat. 1) Miletos, 98 (table), 99 milk, 114, 122, 182 Miller, M.C., xxxiv, 144n18 Miller, Stella G., ix, xxxi, xxxiv, 4n7, 5nn10–11, 9n20, 25n67, 31n79, 31n81, 35n101, 35n103, 60nn198–199, 69n228, 69n231, 72n245, 74n261, 126n137 Miller, Stephen G., ix, x, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv, xxxv, 3, 3n3, 4nn6–9, 5nn10–11, 7n14, 9n17, 9n20, 10n24, 14nn38–39, 15n43, 21nn51–52, 25n63, 25n67, 30nn75–76, 31nn79–81, 32n82, 32n88, 35n101, 36nn105–107, 37nn111–113, 38n114, 38n116, 38n119, 38nn121–122, 39n129, 40nn133–134, 40n136, 42n145, 45n154, 45n157, 52n173, 54nn180–182, 58n190, 59n196, 60nn198–199, 61n203, 62n206, 63nn209–212, 64n214, 65n218, 66n221, 68n224, 69n228, 69n231, 69n233, 70n235, 70n237, 71n244, 72n245, 72nn249–251, 74n260, 75n266, 75nn268–272, 76nn273–275, 77n276, 84n21, 87n26, 94nn38–39, 96nn47–48, 97nn51–52, 107n36, 107n38, 108n44, 110n57, 112n67, 113n76, 117n94, 127n138, 130n151, 130n153, 136n179, 143n9, 153n68, 154n72, 176n22, 177n26, 178n37, 179, 191 (Cat. 20), 194 (Cat. 28), 195–196 (Cat. 31), 197 (Cat. 35), 199 (Cat. 38), 202 (Cat. 40), 206 (Cat. 49), 208 (Cat. 52), 213 (Cat. 67), 214 (Cat. 69, 71), 217 (Cat. 77), 218–219 (Cat. 80–82), 222 (Cat. 86), 224 (Cat. 91), 226 (Cat. 95), 227–228 (Cat. 97– 99), 229 (Cat. 101), 230 (Cat. 104), 231–232 (Cat. 106–107), 233 (Cat. 110), 235 (Cat. 114), 238 (Cat. 123), 243–244 (Cat. 137–138), 250– 251 (Cat. 151–152), 255–256 (Cat. 159–160), 258 (Cat. 164), 259 (Cat. 166), 261–263 (Cat. 171–176), 264 (Cat. 178), 276 (Cat. 221), 279 (Cat. 226), 285 (Cat. 243), 286 (Cat. 247), 286 (Cat. 250–251), 293 (Cat. 269), 296 (Cat. 271), 297n1, 298nn8–9, 300 (CT 1) miniature pottery at Nemea, 29n71, 31n79, 39n124, 42, 48, 49, 57, 127n139, 182 bowl, 29, 42, 43 (fig.), 44, 205 (Cat. 47), 244–245 (Cat. 140)

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

footed cup, 42, 223 (Cat. 89), 245–246 (Cat. 143–144) hydria, 127n139 kalathiskos, 29, 31, 42, 44, 204–205 (Cat. 46), 246–247 (Cat. 145–146) kantharos, 42, 43 (fig.), 193 (Cat. 25), 244 (Cat. 139), 248 (Cat. 149) kothon, 42n147, 249 (Cat. 150) kotyle, 29, 31, 34, 42, 202–204 (Cat. 42–45), 213– 214 (Cat. 69–70), 214–215 (Cat. 72–74), 242–244 (Cat. 136–138) krateriskos, 29, 39, 42, 43 (fig.), 54n176, 205 (Cat. 48), 245 (Cat. 141–142) lekanis, 44 oinochoe, 44 phiale, 42, 44 plate, 42, 247–248 (Cat. 147) skyphos, 42 Moggi, M., xxxiv, 180n45 Monger, J., xxviii, 99 (table) Morgan, C., xxxii, xxxiv, 12n33, 176nn19–20 Morris, I., xxxv, 178nn29–30 Morton, J., xxxv, 84 Mosshammer, A.A., xxxv, 34n99 mound, 2, 3, 3n2, 105, 106, 112, 113, 114, 122, 123, 124, 126, 139, 149, 166, 172, 174–176, 177–178, 177n28, 178n29, 178n31, 327 (T 18), 338 (T 51), 339 (T 53), 341 (T 61). See also under Heroön of Opheltes Mount Apesas, 114, 119, 128n142, 340–341 (T 59), 341 (T 61) Mount Olympos, 154 Mummius, Lucius, 72n251 Musti, D., xxxv, 127n138, 341 (T 61) Mycenae, 183–184 (Cat. 1), 193 (Cat. 26), 220 (Cat. 84), 223 (Cat. 89), 238 (Cat. 125), 244 (Cat. 139), 247 (Cat. 146), 270 (Cat. 196), 325 (T 10) Mycenaean period at Nemea. See Bronze Age at Nemea Mylonas, G.E., xxxv, 183–184 (Cat. 1) Myrina, 114, 328 (T 23) Myrtilos, 154 myth of Opheltes. See also Archemoros; Seven against Thebes. See also under Nemea age of Opheltes, 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 119, 120, 125, 127, 128, 138, 146, 148–149, 153, 156, 159, 163, 167, 168, 169, 172, 323 (T 1), 324 (T 7–8), 325 (T 11, 13), 329 (T 27), 330– 331 (T 28), 333–334 (T 37), 334 (T 39), 335

363

(T 42), 336–338 (T 44–49), 338 (T 51), 339– 340 (T 56–57), 342-343 (T 67–68), 344–345 (T 76–79), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 88) aetiology of cult of Opheltes, 102, 103, 105, 106, 118, 120, 121, 139, 150, 153, 170, 172, 337 (T 47), 337–338 (T 49) aetiology of Nemean Games, 1, 2, 34, 77, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 150, 150n48, 151, 153n68, 154, 165, 166, 170, 172, 173, 178, 179, 180, 323 (T 2), 326 (T 15), 327 (T 17), 329–331 (T 26–29), 332 (T 31), 334 (T 39), 335 (T 42), 339 (T 55), 342–343 (T 66–71), 343 (T 73–74), 344 (T 76), 345 (T 79–80), 346 (T 83–84), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 88–90) aetiology of wild celery crown, 108n44, 117–118, 134, 134n171, 135, 136, 139, 140, 331–332 (T 30), 334 (T 39), 341 (T 62), 345 (T 79), 346 (T 84) blood of Opheltes, 134n171, 136 burial and funeral rites, 2, 36, 77, 105, 106, 109, 116, 118, 120, 121–122, 124, 125, 139, 150, 152n57, 153, 161, 172, 180, 326 (T 15), 331 (T 29), 335 (T 42), 337 (T 47), 337–338 (T 49–50), 338–339 (T 52), 345 (T 81), 347 (T 89) Euneos and Thoas (sons of Hypsipyle), 107n40, 108, 109, 110, 111n64, 116n89, 118, 123, 139, 141n1, 146, 149n46, 150n48, 152, 153, 329– 330 (T 27), 334 (T 40), 342 (T 65), 344–345 (T 78) Eurydike, 107, 108, 109, 116, 116n92, 118, 119, 121, 122, 125, 126, 139, 143n8, 149, 149n46, 150, 150n49, 152, 152n60, 153, 329–330 (T 27), 334–335 (T 40–42), 342 (T 65), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 90) fixed and variable elements, 2, 102, 111n64, 115, 116, 138–139, 141, 143, 162n103, 172 flowers, 104, 106, 108, 120, 323 (T 2), 325 (T 11), 336 (T 45) funeral games for Opheltes, 105, 109, 109n51, 111, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123–124, 124n129, 125, 125n133, 130, 132, 139, 150n48, 153n68, 172, 323 (T 2), 329–330 (T 27), 331 (T 29), 334 (T 38–39), 335 (T 42), 338 (T 50), 339 (T 53–55), 344–345 (T 77–78), 345 (T 81), 347 (T 88–89) hydria, 127n139, 146, 156, 157–158, 161n94, 170

364

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

myth of Opheltes (continued) Hypsipyle, 44, 76, 102, 107, 107n40, 108, 108n44, 109–110, 111, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 121n114, 122, 125, 125n133, 126, 127, 127n139, 128n144, 135, 139, 141n1, 144, 146, 147, 149n46, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 163, 164, 166, 166n121, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 254–255 (Cat. 159), 324 (T 7–8), 325 (T 10–11, 13), 329–330 (T 27), 330–331 (T 28–29), 333–334 (T 37), 334 (T 39–40), 335–336 (T 42–44), 338 (T 51), 341 (T 60), 342 (T 65), 344–345 (T 76–78), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 88), 347 (T 90) Lykourgos, 107, 113, 113n77, 116, 118, 119, 121, 122, 125, 126, 129, 139, 142, 143, 143n9, 143n11, 149n46, 152, 152nn60–61, 157, 162, 163, 325 (T 10), 329–330 (T 27), 331 (T 29), 335 (T 41–42), 336 (T 44), 344 (T 76–77), 347 (T 88), 347 (T 90–91) need for water, 102, 108, 115, 116, 118, 125, 139, 143n8, 157, 172, 325 (T 10), 329 (T 27), 330–331 (T 28–29), 334 (T 39), 335 (T 42), 344–345 (T 76–78), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 90) oracle, 117, 118, 334 (T 39), 344 (T 77) origin of, 101, 103–104, 113, 139 parents, variant names of, 110, 112, 113–114, 116, 116nn89–90, 118, 125, 126, 139, 173, 327 (T 18), 330–331 (T 28), 334–335 (T 39–41), 346–347 (T 86–87) refoundation of Nemean Games, 131, 132, 134, 332 (T 32) renaming as Archemoros, 77, 102–103, 105, 109, 111n64, 115, 116, 121, 124, 125, 139, 148, 150, 153, 161, 170, 172, 323 (T 2), 325–326 (T 14), 329 (T 26), 330–331 (T 28), 332 (T 31), 335 (T 42), 337–338 (T 49), 344 (T 76), 346–347 (T 86–87) snake, 1, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 135, 138, 139, 144, 146, 147, 149, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 163, 166, 167, 168, 168n130, 170 172, 321, 323 (T 2), 325 (T 12), 325–326 (T 14), 329 (T 27), 330–331 (T 28–29), 333–334 (T 37), 334 (T 39), 335 (T 42), 336–337 (T 46), 337–338 (T 49), 338 (T 51), 341 (T 61), 342 (T 65), 344 (T 76–77), 345 (T 79), 346 (T 84), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 88–90) spring, 102, 108, 116, 118, 119, 120, 127, 135, 139, 147, 148n37, 156, 161n94, 162n103, 164, 165,

166, 172, 325 (T 12), 329 (T 27), 334 (T 39), 335 (T 42–43), 341 (T 61), 344 (T 76–77), 347 (T 90) Mytilene, 93, 99 (table), 319n53 Nadel, M., x Nagy, G., xxxv, 105n25, 105n27, 105n29, 178, 179nn39–40 nail/stud/tack, 49n169, 59n195, 73n256, 271 (Cat. 202), 274–275 (Cat. 214–216) naiskos, 149n45, 151n51, 152, 152n59, 153 Naples, Museo Nazionale, 148n38, 149n46, 151n52, 152, 156n81, 156 (fig.), 162n98 Nauck, A., 108n44 Nauplion, Fourth Ephoreia of Antiquities in, x nekydaimon, 320 needle/pin, 9n21, 40n135, 45n157, 49n169, 73n256, 184 (Cat. 3), 212 (Cat. 64–65), 272 (Cat. 203–204), 275 (Cat. 217), 276 (Cat. 219), 291 (Cat. 263) Neil, R.A., 105 Nemea, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7n14, 33, 59, 72n249, 74, 75, 82, 84, 94, 101, 102, 107n39, 113, 122n121, 125, 126, 127, 128n142, 130, 130n149, 132, 134, 135, 135n176, 137, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 182, 323 (T 2), 324 (T 6), 327 (T 16–18), 330–331 (T 28), 331–332 (T 30), 337–338 (T 49), 339– 340 (T 56), 341 (T 60–62), 342 (T 67). See also Nemean Games; Sanctuary of Zeus donors, xi etymology, 94n39, 96, 110n60, 330–331 (T 28) in myth, 1, 107, 108, 109, 111, 114, 115, 119, 121n112, 121n114, 122, 125, 130n149, 136, 142n6, 143, 143n7, 143n9, 143n11, 147, 148n37, 152n60, 158, 166, 324–325 (T 9–10), 326 (T 15), 329–330 (T 27), 331–332 (T 30), 333 (T 36), 334–336 (T 39–44), 336–337 (T 46), 337–338 (T 49), 338–339 (T 52), 345–346 (T 82–83), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 90) nymph, 110, 116, 127n139, 139, 148, 152, 153, 162n98, 170, 330–331 (T 28), 333 (T 35), 341 (T 61) Museum, x, 297n1 Nemea Center for Classical Archaeology, x Nemea Excavations Archives, x Nemean Games, 1, 2, 44, 74, 77, 78, 82, 94, 97, 101, 102, 103, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 113n76, 115, 116, 117n93, 118, 119, 122n121, 128, 129, 130, 131, 131n156, 132, 133, 134, 134nn173–175, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143n11, 153, 154n72, 155, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 182, 328–329

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

(T 24–25), 331 (T 29), 332 (T 32), 341 (T 61), 342–343 (T 67–68), 346 (T 86). See also under Argos; crown; Herakles; myth of Opheltes foundation date, xli, 34, 77, 103, 103n18, 141, 172, 176n19 judges, 117, 138, 140, 331 (T 29) Kleonai and, 59n196, 60n198, 110n57, 117, 117n95, 132–133, 133n166, 138, 166n125, 330–331 (T 28–29) modern revival, 134n175 victors, 44, 104–105, 106, 111, 111n66, 112, 113n76, 114, 118, 123, 124n129, 130, 133, 136, 138, 150n48, 173, 182, 220–222 (Cat. 86), 249–250 (Cat. 151), 324 (T 4), 324 (T 6), 327 (T 18), 328 (T 23–24), 331–332 (T 30), 332 (T 32), 334 (T 38–39), 335 (T 42), 345 (T 80), 345–346 (T 82), 347 (T 89–90) Nemea River, 1 Archaic–Classical course, 56n183, 58 Byzantine course, 26 Early Christian course, 9, 26, 27 (fig.), 29, 34, 50, 58, 65, 71n244, 75 Nemea Valley, 2, 8–9, 52, 59n196, 102, 107, 107n39, 108, 114, 118, 119, 128, 132, 133, 139, 154n72, 170 geomorphology, 7, 66 Nemea Valley Archaeological Project, 7nn13–14, 9n17, 30n74 Neolithic period at Nemea, 5, 7, 9n21, 11, 24, 50n170, 171 Nessos, 208 (Cat. 52) Nestor, 113 Newlands, C., xxxv, 119n103, 119n107, 121n114, 122n122, 124n129 New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 155, 164n111 Nicephorus, P. Egnatius, 157, 163, 169 Nikitakou, M., x Nobis, G., xxxv, 99 (table) nocturnal ritual, 49 North Pit Deposit, 31, 53 (fig.), 56–58, 78, 91n2, 172 burnt earth, adjacent patch of, 53 (fig.), 57 (fig.), 58 contents, 56–57, 186 (Cat. 7), 219 (Cat. 83), 278– 282 (Cat. 225–234) date, 57–58 foundation deposit, possible, 58 vases, intentional breakage of, 57 vases, placement of, 57 obsidian, 9n21, 49n169, 184–185 (Cat. 4–5)

365

Odysseus, 143n13 Ogden, D., xxxv, 127n138, 168n129, 169n133 Oikonomides, A.N., xxxv, 164n113 Oinomaos, 154, 170 Olbia, 320 Olympia, 171, 174–176, 178, 179 Altar of Zeus, 175–176, 177, 179 Altis, 175, 175n13, 176, 177n26, 179 Apsidal House V, 175 arrowheads, 265 (Cat. 183) Artemis, cult of, 98 (table), 99 Bronze Age remains, 174–175, 176n16 crown of victory, 341 (T 62), 345 (T 80) cult of Zeus, 175, 175n15 figurines, 175, 175n15 Games, 34n99, 111, 112n66, 115, 117n94, 118, 121, 128, 154, 170, 174, 178, 179, 327 (T 16), 332– 333 (T 33), 334 (T 40), 342 (T 66–67), 343 (T 69–73), 345 (T 80), 347 (T 87) Hippodameia, enclosure of, 69n234 Hippodrome, 179 Pelops and Pelopion, x, 2, 40n134, 69n234, 76–77, 85n22, 118, 121, 128, 149, 154, 170, 174–176, 177, 179, 182n61, 327 (T 16), 332–333 (T 33), 334 (T 40), 338 (T 50), 339 (T 55), 342 (T 67), 343 (T 73), 345 (T 80), 347 (T 87) Pillar of Oinomaos, 179 pottery, 286 (Cat. 250) schwarze Schicht, 175–176, 176n16 shield band, 141–142, 143, 143n13, 162, 169 spearheads, 206–207 (Cat. 50–51), 264–265 (Cat. 180–182) Stadium, 179, 207 (Cat. 51) statue fragments, 263 (Cat. 176) Table of Kolotes, 153 Temple of Zeus, 177n25 Olympic victor list, 34n99 Olynthos, 212 (Cat. 63), 242 (Cat. 135), 262 (Cat. 172), 273 (Cat. 208), 273 (Cat. 210), 275 (Cat. 218), 282 (Cat. 236), 284 (Cat. 242) Opheltes (hero). See Archemoros; Heroön of Opheltes; myth of Opheltes; representation of Opheltes in art Opheltes (personal name), 128 Opheltion (mountain), 128, 340–341 (T 59) Orgame, 178n31 Ormerod, H.A., 126n135 Orestes, 147n35, 178n31 Orpheus, 145, 146 Osanna, M., xxxiv, 180n45

366

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Pache, C., xi, xxxv, 101, 103n11, 104, 105nn23–25, 105n27, 105n29, 106n31, 108n46, 109n49, 111n64, 114n79, 114n81, 117n97, 118, 119n102, 120n109, 120n111, 121n113, 121nn115–116, 122n120, 122n122, 124, 125n132, 126n135, 126n137, 130n153, 131n154, 131n156, 132, 134n172, 141, 141n3, 144, 144nn16–17, 145–146, 147, 148nn38–39, 149, 149n46, 151n50, 153, 153n62, 156n83, 163nn107–108, 164, 164n110, 164n112, 165, 165nn118–119, 167, 167nn126– 127, 169, 170, 179n39 Page, D.L., 104, 323 (T 1) Paestum, 98 (table), 99 (table), 146, 147, 159 paidagogos, 152, 153, 153n66 Palladion, 158n89 Palaimonion. See under Isthmia palaistra, ix, 4n6 Pallene (Achaia), 128 Palmer, H., xxviii, 29n73, 33, 34, 186–191 (Cat. 7–21), 192 (Cat. 23–24), 197 (Cat. 34), 198 (Cat. 37), 203 (Cat. 42), 204 (Cat. 45), 205 (Cat. 48), 213–215 (Cat. 69–72), 224 (Cat. 92), 227 (Cat. 98), 230 (Cat. 103), 243 (Cat. 136), 244 (Cat. 140), 278 (Cat. 225), 280 (Cat. 228) Panhellenic. See also under Sanctuary of Zeus epic, 103, 104, 182 festival, 1, 34, 60, 101, 103, 115, 121, 121n116, 124, 130n152, 141, 173, 178, 178n37, 179, 342 (T 67) sanctuary, 2, 45, 171, 173, 174, 177, 179 Panticapaeum, 303 (CT 1) Papachatzis, N.D., xxxv, 126n135, 127n138 Papalexopoulos, T.D., v Papoutses, V., x papyri, magical, 319, 319n51, 320 Pariente, A., xxix, xxxvi, 97 (table), 103n14, 176n21, 178n31 Parker, J., ix Parker, R., 181n51 Parkes, R., xxxvi, 118n101, 119n103, 119n105, 120n108 parsley, 134n175 Parsons, P.J., xxxvi, xxxvii, 111n66, 112n67, 114n80, 131, 131nn154–155, 132, 132n159, 132n161, 133, 327–328 (T 18–22) Parthenopaios. See under Seven against Thebes Patey, K., ix Patroklos, 113, 113n74, 117n94, 122, 128, 178, 178n37, 327 (T 16) Payne, S., xxxvi, 81

Pelagatti, P., xxxvi, 286 (Cat. 250) Pelias, 327 (T 16) Pelops and Pelopion. See under Olympia Pemberton, E.G., xxviii, 29n73, 204–205 (Cat. 46), 205 (Cat. 48), 215 (Cat. 72), 218 (Cat. 79–80), 224 (Cat. 90–91), 229 (Cat. 102), 233 (Cat. 111), 238 (Cat. 122), 245 (Cat. 141), 247 (Cat. 145), 248 (Cat. 148), 251 (Cat. 153), 277 (Cat. 223) peribolos (enclosure), 3. See also Heroön, Early Hellenistic enclosure wall and foundation course periodos, 176n19, 178, 342 (T 67) Perlman, P., xxxvi, 60n198, 72n250 Perlzweig, J., xxv, 209 (Cat. 54–55), 210–211 (Cat. 58–60) Persephone/Kore, 93, 99, 99 (table), 108n41, 319n53, 320. See also under Corinth Perseus, 114, 138 Peters, J., xxxvi, 98 (table) Pfeiffer, R., xxxvi, 114, 114n83, 131n155, 327–328 (T 22–23) Pfister, F., xxxvi, 101, 105n27, 113n74, 176n21, 178n33 Pheres, 125, 129, 335 (T 41) Phi Beta Kappa Northern California Association, xi Phlious, 107, 110n60, 119n106, 323 (T 2), 324 (T 4), 325 (T 10) Automedon, 104–105, 130 coins, 45, 46 (fig.), 68, 71n244 pottery, 29, 30n74, 42, 193 (Cat. 26), 194–195 (Cat. 28–30), 223 (Cat. 89), 224 (Cat. 91), 244 (Cat. 139), 245 (Cat. 141), 245–247 (Cat. 143–145) she–goat, bronze, 87 Phokis, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161, 338 (T 50). See also Delphi Piérart, M., xxxvi, 72n250, 103n15 Pikoulas, G.A., xxxvi, 73n251 pin. See needle/pin Pipili, M., xxxvi, 143n13 Platt, R, xxxvi, 83n18 Plautilla, 46n158, 165, 166 (fig.) Pola, 317 (CT 4) Pollius Felix, 125 Polyeidos, 145 polyhedron, 45, 263 (Cat. 177) Polyneikes. See under Seven against Thebes Pompeii, Casa dei Disoscuri, 156 (fig.), 157, 168 Poseidon, 98 (table), 99, 174, 181, 324 (T 4), 332–333 (T 33), 343 (T 72), 343 (T 74) post holes, 9–10, 12, 13

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

pottery shapes at Nemea. See also miniature pottery at Nemea alabastron, 41, 42, 228–229 (Cat. 101) amphora, 71n244, 73, 73n253, 73n257, 288–289 (Cat. 254–255), 293 (Cat. 270) aryballos, 29n71, 41, 42, 229–231 (Cat. 101–106) bowl, 41, 54n176, 59n195, 73n253, 73n257, 232– 233 (Cat. 108–110), 233–234 (Cat. 112), 237 (Cat. 121), 239 (Cat. 126), 277 (Cat. 223) chytra, 39, 68, 237–238 (Cat. 122–123) cup–skyphos, 44, 220–222 (Cat. 86) dinos, 41, 71, 227–228 (Cat. 99) griddle, 8, 183 (Cat. 1) jug, 41, 227 (Cat. 98), 228 (Cat. 100) kantharos, 29, 29n71, 30, 30n75, 31, 41, 42, 57, 193–194 (Cat. 25–27), 219 (Cat. 82–83), 238–239 (Cat. 124–125), 281 (Cat. 231) kotyle, xliii, 29, 29n71, 29n73, 30, 31, 33–34, 34n98, 41, 42, 57, 185–192 (Cat. 7–24), 279– 280 (Cat. 228–229) krater, 9, 29, 29n71, 30, 31, 31n80, 33, 39, 41, 42, 67, 200–202 (Cat. 40–41), 222–224 (Cat. 88–91), 286–287 (Cat. 250) kylix, 5n12, 29, 34, 196–197 (Cat. 34) lekane, 41, 73n256, 292 (Cat. 267) lekanis, 31n79, 41, 234 (Cat. 113) lekythos, 41, 231–232 (Cat. 107) lid, 41, 226 (Cat. 95), 235–236 (Cat. 117), 238 (Cat. 123) lopas, 41n142, 239 (Cat. 127) mortar, 41n142, 54n176, 59n195, 239 (Cat. 126), 277 (Cat. 223) mug, 29, 30, 31, 33n94, 41, 42, 61n204, 195–196 (Cat. 31–33), 222 (Cat. 87), 285 (Cat. 243) oinochoe, 29, 29n71, 30, 30 (fig.), 30n77, 31, 31n79, 39, 41, 76n273, 197–200 (Cat. 35–39), 224–227 (Cat. 92–97) olpe, 56–57, 279 (Cat. 227) one–handler, 31n79, 41, 63n209, 71, 218 (Cat. 79–81) perirrhanterion, 38, 44, 49, 249–253 (Cat. 151–157) plate, 41n141, 236–237 (Cat. 118–120) pyxis, 41, 235–236 (Cat. 116–117) saltcellar, 41, 64n216, 234–235 (Cat. 114–115) saucer, 40, 41, 71, 233 (Cat. 110–111) skyphos, 13n37, 29n73, 31, 41, 42, 56, 71, 185 (Cat. 6), 214 (Cat. 71), 216–217 (Cat. 75– 78), 278 (Cat. 225)

367

stemless cup, 41, 57, 220 (Cat. 84–85), 280–281 (Cat. 230) stemmed cup, 42 storage jar, 41, 228 (Cat. 100) two–handled cup, 29, 30, 30 (fig.), 31, 76n273, 194–195 (Cat. 28–30) unguentarium, 73n253 Poulopoulos, N., x, 4n9 Pouqueville, F.C.H.L., xxxvi, 3n2 Powell, J.U., 333 (T 35) Preisendanz, K., 319n51, 320n62 Pronax, 117, 128–129, 134, 142, 142n6, 143, 143n11, 330–331 (T 28), 335 (T 41), 341–342 (T 63) Prost, F., xxxvi, 97 (table) prothesis, 152, 153, 170 Protogeometric period. See Early Iron Age at Nemea protome, 76n274 psolion, 302–303 (CT 1), 308–309 (CT 3), 318 Ptolemaia, 113n76 Ptolemy I, 46 (fig.) Ptolemy III Euergetes, 111, 111n66 Pülhorn, W., xxxvi, 103n18, 110n54, 126n137, 141n1, 144n14, 144n19, 146n31, 147n35, 148n38, 149n45, 151n52, 152n58, 153n62, 153n64, 155n79, 156n81, 156nn83–84, 157nn86–87, 158n88, 158nn90–91, 163n105, 163n107 Pullen, D.J., xxxv, xxxvi, 7n14, 9n17, 13n36 Punzi, Q., 111n64 Pylos, 99, 100 (table) Pyrrhos, 46 (fig.), 72 Pythian Games. See under Delphi Python (vase painter), 146–147, 156, 169 Radt, S., xxxviii, 110nn61–62, 111nn63–64 Rambach, J., x, xxxvi, 174–175, 174nn6–8, 175nn9–11 Raubitschek, I.K., xxxii, 45n153, 208–209 (Cat. 53), 264 (Cat. 178), 276 (Cat. 221) Rawson Deposit, 127n139, 186 (Cat. 7–8), 203 (Cat. 44), 205 (Cat. 48), 214 (Cat. 69), 214–215 (Cat. 71–72), 215–216 (Cat. 74–75), 243 (Cat. 136), 244–245 (Cat. 140–141), 248 (Cat. 147– 148), 249 (Cat. 150), 280 (Cat. 228) red–figure pottery, 42, 146–154, 217 (Cat. 78) Reese, D.S., xxx, xxxvi, 93n34, 97 (table), 98–99 (table), 100 (table), 180n48, 182n60 representation of Opheltes in art artistic model for, 156–157, 158, 162, 169, 173 ceramic relief, 154–155, 168 coins, 163–166 contorniates, 166–167, 168, 169, 173

368

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

representation of Opheltes in art (continued) figurines, ii, 32n88, 44, 76, 155, 167–168, 169, 173, 183, 254–256 (Cat. 159–160), 293–296 (Cat. 271) gemstone, 155, 164n111, 168 relief sculpture, 157–163, 166, 168, 169, 169n133, 170 seal impression, 155n80 vase painting, 146–154, 156, 156n84, 158, 161, 162, 162n98, 169, 170, 172 wall painting, 156–157, 158, 162, 168, 169 Rheneia, 267 (Cat. 187–188) Rhodes, 208 (Cat. 52), 256 (Cat. 160), 302 (CT 1), 328 (T 24) Agathokles, 288 (Cat. 254) Kleonymos, stele of, 112, 173, 328 (T 24) pottery from, 71n244, 288 (Cat. 254) Rhoussos, T., xxxvi, 106n34, 107n38, 107n40, 108n41, 109n50, 109n53, 110n58, 111n63, 117n98 Richlin, A., xxxvi, 318 Richter, G.M.A., xxxvi, 155 Rife, J., xi, xxx, 309n31, 318n41 ring. See hoop. See also under jewelry Risser, M.K., xxviii, 29n73, 34n96, 34n98, 186 (Cat. 7), 187 (Cat. 9), 192 (Cat. 22–23), 203 (Cat. 42), 203–204 (Cat. 44–45), 205 (Cat. 48), 215–216 (Cat. 73–75), 235 (Cat. 117), 242–243 (Cat. 136–137), 248 (Cat. 147–148) road. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Robert, C., 109n53 Robinson, D.M., xxxv, 212 (Cat. 63), 242 (Cat. 135), 262 (Cat. 172), 273 (Cat. 208), 273 (Cat. 210), 275 (Cat. 218), 282 (Cat. 236), 284 (Cat. 242) rod/spit, 49n169, 57, 128n141, 272 (Cat. 205), 282 (Cat. 234) Roebuck, C., xxviii, 208 (Cat. 52) Rohde, E., xxxvi, 101, 105nn28–29, 134n174, 154, 174n2, 176n21 Roller, L.E., xxxvi, 105n26, 113n74, 178, 178nn33–37 Roman period at Nemea, xlii, 45nn157–158, 71n244, 73, 73n251, 73n257, 80, 91 (table), 113n76 Rome, Palazzo Spada, 158, 163, 166, 169 Rose, H.J., 128, 334 (T 39–40) Rose, V., 111, 326–327 (T 16) Rotroff, S.I., xxv, xxxvii, 154, 154nn73–75, 181, 233 (Cat. 109), 242 (Cat. 133), 283 (Cat. 237) Rouse, W.H.D., xxxvii, 128nn143–144 Rudolph, W., xxxvii, 270 (Cat. 196) Ruggiero, F., 342 (T 64) Runnels, C.N., xxxvii, 270–271 (Cat. 197–200) Ruscillo, D., xxxvii, 99 (table)

Russell, D.A., 343 (T 69) Ruvo, 147, 148 (fig.), 151 sacrifice, animal, 32n86, 79–100, 119, 122, 123, 131, 180–182, 325 (T 10), 341 (T 61), 345–346 (T 82). See also faunal remains age of animal, 94, 95, 96, 97 (table), 98–99 (table), 180n46 altar, 79, 82, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98–99 (table), 99, 181, 182 black color, 123, 181 blood, 95, 136 burning and effect on bone, 79, 80, 81–84, 85, 88, 93, 95, 96, 97, 97 (table), 98–99 (table), 99, 100 (table), 181 cattle, 41, 79, 80, 85, 85 (table), 86 (table), 87 (table), 90–91 (table), 94, 96, 97, 97 (table), 98–99 (table), 99, 100 (table), 122, 123, 180, 182, 324 (T 4) choice of sacrifice, in relation to recipient, 79, 85, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99 cooking and feasting, 12, 32n86, 39, 41, 49, 58, 79, 89, 95, 97, 98–99 (table), 99, 182 fat, 84, 88, 95, 100, 181 head/skull/cranium, 41, 82, 83 (table), 84, 85, 86 (table), 87 (table), 88, 89, 90–91 (table), 92 (fig.), 92 (table), 95, 96, 98 (table), 100 (table), 180, 181–182 hide, 88–89, 93, 95 holocaust (holókausta), 94, 95, 96, 97, 180, 181, 182 implements used, 49, 94, 95, 97, 100 (table) limbs/long bones/thighs, 41, 82–83, 83 (table), 84, 86 (table), 87 (table), 88, 89, 90–91 (table), 92, 92 (table), 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 97 (table), 98 (table), 99, 100, 100 (table), 180, 181 meat, 84, 85, 88, 89, 94, 95, 96, 97, 181, 182 moirocaust, 96, 181 omentum, 84, 95n43 other animals, 98–99 (table) pig, 41, 79, 80, 85 (table), 86 (table), 87 (table), 90–91 (table), 94, 96, 97 (table), 98–99 (table), 99, 100, 100 (table), 180 remains from Heroön of Opheltes, 1, 2, 32, 36, 40, 41, 49, 79–96, 100, 180, 181 remains from other sites, 12, 93, 96–100, 181 ribs/vertebrae, 82, 89, 92, 92 (fig.), 92 (table), 93, 93n36, 95, 96, 98 (table), 180 sex of animal, 85, 95, 180n46, 181 sheep/goat, 41, 79, 80n10, 84, 85, 85 (table), 87, 87 (table), 88, 89, 90–91 (table), 93n36, 94, 95, 96, 97, 97 (table), 98–99 (table), 99, 100, 100 (table), 122, 123, 180, 181, 263 (Cat. 176), 345–346 (T 82)

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

side preference (left/right), 86 (table), 87 (table), 88, 90–91 (table), 95, 98 (table), 99, 100 (table), 180, 181 slaughter and butchering, 88, 94–95, 100 (table) tail/caudal vertebrae/sacrum, 89, 93, 93n36, 95, 96, 98 (table), 99, 100 (table) thysia, 93, 96, 99, 181 Sailor, D., x, 4n9, 149n44 Saint Petersburg, Hermitage Museum, 147n35, 148 (fig.), 150, 153n64, 156n82, 162n98, 165, 170 Samos, 98 (table), 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2) Sanctuary of Zeus, 1, 2, 4, 4(fig.), 6(fig), 7(fig), 13, 25n67, 40n136, 73n251, 107, 110n57, 111n64, 113, 117n95, 119n106, 126, 127, 127n139, 130, 134n172, 139, 167, 169, 170, 182, 183, 297. See also Adrasteia Spring; embankment; Heroön of Opheltes; Nemea; North Pit Deposit; Rawson Deposit Altar of Zeus (Long Altar), 9n17, 9n20, 13n36, 75, 93n36, 96, 97 Apodyterion, 60n199, 75n268 Basilica, 3, 75 Bath, 60n199, 64, 72n250, 127 chronological phases, xlii, 59–60, 72, 78 destruction/violence, xlii, 45, 59, 60, 63n209, 73, 74, 74n260, 110, 110n57, 173 disuse/abandonment, xlii, 59–60, 72, 110, 113n76, 170, 173 Early Stadium, 2, 14, 54, 58n190, 59, 63, 64, 74, 77, 139, 172, 179 Early Hellenistic Stadium, 9n20, 25n67, 60n199, 62, 63, 64, 71n243, 72n250, 75n268, 127, 132, 177n26, 298n9 grove of cypress trees, 40, 40n134, 107n36, 126, 139, 341 (T 61) Hippodrome, 2, 14, 54, 56, 77, 112, 172, 179 Houses, 72n250 Lykourgos, tomb of, 126–127, 139, 172, 341 (T 61) Oikoi, 75, 95n43 Panhellenic character, 1, 2, 34, 45, 60, 103, 171, 174 rebuilding, 60, 64, 71, 72, 170, 173 reservoir, 63, 73n251 road, 25, 26 (fig.), 70, 72n250 Sacred Square, 60n199, 63 Sacred Way, 25n67 starting–line blocks, Early Hellenistic, 50 (fig.), 62, 74 Temple of Zeus, 1, 3, 4n8, 5, 9n17, 9n20, 13n36, 40, 40n134, 44n151, 58n190, 59, 60, 61, 61 (fig.), 63n209, 74n260, 75, 77, 93, 107n36, 107n38, 121, 126, 130n151, 168, 285–286 (Cat. 247), 341 (T 61)

369

Xenon, 3, 25, 40n136, 64n214, 72n250, 95n43 Sardinia, 180 Scanlon, T.F., xxxvii, 174n1 Schachter, A., xxxvii, 180n45 Scheer, E., 347 (T 91) Schefold, K., xxxvii, 142n5 Schiffler, B., xxxvii, 208 (Cat. 52) Schliemann, H., xxxvii, 184 (Cat. 1) Schmaltz, B., xxxiii, 256 (Cat. 160), 295 (Cat. 271) Schmidt, E., xi Schmidt, M., 346 (T 85) Schoeninger, M., xxxvii, 82n16 Scullion, S., xxxvii, 181, 181n51 Scythia Minor, 306 (CT 2) Séchan, L., xxxvii, 108n45, 110n54, 110n58, 110n62, 111nn63–64, 148nn36–37, 149, 149n44, 149n46, 150–151, 150n47, 150n49, 152nn55–58, 152n61, 153–154, 153n62, 154n72 Sedaghat, M., x Seleucia on the Tigris, 155n80 Selinous, 319, 319n53 Septimius Severus, 164, 165 (fig.), 166, 167 (fig.) Seven against Thebes, 1, 2, 102, 103, 104, 104n20, 105, 105n29, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 111n64, 115, 116, 117n93, 117n96, 118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134n173, 139, 141n1, 142, 143n8, 143n11, 143n13, 144, 146, 147, 150n49, 152n57, 153, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 169, 170, 172, 323 (T 2), 324 (T 4), 325–326 (T 14), 327 (T 16–17), 329–331 (T 26–29), 332 (T 31–32), 334 (T 39–40), 335 (T 42), 336 (T 44), 336–337 (T 46), 337–338 (T 49), 339 (T 55), 341–342 (T 63), 344 (T 77– 78), 345–346 (T 82), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 89– 90). See also under hero cult Adrastos, 103, 105, 106, 111, 114, 117, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 142, 143nn11–13, 149n46, 161, 323 (T 2), 324 (T 5–6), 325– 326 (T 14), 327 (T 17), 330–331 (T 28), 332 (T 31–32), 334 (T 38–39), 335 (T 41–42), 336 (T 44), 339 (T 53, 55), 341 (T 61), 344– 345 (T 78), 346 (T 86) Amphiaraos, 77, 102, 105, 107, 108, 108n45, 109, 110, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 124n129, 125, 126, 129, 134, 139, 141n1, 142, 143, 143n11, 143n13, 147–148, 149, 149n46, 150, 152, 153, 157, 161, 162, 163, 164n112, 165, 169, 170, 172, 323 (T 2), 325–326 (T 14), 329–331 (T 27–28), 334 (T 38), 335 (T 41–42), 340 (T 57), 346–347 (T 86–87)

370

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Seven against Thebes (continued) Arion, 106, 114, 115n86, 123, 124, 161, 334 (T 38) Eteoklos, 123, 335 (T 42) Hippomedon, 121, 123, 148, 161, 162 Kapaneus, 121, 123, 148, 152, 154n72, 161, 162n103, 334 (T 38) Laodokos, 123, 335 (T 42) Parthenopaios, 123, 143n13, 152, 161, 162, 335 (T 41–42) Polyneikes, 105, 115, 123, 124, 143n11, 143n13, 161, 323 (T 2), 331 (T 29), 335 (T 42), 338– 339 (T 52), 346 (T 86) Tydeus, 123, 142, 143, 143n11, 143n13, 161, 335 (T 42) Shear, I. M., xxxvii, 184 (Cat. 1) Sheehan, E., x sheep, 107, 325 (T 10). See also under sacrifice, animal sheet, bronze, 73n256 Shelton, K.S., x, xxxvii, 9n17, 9n20, 103n17, 104n19 Shipman, P., xxxvii, 82n16 Sicily, 136, 261 (Cat. 171), 306 (CT 2), 307n29 sickle, 49, 267 (Cat. 187–188) Sideris, A., x Siebert, G., xxxi, 261 (Cat. 171) Sikyon, 45, 46 (fig.), 48n161, 72n249, 72n251, 73n254, 74, 74n263, 107, 129–130, 173, 302 (CT 1) Silver, I.A., xxxvii, 81 Simon, C., ix, 3n5, 22n53, 67 Simon, E., xxxvii, 19n35, 101, 110nn54–55, 129n148, 134n173, 141, 142–143, 143n13, 148, 148n36, 148n38, 149, 152n58, 153, 153n62, 156, 156nn83–84, 157nn86–87, 158, 158n90, 159n93, 161, 161nn94–95, 162–163, 169, 169n133 Sinn, U., xxxvii, 29n72 Sisyphos, 327 (T 16), 332–333 (T 33), 343 (T 74) Skleri, A., ix, x slab, stone cover, 68, 287 (Cat. 251) Small, J.P., xxxvii, 152n60, 153n66 Smith, H.R.W, xxxvii, 76n274 Smith, M.R., ix Smolenaars, J.J.L., xxxvii, 124n130 Smyth, H.W., 306 (CT 2) Snell, B., 324 (T 4–6) Snodgrass, A.M., xxxviii, 184 (Cat. 2) Snyder, L., xxvii, 99 (table) Soerink, J., xxxviii, 118n101 Sokolowski, F., xxxviii, 88n28 Sophilos, 178n37 Sorrentino, C., xxxviii, 99 (table)

Sosibios, 114, 115, 328 (T 23) Sotades Painter, 144–146, 168, 169 South Italy, 136n179, 261 (Cat. 171) Sparkes, B.A., xxv, 29n73, 186 (Cat. 8), 218 (Cat. 81), 223 (Cat. 88), 232 (Cat. 107–108), 235 (Cat. 114–115), 236–237 (Cat. 119–120), 239 (Cat. 127), 249 (Cat. 150) Sparta. See Laconia spear butt, 45n155, 266 (Cat. 184) spearhead, 32, 45, 206–207 (Cat. 50–51), 264–265 (Cat. 180–182) spike, 74n263 spindle whorl, 45, 266–267 (Cat. 186) Spiro, F., 341 (T 62) stadium. See under Isthmia; Olympia; Sanctuary of Zeus; Thebes Stählin, O., 346 (T 86) Stanzel, M., xxxviii, 98 (table) starting–line blocks. See under Sanctuary of Zeus statue fragment, 44, 263 (Cat. 176) Stehle, E., xi Stewart, A.F., xi, 107n38, 147n33 Stibbe, C.M., xxxvi, xxxviii, 196 (Cat. 31–32), 280– 281 (Cat. 230), 286 (Cat. 250) Stillwell, A.N., xxviii, 208 (Cat. 52), 249 (Cat. 150), 258 (Cat. 165) Stocker, S., xxxii, 100 (table) stone base, 44n148, 254 (Cat. 158) Strasser, T. F., xxvii, 7n14 strigil, 44, 261–262 (Cat. 172) Stroud, R.S., xi, xxviii, 306n22, 312 (CT 4), 314 (CT 4), 318n42 Stucchi, S., xxxviii, 178n31 Studer, J., xxxviii, 98 (table) stylus, 49n169, 73n256, 74n263, 276 (Cat. 221) Sutton, R.F., Jr., 30n74 Sweeney, R.D., 343–345 (T 74–81) Swoboda, A., 333 (T 36) sword, 9, 184 (Cat. 2) Syracuse, 45, 48n159, 99 (table) Szafranski, T., x, 4n9 Talalay, L.E., xxvii, 7n14 Talaos, 125, 128, 129, 323 (T 2), 330–331 (T 28), 335 (T 41) Talcott, L., xxv, 29n73, 186 (Cat. 8), 218 (Cat. 81), 223 (Cat. 88), 232 (Cat. 107–108), 235 (Cat. 114–115), 236–237 (Cat. 119–120), 239 (Cat. 127), 249 (Cat. 150) Tamassos, 99 (table) Tauris, 306 (CT 2)

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Taylor, C., xxix, 297n3 Tegea, 45n158, 68, 98 (table) Temple of Zeus at Nemea. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Tenos, 98 (table) Thasos, 12, 97, 97 (table), 306 (CT 2), 317 (CT 4) Thebaid (Archaic epic), 103, 110, 113, 118n101, 142, 162 Thebes, 161, 335 (T 41), 337–338 (T 49–50), 338–339 (T 52), 339 (T 55), 343 (T 71, 73), 344 (T 77), 347 (T 87). See also Seven against Thebes coins, 46 (fig.), 48n159, 48n161 hippodrome and stadium, 179–180 Iolaia, 136n179 Iolaos, gymnasion and hero shrine of, 179, 180 Kabeirion, 100 (table), 256 (Cat. 160), 295 (Cat. 271) Pindar, grave of, 180 Theodoros, 317 Thera, 302 (CT 1) Thespians, 180 Thessaly, 125, 125n133, 129, 139, 302 (CT 1), 306 (CT 2), 335 (T 41) Thilo, G., 345–346 (T 82–84) Thomas, P., xxviii, 9n17, 13n36 Thompson, H.A., xxxviii, 292 (Cat. 267) Thrace, 302 (CT 1), 302n13, 306 (CT 2), 344 (T 77) thrinkos, 69, 76, 78, 177, 341 (T 61) tile. See architectural terracotta Timoleon, 136, 340 (T 58) Tiryns, 46 (fig.), 184 (Cat. 1) Tithoria, 85 Tocco Sciarelli, xxxviii, 99 (table) Torelli, M., xxxv, 127n138 Touchais, G., xxxvi, 72n250, 103n15 Trendall, A.D., xxxvii, xxxviii, 107n38, 147, 147n35, 148nn36–37, 149n45, 150n49, 151n52, 152, 152nn53–57, 152nn59–60, 153, 153nn62–63, 154n72, 169 Treu, U., 346 (T 86) Troy, 327 (T 16), 335 (T 41) Tsiknakis, K.G., xxxviii, 3n2 Tsoungiza Hill, 7n14, 8, 9n17, 119n106 tumulus. See mound Tydeus. See under Seven against Thebes Tydeus Group, 201–201 (Cat. 40) Tylecote, R.F., xxxviii, 83n17 University of California at Berkeley, ix, x, xi, 3 University of Maryland, xi

371

University of Winnipeg, x Vakrinakis, A., x Valeria Quadratilla, 307 (CT 2) Vandiver, P.B., xxxviii, 33n94 Van Straten, F.T., xxxviii, 84, 89n29, 93, 95nn43–44, 97n50, 99, 100n58, 182, 182nn58–59 vegetation gods, 101 vendors. See commerce Vermeule, E., xxxviii, 103n18, 128n141 Versnel, H.S., xxxviii, 300 (CT 1), 302n11, 307n27, 317–318, 319, 319n49 Vessey, D., xxxviii, 106n33, 118n101, 119, 120n108, 120n110, 121, 121n115, 122, 122nn118–120, 123, 123nn124–125, 123n127, 124n129, 125n133 Vierneisel–Schlörb, B., xxxiii, 256 (Cat. 160), 295 (Cat. 271) Vila, E., xxxviii, 98 (table), 100 (table) Villari, P., xxxviii, 99 (table) Vinogradov, Y.G., xxxix, 320n59 virgin soil, 7, 24, 50 Vitruvius Felix, 307 (CT 2) votive dump, 39, 39n129, 44n151, 48 votive offering, 1, 19, 25, 26, 30, 30n74, 31, 32, 32n87, 33, 38, 40, 41, 42–49, 70, 78, 80, 89, 127n139, 168, 169, 173, 175, 175n15, 182, 194– 195 (Cat. 29–30), 205 (Cat. 46), 208 (Cat. 52), 246 (Cat. 143–144), 261 (Cat. 171), 298 Vrachati, ix Wace, A.J.B., xxxix, 158nn88–89 Walberg, G., xxxix, 183 (Cat. 1) water channel. See under embankment Weber, T., xxxix, 278–279 (Cat. 226) Webster, T.B.L., xxxviii, 107n38, 148nn36–37, 152, 152nn55–57, 152nn59–60, 153, 153nn62–63, 169 Weikart, S., xxxix, 29n72 Weinberg, S.S., xxviii, 186 Wells, B., xxxix, 30n75, 33n90 West, M.L., xxxix, 103n18 wheel ruts, 54–56 whetstone, 49, 267 (Cat. 189) Whitbread, I.K., xxxix, 293 (Cat. 270) Whitley, J., xxxix, 177–178 Wilamowitz–Moellendorff, U. von, 109n53, 110n58, 130n152 Wilhelm, A., xxxix, 298n9 Williams, C.K., xxxix, 3n3, 29n73, 196 (Cat. 32), 222 (Cat. 87)

372

I N D E X O F S U B J E C T S , P E O P L E A N D P L AC E S , A N D S C H O L A R S

Wilson, N.G., 343 (T 69) Winckelmann, J., 149 wine, 122, 124, 182, 339 (T 55) wire, 49n169, 59n195, 73n256, 272–273 (Cat. 207), 276 (Cat. 222), 283 (Cat. 238) Wolff, P., xxvi, xxvii, 98 (table) Woodford, S., xxxix, 163n106, 167n128 worked stone, 45n155, 63n209, 69n230, 70n238, 73, 74, 289–290 (Cat. 256–257), 293 (Cat. 268) wreath. See crown Wright, J.C., xxxix, 7n14, 9n17, 13n36, 30n74 Wünsch, R., xxix, 297n3, 306n21, 306n23 Xenon. See under Sanctuary of Zeus Young, R.S., xxviii, 29n73 Zeus, 79, 96, 96n49, 98 (table), 99, 107, 110n60, 117,

118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 131, 131n156, 132, 133, 133n166, 134, 137n186, 139, 152, 153, 158, 163, 170, 174, 324–325 (T 9–10), 327 (T 18), 329–331 (T 27–29), 334 (T 38), 336–337 (T 46), 339–340 (T 56), 341 (T 61), 343 (T 74), 346 (T 86), 347 (T 90). See also Sanctuary of Zeus Kleonai, cult of Zeus Soter, 131n156 Mount Apesas, 114, 119, 341 (T 61) Nemean Zeus (Zeus Nemeios), 94n39, 96, 96n48, 105, 107n38, 113n76, 126, 164–165, 165n117, 170, 323 (T 2), 330–331 (T 28), 341 (T 61), 347 (T 91) Olympia, 174, 174n1, 175, 175n15, 176, 177, 177n25, 179, 332–333 (T 33), 342 (T 66–67), 343 (T 69–72), 347 (T 87) Paestum, cult at, 98 (table) Ziegler, K., 340 (T 58)

I N DEX OF A NCI ENT SOURCES

Aelian, VH 4.5, 128–129, 133n170, 134, 341–342 (T 63) Aischylos, 110–111, 113, 116 Anthologia Graeca 3.10, 109n51, 342 (T 65) 9.357, 127, 137n186, 342 (T 66) 12.6, 318n43 12.95, 318n43 Schol. 9–15, 116n90, 127n140, 133, 347 (T 87) Schol. 40–43, 116n91, 347 (T 88) Schol. 48–51, 137n186, 347 (T 89) Schol. 91–96, 116n91, 137n186, 347 (T 90) Antimachos of Kolophon, Thebaid, 106, 113, 115n86, 117n94, 123 [Apollodoros] Bibliotheca 1.9.13–14, 125, 128, 129, 143n9, 335 (T 41) Bibliotheca 2.5.1, 131n154 Bibliotheca 3.6.4, 117n94, 123, 125, 335 (T 42) Aristophanes Birds 507, 303 Frogs 107, 303 Knights 964, 303 Peace 923, and scholia ad loc., 68n224 Plutus 267, 303 Plutus 1198, and scholia ad loc., 68n224 Aristotle, fr. 637 Rose (apud schol. in Aristid. Panath.), 111, 118, 326–327 (T 16) Ausonius Ecl. 12, 127, 343 (T 70) Ecl. 13, 127, 343 (T 71) Ecl. 14, 133, 343 (T 72) Ecl. 15, 127, 343 (T 73)

Ep. 13.54–57, 130, 131n154, 137, 324 (T 3) Clement of Alexandria Protr. 2.34.1, 127, 342 (T 67) Schol., Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.34, 116n90, 134, 346 (T 86) Columella, Rust. 7.3.12, 94n37 Corinth XVIII, vi 118, 306n22, 318n42 Diphilos fr. 39, 303 Douris (FGrH 76) F 33 (apud Photios), 135, 333 (T 34) DT 7, 307n27 14–15, 320n62 22, 320n62 24–26, 320n62 28–32, 320n62 35, 320n62 38, 309n31, 320n62 41, 306 (CT 2) 42, 318n42, 318n43 49, 298n4 67, 306n23 68, 306 (CT 2), 320n56 69, 306n21 75, 318n43 77, 303 81, 306n21 84, 306n21 188, 320n62 190, 318n41 198, 307 (CT 2) 234–235, 320n62 237–240, 320n62 242, 320n62 249, 320n62 271, 307n27

Bakchylides Ep. 9.1–24, 104–106, 108n44, 125, 130, 172, 323 (T 2)

373

374

I NDE X OF ANC I E NT S OURC E S

DTA 42, 306n21 55, 306n21 67, 297n3 74, 306n21 105, 297n3 106, 297n3 107, 297n3 109, 306n23 Ennius, 110n62 Euphorion, fr. 84 Powell (apud Plut., Mor. 677a), 110n60, 137–138, 137n183, 138n189, 333 (T 35) Euripides Hypsipyle, 106–107, 109, 110, 111, 111n64, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117n94, 117n98, 118, 118n101, 119, 121, 123, 126n135, 128n144, 142, 143n8, 147, 148, 149, 152–153, 154, 155, 156n83, 157, 164n113, 168, 169, 173 Hyps. TrGF 71 F 752d.2–3, 107n40, 108, 324 (T 7) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 752e, 107n40 Hyps. TrGF 71 F 752f, 107n35 Hyps. TrGF 71 F 752f.9–14, 108, 324 (T 8) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 752h.10–14, 107, 324–325 (T 9) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 752h.20–36, 85n25, 107, 108, 325 (T 10) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 754, 106n30, 107n36, 108, 325 (T 11) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 754a, 108, 118n99, 325 (T 12) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 757.838–843, 108–109, 325 (T 13) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 757.897–919, 108, 109, 148, 164n113, 325–326 (T 14) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 757.920–927, 126 Hyps. TrGF 71 F 757.929–940, 107, 109, 134–135, 326 (T15) Hyps. TrGF 71 F 764, 107n38 Hyps. TrGF 71 T iiia, 107n40, 109n48 Eusebius, 34n99 Faraone and Rife, 309n31, 318n41 Gager no. 28, 320n62 no. 35, 307n28 Herodotos 6.38, 178n36 Hesiod, 103n12, 103n18 Theogony 327–330, 130 Hesychios, 106 Lex. s.v. σελίνου στέφανος, 135–136, 346 (T 85)

Homer, 103n12, 103n18, 107n37, 109, 113, 117n94, 117n96, 122, 128, 161, 174, 178 Il. 2.572, 129 Il. 7.468–469, 109 Il. 15.529–532, 113–114 Il. 21.41, 109 Il. 23, 123, 178 Il. 23.126, 113n74 Il. 23.274, 105 Il. 23.646, 113 Il. 23.747, 109 Od. 24.91, 105 Hyginus, 107, 143n9 Astr. 2.24, 112n66 F. 69, 161n96 F. 74, 117–118, 121, 135, 147, 334 (T 39) F. 273.5–8, 109n51, 118, 123, 334 (T 40) Iamblichos, VP 52.4–8, 127, 343 (T 68) IG II2 1496, 88n28 IG IV.203, 77n276 IvLindos II 698 = Ebert, no. 69, 112, 113, 173, 328 (T 24) Kallimachos, 111–112, 113n77, 116, 117n94, 130–133, 134, 137, 173 Aet. III, Victoria Berenices, fr. 54.1–10 Harder = SH 254.1–10, 112, 113, 327 (T 18) Aet. III, Victoria Berenices, fr. 54b.25–29 Harder = SH 257.25–29, 132, 327 (T 20) Aet. III, Victoria Berenices, fr. 54i Harder = SH 265 = fr. 59 Pfeiffer, 131, 136–137, 327–328 (T 22) fr. 223 Pfeiffer, 114–115, 123 Scholia in P.Lille 79.8–11 = fr. 60g.20–23 Harder = SH 258.iii.8–11, 132, 327 (T 21) Scholia in P.Lille 82.14–15 = fr. 60d.8–9 Harder = SH 255.14–15, 112, 114, 327 (T 19) Sos. fr. 384.23–26 Pfeiffer, 114, 125, 133, 328 (T 23) Lactantius Placidus in Stat. Theb. comm. 3.478–479, 128, 343 (T 74) in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.159–160, 133, 344 (T 75) in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.717–719, 127n138, 128, 344 (T 76) in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.721, 128, 344 (T 77) in Stat. Theb. comm. 4.740–741, 109n51, 344–345 (T 78) in Stat. Theb. comm. 6.1–3, 135, 345 (T 79) in Stat. Theb. comm. 6.5–7, 121n117, 345 (T 80) in Stat. Theb. comm. 7.19, 128, 345 (T 81)

I NDE X OF ANC I E NT S OURC E S

López Jimeno 1991, nos. 9–10, 319n48 Lucian, Salt. 4, 118n101, 341 (T 60) Lucretius 3.52, 123n123 Lycophron, schol. ad 373, 107n38, 128, 347 (T 91) Marmor Parium (FGrH 239) A.22, 111, 118, 327 (T 17) Menaichmos of Sikyon, 129 Menander Rhetor, 366.18–20, 127, 343 (T 69) NGCT 3, 306 (CT 2) 14, 320n55 24, 306n22 40, 306n22 78, 306n21 Nigidius Figulus, fr. 93 Swoboda, 133, 333 (T 36) Nonnos, Dionysiaka 32.184–190 and 37.136–153, 128 Ovid Ibis 481–484, 117, 118n99, 333–334 (T 37) Met. 12.283, 122n121 Pausanias, 178n31 1.15.3, 104n20 1.17.2–3, 122n122 1.32.5, 104n20 1.34.5, 85n22 1.42.7, 69n234, 149 1.44.6, 178n31 2.13.6, 87n26 2.15.2–3, 3, 36, 37, 38, 40, 69, 73n251, 74, 76, 77, 78, 107n36, 110n60, 122n121, 126–127, 139, 170, 172, 173, 177, 341 (T 61) 2.19.8, 103n14 2.20.3, 165n117 2.20.4–5, 103n14 2.21.2, 103n14 2.23.2, 103n14 2.26.9, 85n24 2.29.6–8, 36n108, 122n122 2.35.10 69n234 3.15.9, 85n23 3.18.12, 142–143 4.32.3, 85n22 5.13.1–2, 40n134, 69n234, 76, 85n22, 149, 177 5.20.8–9, 179 6.20.7, 69n234 6.25.1, 69n234 8.31.5, 69n234 8.34.2, 178n31 8.36.5, 178n31 8.37.10, 69n234

375

8.48.2, 135, 138n189, 341 (T 62) 9.23.1, 179–180 9.39.6, 85n22 10.11.5, 87n27 10.25.7, 117n93 10.38.6, 69n234 PGM IV 296–466, 320n62 IV 1807–1809, 319n51 V 304f., 320n62 XIc, 319n51 XII 59–63, 319n51 Pindar N. 1.46–47, 104n22 N. 2.4–5, 107n36 N. 6.39–44, 136, 324 (T 4) N. 8.46–51, 106, 324 (T 5) N. 10.25–28, 106, 324 (T 6) Ol. 1.90–95, 176n17, 177n27, 179 Ol. 3, 131n154 Ol. 10.24–25, 176n17 Schol., I. hyp. a Drachmann, 114n82, 115, 121, 127, 127n140, 332–333 (T 33) Schol., N. hyp. a.1–6 Drachmann, 115–117, 133, 329 (T 26) Schol., N. hyp. b Drachmann, 115–117, 123, 329– 330 (T 27) Schol., N. hyp. c Drachmann, 115–117, 129, 330– 331 (T 28) Schol., N. hyp. d Drachmann, 115–117, 119, 134, 135n176, 148, 331 (T 29) Schol., N. 6.71a–c Drachmann, 115n88, 134n171, 136, 331–332 (T 30) Schol., N. 8.85 Drachmann, 106, 115n88, 116n89, 332 (T 31) Schol., N. 9.30 Drachmann, 129 Schol., N. 10.49b.1–8 Drachmann, 106, 134, 332 (T 32) Schol., Ol. 1.149c Drachmann, 179n40 Schol., Ol. 13.45a–c Drachmann, 115, 125, 135, 328–329 (T 25) Pliny, N.H. 8.72.187, 94n37 Plutarch Moralia 93c, 108n44 Moralia 110f–111a, 125–126, 321, 340 (T 57) Moralia 661e, 108n44 Moralia 675e, 138n189 Moralia 676d, 136n178 Moralia 676f, 137n183, 137n186 Aratos 28.3–4, 72n249 Kleomenes 17.4–5, 74n260 Timoleon 26.1–5, 136, 340 (T 58)

376

I NDE X OF ANC I E NT S OURC E S

[Plutarch], De fluv. 18.4–5, 128, 340–341 (T 59) Polybios 10.26.1, 112n70 Poseidippos, 112n66, 113n76 [Probus] ad Verg. Georg. 3.19, 131, 132n161, 133, 134, 137, 138, 345–346 (T 82) Propertius, 2.34.33–40, 117, 124n129, 334 (T 38) Sappho 31, 318n44 SEG III 596, 303 Servius ad Verg. Buc. 6.68, 135, 346 (T 84) ad Verg. Georg. 3.19, 133, 346 (T 83) SGD 24, 306n21 58, 303n17, 318n41 64, 306n22, 318n42 99, 307n29 109, 306n25 124, 306 (CT 2) 129, 307n28 156, 317–318, 318n40 161, 306n22 173, 320n59 Simonides, fr. 48, 104, 113, 323 (T 1) Statius, 117n94, 118, 128n144, 139, 143, 143nn7–9, 162n103 Silv. 3.1.139–143, 125, 339–340 (T 56) Theb. 4.146–160, 133 Theb. 4.723–729, 119, 335 (T 43) Theb. 4.746–752, 119, 336 (T 44) Theb. 4.785–800, 106n30, 108n44, 120, 336 (T 45) Theb. 5.499–521, 120, 336–337 (T 46)

Theb. 5.533–536, 120, 337 (T 47) Theb. 5.537–565, 121, 146, 148 Theb. 5.608–612, 121n114, 337 (T 48) Theb. 5.617–618, 119n104 Theb. 5.632–644, 119 Theb. 5.650–679, 119, 142 Theb. 5.690–719, 119 Theb. 5.733–753, 119, 121, 337–338 (T 49) Theb. 6.1–14, 121, 127, 338 (T 50) Theb. 6.54–226, 121–122 Theb. 6.242–248, 122–123, 169n132, 172, 338 (T 51) Theb. 6.265–295, 123 Theb. 6.261–946, 123, 125n133 Theb. 6.513–517, 124, 338–339 (T 52) Theb. 6.924–92, 124, 339 (T 53) Theb. 7.17–21, 124, 339 (T 54) Theb. 7.90–103, 124, 127, 339 (T 55) Stesichoros, F 97, 103n18 Strabo 6.3.9, 85n22 8.6.19, 119n106 Tertullian, De corona 7.4–5, 137n185, 342 (T 64) Timaios of Sicily, 136n178 Varro, Rust. 2.1.9 and 2.2.14, 94n37 Vergil Aen. 5, 123 Aen. 3.120, 123n123 Ecl. 5.64, 121n116 Georg. 4.457–459, 145n24 Georg. 4.546, 123n123

INDEX OF INVENTORIED FINDS F R O M T H E N E M E A E X C AVA T I O N S M E N T ION E D I N T H IS VOLUM E A 158, 44n148, 254 (Cat. 158) A 187, 74n262 A 192, 74n262 A 416, 73n256, 290 (Cat. 257) A 481, 69n230

BR 698, 73n256, 273 BR 700, 73n256, 274 BR 701, 73n256, 274 BR 703, 273 BR 729, 44, 261–262 (Cat. 172) BR 731, 59n197 BR 732, 59n197 BR 733, 59n197 BR 734, 45, 263 (Cat. 177) BR 756, 49n169, 275 BR 757, 42, 242 (Cat. 134) BR 795, 59n197 BR 796, 73n256, 276 BR 798, 49n169 BR 799, 40n135, 211 (Cat. 62) BR 800, 42n143 BR 801, 40n135, 212 (Cat. 65) BR 802, 42, 241–242 (Cat. 133) BR 803, 59n197 BR 804, 59n197 BR 805, 59n197 BR 806, 49n169, 274 (Cat. 213) BR 807, 44, 263 (Cat. 176) BR 808, 40n135, 212 BR 809, 42, 242 (Cat. 135) BR 810, 49n169, 273 (Cat. 210) BR 811, 49n169, 274 (Cat. 214) BR 864, 42n143 BR 865, 40n135, 212 (Cat. 64) BR 867, 49n169, 273 (Cat. 208), 284 BR 868, 42n143 BR 1021, 213 BR 1035, 59n197 BR 1036, 59n197 BR 1037, 49n169

AT 82, 63n209, 285–286 (Cat. 247) AT 83, 44, 250–251 (Cat. 152) AT 84, 40n136, 213 (Cat. 67) AT 85, 286 AT 86, 40n136, 213 (Cat. 68) AT 126, 40n136 AT 428, 29n71 AT 513, 61n201, 213 BR 20, 9n20 BR 149, 213 BR 210, 213 BR 628, 213 BR 629, 213 BR 648, 45 BR 671, ii, 76, 168, 183, 256, 293–296 (Cat. 271) BR 679, 40n135, 212 (Cat. 63) BR 680, 49n169, 275 BR 681, 59n197 BR 682, 59n197 BR 683, 59n197 BR 685, 59n197 BR 688, 40n135, 213 BR 692, 73n256 BR 693, 54n178, 277 (Cat. 224) BR 694, 73n256, 273 BR 695, 73n256, 273 BR 696, 73n256, 273 BR 697, 73n256, 273

377

378

I NDE X OF I NVE NTORI E D NE M EA F I ND S

BR 1038, 74n262 BR 1039, 49n169, 275 (Cat. 217) BR 1040, 130n151 BR 1046, 74n264 BR 1047, 59n197 BR 1048, 59n197 BR 1087, 45, 263–264 (Cat. 178) BR 1088, 49n169, 275 BR 1104, 49n169, 276 (Cat. 222) BR 1111, 49n169 BR 1112, 49n169 BR 1113, 49n169, 275 (Cat. 215) BR 1114, 45n157 BR 1115, 49n169, 276 BR 1126, 42n143 BR 1127, 59n197 BR 1145, 59n197 BR 1347, 49n169, 273 BR 1348, 42n143 BR 1361, 49n169, 275 (Cat. 216) BR 1362, 49n169, 275 BR 1363, 49n169, 273 BR 1364, 49n169, 275 BR 1365, 49n169, 273 BR 1380, 49n169, 273 BR 1382, 59n197 BR 1387, 30, 30 (fig.), 32, 206 (Cat. 49) BR 1409, 73n256, 291 (Cat. 262) BR 1410, 73n256, 292 (Cat. 264) BR 1411, 73n256, 291 BR 1426, 73n256 BR 1432, 9n21, 184 (Cat. 3) BR 1451, 276 BR 1475, 276 BR 1481, 276 BR 1520, 49n169, 275 BR 1532, 49n169, 276 (Cat. 219) BR 1533, 45, 264 (Cat. 179) BR 1537, 49n169, 276 (Cat. 221) BR 1538, 61n201, 273, 284 (Cat. 242) BR 1541, 59n197, 61n201 BR 1542, 59, 61n201, 283–284 (Cat. 239) BR 1543, 32n87, 59, 284 (Cat. 240) BR 1545, 49n169, 275 (Cat. 218) BR 1557, 73n256, 276 BR 1561, 59n197 BR 1562, 40n135, 212–213 (Cat. 66) BR 1563, 73n256, 291 (Cat. 263) BR 1564, 59n195, 59n197 BR 1571, 59n195, 59n197 BR 1579, 74n263

BR 1589, 74n264 BR 1591, 59n197 BR 1592, 59n197 BR 1593, 59n195, 59n197 BR 1594, 56, 57, 57 (fig.), 278–279 (Cat. 226) BR 1613, 73n256 C 1385, 48n159 C 1401, 48n159, 48n161 C 1402, 48n161 C 1472, 74n258 C 1477, 63n209 C 1482, 46n158, 73n254 C 1486, 48n161 C 1490, 48n159 C 1491, 48n161 C 1501, 48n161 C 1502, 48n159 C 1506, 48n159, 48n161 C 1507, 48n159 C 1532, 48n159 C 1533, 48n159 C 1534, 48n159 C 1535, 73n254 C 1555, 48n161 C 1567, 48n159 C 1626, 73n254 C 1627, 75n272 C 1629, 48n159 C 1638, 48n159 C 1639, 48n159, 48n161 C 1641, 48n159 C 1643, 48n159 C 1644, 48n159 C 1645, 48, 48n159 C 1646, 48n159 C 1647, 48n159 C 1648, 48n159 C 1649, 48, 48n159 C 1650, 48n159 C 1660, 75n272 C 1664, 75n272 C 1691, 74n259 C 1697, 74n258 C 1698, 74n258 C 1701, 74n258 C 1703, 48n161 C 1720, 48n159 C 1723, 48n159, 73n254 C 1724, 48n159 C 1726, 48n159

I NDE X OF I NVE NTORI E D NE M EA F I ND S

C 1728, 48n159 C 1731, 71n244, 75n267 C 1735, 70n240 C 1747, 72n246 C 1754, 72n248 C 1760, 72n248 C 1764, 72n248 C 1773, 48n161 C 1776, 72n248 C 1777, 72n248 C 1795, 72n248 C 1800, 72n246 C 2274, 74n263 C 2289, 74n263 C 2290, 74n263 C 2291, 74n263 C 2726, 48n161 C 2780, 48n161 C 2860, 48n161 C 2903, 72n248 C 2909, 72n248 C 2938, 71n243 C 2939, 48n159, 71n243 C 2940, 48n159, 71n243 C 2953, 71n244 C 4102, 48n161 C 4353, 48n161 C 4921, 48n159 C 4989, 74n258 C 5067, 59n195, 282 (Cat. 235) GJ 26, 130n151 GJ 34, 45n157 GJ 41, 45n157 GJ 42, 45n157 GJ 43, 45n157 GJ 53, 45n157 GJ 54, 45n157 GJ 99, 45n157 GJ 130, 45n157 GJ 144, 45n157 GJ 145, 45n157 GJ 147, 59n195, 282–283 (Cat. 236) GL 16, 70n236, 288 (Cat. 252) GL 37, 73, 288 (Cat. 253) IL 15, 293 IL 309, 49n167 IL 310, 45n155, 265 IL 312, 73n256, 276

379

IL 313, 73n256, 290 (Cat. 259), 298 IL 314, 73n256, 290–291 (Cat. 260), 298 IL 324, 44, 76, 261 (Cat. 171) IL 325, 49n169, 276 (Cat. 220) IL 326, 49, 73, 76, 297–299, 298n8, 302, 309–317 (CT 4), 317 IL 327, 49, 73, 76, 297–299, 298n9, 300–303 (CT 1), 306, 309, 316, 317, 317n38, 318, 319 IL 328, 44n152, 262 IL 329, 49, 267 (Cat. 187) IL 330, 59n197, 265 IL 331, 49n169, 271 (Cat. 201) IL 332, 59n197, 265 IL 333, 49, 267 (Cat. 188) IL 340, 73n256, 292 (Cat. 265) IL 341, 73n256, 292 (Cat. 266) IL 345, 49n169, 272 (Cat. 204) IL 357, 45, 264 (Cat. 180) IL 364, 73n256, 286 IL 365, 73n256, 286 IL 366, 49n169, 274 (Cat. 212) IL 367, 49, 73, 76, 297–299, 298n9, 303, 307–309 (CT 3), 317 IL 368, 49n169, 274 IL 369, 49n166, 297n1, 298n7, 299 (fig.) IL 370, 49n166, 297n1, 298n7, 299 (fig.) IL 372, 49, 73, 76, 297–299, 298n9, 302, 303–307 (CT 2), 309, 316, 317, 317n38, 318, 319 IL 373, 49n166, 297n1, 298n7, 299 (fig.) IL 374, 44n152, 262 IL 377, 293 IL 379, 49n167 IL 380, 45n155, 265 IL 381, 44n152, 262 IL 382, 49n169, 273 (Cat. 209) IL 383, 49n169, 272 IL 384, 45n155, 266 (Cat. 184) IL 385, 45, 265 (Cat. 182) IL 386, 44, 262 (Cat. 173) IL 387, 49n169, 272 (Cat. 205) IL 388, 49n169, 272 IL 389, 44, 262 (Cat. 174) IL 390, 44, 262 (Cat. 175) IL 391, 49n169, 271 IL 392, 49n169, 274 (Cat. 211) IL 395, 44n152, 73n256, 262 IL 436, 49n167 IL 437, 49n169, 271 IL 481, 44n152, 262 IL 482, 44n152, 262 IL 483, 59n197, 265

380

I NDE X OF I NVE NTORI E D NE M EA F I ND S

IL 488, 45, 60n197, 265 (Cat. 183) IL 618, 49n169, 272 IL 631, 45n155, 266 IL 632, 49n169, 271 IL 647, 73n256 IL 650, 32, 45, 206 (Cat. 50) IL 651, 73n256, 291 IL 652, 73n256, 291 IL 653, 73n256, 274 IL 655, 49n169, 272 (Cat. 203) IL 666, 73n256 IL 667, 73n256, 274 IL 668, 73n256 IL 669, 64n213, 286 (Cat. 248) IL 670, 49n169, 272 (Cat. 206) IL 671, 49n169, 271 IL 672, 64n213, 286 (Cat. 249) IL 673, 73n256, 274 IL 674, 49n169, 271 IL 680, 73n256 IL 681, 32, 206–207 (Cat. 51) IL 682, 45, 265 (Cat. 181) IL 683, 49n169, 272–273 (Cat. 207) IL 684, 49n169, 271 (Cat. 202) IL 726, 9, 184 (Cat. 2) IL 756, 74n263 IL 805, 49n169 IL 823, 64n216, 274 IL 845, 60, 74n263, 284 (Cat. 241) IL 846, 73n256, 274 IL 847, 73n256, 274 IL 848, 49n169, 271 IL 849, 32n87, 208–209 (Cat. 53) IL 854, 73n256, 291 IL 858, 73n256, 276 IL 859, 73n256, 293 (Cat. 269) IL 860, 73n256, 290 (Cat. 258), 298 IL 861, 73n256, 291 (Cat. 261), 298 IL 862, 73n256, 291 IL 863, 59n195, 271 IL 867, 59n195, 283 (Cat. 237) IL 868, 59n195, 283 (Cat. 238) IL 878, 49n169, 271 IL 879, 74n263 IL 880, 74n263 IL 882, 74n263 IL 886, 49n169, 272 IL 887, 57, 281 (Cat. 232) IL 888, 57, 281–282 (Cat. 233) IL 889, 57, 282 (Cat. 234) IL 890, 290

IL 893, 73n256, 271 IL 902, 73n256 IL 916, 271 IL 917, 73n256 IL 920, 73n256, 271 IL 926, 73n256 L 56, 49, 267–268 (Cat. 190) L 57, 49, 268 (Cat. 191) L 58, 49, 268 (Cat. 192) L 59, 49n168 L 60, 40n135, 209 (Cat. 54) L 61, 40nn135–136, 209 (Cat. 55) L 62, 40n135, 209 (Cat. 56) L 65, 40n135, 73, 210 (Cat. 57) L 66, 40n135, 210 (Cat. 58) L 69, 40n135, 73, 210 (Cat. 59) L 76, 49, 268–269 (Cat. 193) L 77, 49, 269 (Cat. 194) L 78, 49, 269 (Cat. 195) L 91, 40n135, 73, 210–211 (Cat. 60) L 184, 49n168, 270 (Cat. 196) L 242, 40n136, 209 L 253, 49n168 L 254, 49n168 L 255, 210 L 256, 210 L 303, 73n257 P 408, 217 P 434, 73n257, 293 (Cat. 270) P 435, 73n257 P 436, 41, 229, 230 (Cat. 104) P 437, 41, 230–231 (Cat. 105) P 439, 73n257 P 440, 41, 231–232 (Cat. 107) P 441, 41, 226–227 (Cat. 97) P 442, 41, 71, 218 (Cat. 80) P 443, 41, 224 (Cat. 92) P 444, 41, 227 (Cat. 98) P 445, 41, 219 (Cat. 82) P 446, 41, 218 (Cat. 81) P 447, 41, 41n139, 224 (Cat. 91) P 448, 42, 43 (fig.), 245 (Cat. 141) P 449, 41, 234–235 (Cat. 114) P 450, 41n138, 42, 217 P 451, 41n142, 239 (Cat. 126), 277 P 452, 41n142, 238 P 453, 41, 238–239 (Cat. 125) P 480, 41, 41n139, 223–224 (Cat. 90) P 481, 41n142, 238

I NDE X OF I NVE NTORI E D NE M EA F I ND S

P 482, 42n146, 244 P 483, 41, 238 (Cat. 123) P 486, 44, 251 (Cat. 153) P 487, 44, 252 (Cat. 155) P 488, 41, 71, 217 (Cat. 77) P 489, 41n138, 217 P 490, 41n138, 219, 281 P 494, 41, 234 (Cat. 113) P 495, 41n139, 227 P 496, 41n141, 236 (Cat. 118) P 497, 41, 233 (Cat. 110) P 498, 41n138, 195 P 499, 41, 222 (Cat. 87) P 500, 41, 229 (Cat. 102) P 501, 41, 237–238 (Cat. 122) P 502, 41n138, 215 P 503, 41, 71, 227–228 (Cat. 99) P 504, 41, 228 (Cat. 100) P 510, 41, 213–214 (Cat. 69) P 511, 41n138, 215 P 512, 34, 41, 215 (Cat. 73) P 520, 41, 231 (Cat. 106) P 521, 42n146, 245 P 522, 41, 226 (Cat. 95) P 523, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 524, 41, 228–229 (Cat. 101) P 525, 73, 288 (Cat. 254) P 526, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244 P 527, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 528, 42, 246–247 (Cat. 145) P 529, 41n141, 235 (Cat. 115) P 530, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 531, 44, 251–252 (Cat. 154) P 532, 41n138, 218 P 533, 42, 247 (Cat. 146) P 537, 42n146, 245 P 538, 42n146, 243 P 539, 68, 70, 286–287 (Cat. 250), 287 P 540, 41n138, 214 P 546, 41, 44, 220–222 (Cat. 86) P 547, 44, 249–250 (Cat. 151), 253 P 566, 41n138, 215 P 567, 29, 31, 33, 192 (Cat. 23) P 568, 29, 31, 33, 192 (Cat. 24) P 569, 41, 238 (Cat. 124) P 570, 41, 197, 226 (Cat. 96) P 571, 41, 214 (Cat. 70) P 572, 41, 225, 226 (Cat. 94) P 573, 41n138, 218 P 574, 41, 235 (Cat. 116) P 575, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244

P 576, 42n146, 243 P 577, 41, 223 (Cat. 89), 246 P 578, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 579, 42, 223, 245–246 (Cat. 143) P 580, 42, 243 (Cat. 137) P 581, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244 P 582, 42, 243–244 (Cat. 138) P 583, 42n146, 244 P 584, 41, 214 (Cat. 71), 278 P 585, 41n138, 216 P 586, 41, 224–225 (Cat. 93) P 587, 41n138, 216 P 588, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244 P 589, 44n148 P 623, 42, 239–240 (Cat. 128) P 624, 73, 289 (Cat. 255) P 625, 41, 235–236 (Cat. 117) P 651, 42, 247–248 (Cat. 147) P 652, 41n138, 195 P 658, 13n37, 185 (Cat. 6) P 659, 41n138, 219, 281 P 660, 42, 240 (Cat. 129) P 661, 41n138, 217 P 662, 42, 248 (Cat. 148) P 663, 41, 42, 217 (Cat. 78) P 664, 41n138, 216 P 904, 61n204, 285 (Cat. 243) P 1245, 42n146, 245 P 1246, 41n138 P 1247, 41n141 P 1248, 41n141, 236 (Cat. 119) P 1259, 41n141, 232 P 1263, 41n140 P 1264, 41n142, 239 (Cat. 127) P 1265, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 1266, 42n146, 245 P 1267, 42n146, 249 (Cat. 150) P 1272, 44, 253 (Cat. 156) P 1290, 41, 215 (Cat. 74) P 1291, 42, 240–241 (Cat. 130) P 1292, 42, 241 (Cat. 131) P 1313, 42n146, 244 P 1541, 42, 43 (fig.), 244 (Cat. 139) P 1542, 42, 223, 246 (Cat. 144) P 1543, 42n146, 246 P 1555, 41n141, 236–237 (Cat. 120) P 1556, 41n138, 217 P 1557, 29, 30, 30 (fig.), 194 (Cat. 28), 195, 197 P 1558, 29, 195–196 (Cat. 31) P 1563, 41, 237 (Cat. 121) P 1566, 41n138, 218

381

382

I NDE X OF I NVE NTORI E D NE M EA F I ND S

P 1567, 42n146, 193, 244, 248 (Cat. 149) P 1569, 42, 43 (fig.), 244–245 (Cat. 140) P 1570, 41, 220 (Cat. 85) P 1571, 42n146, 244 P 1572, 29, 205 (Cat. 47) P 1573, 29, 33, 188–189 (Cat. 14) P 1576, 41, 214–215 (Cat. 72) P 1577, 29, 30, 33, 185–186 (Cat. 7), 188, 189, 191 P 1578, 29, 31, 32, 32 (fig.), 33, 189, (Cat. 16), 190, 197 P 1579, 29, 31, 32, 32 (fig.), 33, 189, 190 (Cat. 17), 197 P 1580, 29, 33, 187–188 (Cat. 11) P 1581, 29, 194 (Cat. 27) P 1582, 29, 30, 30 (fig.), 194, 197 (Cat. 35), 199, 226 P 1583, 29, 204 (Cat. 45) P 1584, xliii, 29, 31, 32, 32 (fig.), 33, 189, 190 (Cat. 18), 197 P 1586, 29, 32, 32 (fig.), 33, 189 (Cat. 15), 190, 197 P 1587, 29, 31, 186 (Cat. 8) P 1588, 29, 33, 186, 187 (Cat. 10) P 1589, 29, 33, 188 (Cat. 12) P 1590, 29, 31, 33, 188 (Cat. 13) P 1591, 29, 202–203 (Cat. 42) P 1592, 29, 31, 187 (Cat. 9) P 1593, 29, 30n77, 32, 32 (fig.), 189, 190, 197–198 (Cat. 36) P 1595, 29, 31, 193 (Cat. 25), 244 P 1596, 29, 31, 195 (Cat. 30) P 1597, 41, 232–233 (Cat. 109) P 1598, 29, 31, 204–205 (Cat. 46) P 1599, 29, 31 194–195 (Cat. 29) P 1600, xliii, 29, 33, 190–191 (Cat. 19) P 1602, 41, 229–230 (Cat. 103) P 1603, 41n138, 217 P 1605, 39, 42, 245 (Cat. 142) P 1610, 26n68, 29, 29n70, 31, 34, 196–197 (Cat. 34) P 1611, 26n68, 29, 29n70, 34, 203 (Cat. 44) P 1612, 26n68, 29, 29n70, 33–34, 191–192 (Cat. 22) P 1617, 73n253 P 1618, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 1619, 29, 205 (Cat. 48) P 1620, 29, 203 (Cat. 43) P 1621, 8, 183 (Cat. 1) P 1623, 29, 31, 198–199 (Cat. 37) P 1624, 29, 30, 33n94, 196 (Cat. 32) P 1626, 73n256, 292 (Cat. 267) P 1627, 29, 30, 33, 200–202 (Cat. 40) P 1653, 41n138, 218 P 1654, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244 P 1655, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244

P 1658, 42, 241 (Cat. 132) P 1659, 41, 218 (Cat. 79) P 1660, 29, 30, 31, 33, 191 (Cat. 20) P 1661, 29, 197, 199 (Cat. 38) P 1662, 44, 253 (Cat. 157) P 1663, 64n216, 235 P 1664, 29, 31, 202 (Cat. 41) P 1668, 29, 30, 200 (Cat. 39) P 1669, 29, 31, 33, 191 (Cat. 21) P 1670, 29, 31, 33n94, 196 (Cat. 33) P 1671, 29, 30n75, 31n80, 193 (Cat. 26), 194, 219, 281 P 1695, 41, 222–223 (Cat. 88) P 1696, 41n141 P 1699, 42n146 P 1706, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 245 P 1707, 42n146 P 1709, 56, 57, 214, 278 (Cat. 225) P 1710, 57, 280–281 (Cat. 230) P 1711, 57, 186, 279–280 (Cat. 228), 280 P 1712, 57, 280 (Cat. 229) P 1713, 57, 219, 281 (Cat. 231) P 1714, 54n176, 59n195, 277 (Cat. 223) P 1715, 54n176 P 1716, 56–57, 279 (Cat. 227) P 1717, 42, 242–243 (Cat. 136) P 1723, 41n141, 233–234 (Cat. 112) P 1735, 41n138, 216 P 1736, 41, 216 (Cat. 75) P 1737, 41, 219 (Cat. 83), 281 P 1738, 41, 232 (Cat. 108) P 1739, 41, 220 (Cat. 84) P 1740, 41, 216–217 (Cat. 76) P 1741, 41n138, 219, 281 P 1742, 42n146, 43 (fig.), 244 P 1743, 41, 71, 233 (Cat. 111) P 1748, 41n139 P 1750, 41n141 SS 3, 44, 76, 168, 173, 254–255 (Cat. 159) ST 403, 185 ST 404, 185 ST 406, 62n207, 285 (Cat. 245) ST 410, 73n256, 289 (Cat. 256) ST 411, 184 ST 412, 185 ST 413, 185 ST 414, 185 ST 418, 184 ST 419, 9n21, 185

I NDE X OF I NVE NTORI E D NE M EA F I ND S

ST 420, 184 ST 421, 62n207, 285 ST 423, 49, 270 (Cat. 197) ST 424, 49, 270 (Cat. 198) ST 425, 49, 270–271 (Cat. 199) ST 428, 49n169 ST 433, 62n207, 285 ST 434, 62n207, 285 ST 435, 49, 271 (Cat. 200) ST 509, 49n167, 267 (Cat. 189) ST 513, 40n135, 211 (Cat. 61) ST 514, 184 ST 515, 40n135, 211 ST 516, 185 ST 517, 211 ST 520, 68, 286, 287 (Cat. 251) ST 523, 32n87 ST 618, 62n207, 285 (Cat. 246) ST 619, 62n207, 285 ST 631, 185 ST 632, 62n207, 285 ST 633, 62n207, 285 ST 639, 62n207, 285 ST 640, 62n207, 285 ST 794, 32n87, 185 ST 796, 73n256, 293 (Cat. 268) ST 797, 49n169, 185 ST 798, 49n169, 184 ST 799, 9n21, 184 (Cat. 4) ST 800, 9n21, 185 (Cat. 5) ST 803, 9n21, 185 ST 804, 9n21, 185 ST 814, 62n207, 285 ST 817, 185 ST 818, 49n169, 185 ST 819, 49n169, 184

ST 820, 49n169, 184 ST 821, 14n40, 185 ST 823, 185 ST 836, 185 ST 837, 62n207, 285 (Cat. 244) ST 839, 62n207, 285 ST 840, 184 ST 841, 184 ST 842, 185 ST 847, 62n207, 285 ST 848, 62n207, 285 ST 849, 9n21, 184 ST 850, 9n21, 184 ST 851, 9n21, 184 ST 853, 185 ST 854, 185 TC 100, 75n272 TC 104, 44n150, 260 (Cat. 168) TC 115, 44, 256 (Cat. 161) TC 116, 44, 257–258 (Cat. 164) TC 117, 44, 76, 168, 255–256 (Cat. 160) TC 118, 44, 258 (Cat. 165) TC 119, 44n150, 260 (Cat. 169) TC 120, 44, 256–257 (Cat. 162) TC 121, 44, 71, 259 (Cat. 166) TC 122, 44n150, 260–261 (Cat. 170) TC 123, 45, 266 (Cat. 185) TC 124, 45, 266–267 (Cat. 186) TC 125, 44, 257 (Cat. 163) TC 126, 44, 259–260 (Cat. 167) TC 180, 44 TC 274, 32, 207–208 (Cat. 52) TC 288, 44 TC 290, 45n156 TC 291, 59n195

383

Fig. 6. State plan of the Heroön and surrounding remains.

Fig. 22.

Cross section B-B’, from west to east through the mound/embankment.

Fig. 26.

Cross section A-A’, from west to east through the Heroön.

Fig. 75.

Cross section C-C’, from west to east through embankment in Sections F 16, G 16.

Fig. 81.

State plan of embankment features in Sections G 14, H 14.